Kill the bailout: The crap in the “crap sandwich;” 10 reasons to oppose the bailout; debt limit increased to $11.315 trillion
Scroll for updates…9/29 liveblogging the House floor debate here…
I listened in on a phone conference this evening with anti-bailout conservatives, congressional staffers, and other Hill insiders. With only one exception, the groups and individuals on the call all opposed the bailout in its current form. They also concurred that this deal is worse than the one Paulson proposed — on constitutional, policy, and fiscal grounds. Phone calls to congressional offices continue to show overwhelming public opposition to the massive, unprecedented government giveaway.
Nevertheless, GOP House Minority Leader John Boehner and the House Republican leadership have thrown in the towel. Make room for them on the couch with Gingrich and Pelosi. Boehner called the deal a “crap sandwich,” but told House Republicans he’ll vote for it.
Are you going to swallow this crap? Is your congressional representative?
Here’s a deeper whiff of the “crap sandwich.”
One staffer on the call this evening zeroed in on the concern many of my readers and I had about the fast-tracking of the second wave of the trillion-dollar-plus “rescue.” In practice, he said, the provision amounts to “an automatic trigger with no action by Congress.”
Some accountability.
Another staffer raises alarm bells about the unfettered authority the bill gives to Treasury Secretary Paulson to define “troubled assets” any way he pleases — way beyond mortgages:
TROUBLED ASSETS.—The term ‘‘troubled assets’’ means—
(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and(B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress.
Blank check, anyone?
The Heritage Foundation is still gravely concerned about the constitutional questions raised by the bill — an issue underscored by Sen. Jim DeMint.
I’ve already made my case that Treasury Secretary Paulson is not to be trusted and must be contained.
The bailout bill does the opposite.
SALE OF TROUBLED ASSETS.—The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at a price determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions, or other financial transactions in regard to, any troubled asset purchased
under this Act.…APPLICATION OF SUNSET TO TROUBLED ASSETS.—The authority of the Secretary to hold any troubled asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 120, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a troubled asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 120, is not subject to the provisions of section 120.
SEC. 107. CONTRACTING PROCEDURES. (a) STREAMLINED PROCESS.—For purposes of this Act, the Secretary may waive specific provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation upon a determination that urgent and compelling circumstances make compliance with such provisions contrary to the public interest. Any such determination, and the justification for such determination, shall be submitted to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate within 7 days.
The diversity racketeers’ minority contracting shakedown, which I flagged yesterday, is alive and well in the bill:
ADDITIONAL CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS.—In any solicitation or contract where the Secretary has, pursuant to subsection (a), waived any provision of the Federal Acquisition Regulation pertaining to minority contracting, the Secretary shall develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, the inclusion and utilization of minorities (as such term is defined in section 1204(c) of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1811 note)) and women, and minority and women-owned businesses (as such terms are defined in section 21A(r)(4) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1441a(r)(4)), in that solicitation or contract, including contracts to asset managers, servicers, property managers, and other service providers or expert consultants.
Section 110 is the Democrat-backed “Assistance to homeowners” plan — driven by one of the bill’s key stated goals of “preserving homeownership.”
GENERAL.—To the extent that the Federal property manager holds, owns, or controls mortgages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets ecured by residential real estate, including multifamily housing, the Federal property manager shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use its authority to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program under section 257 of the National Housing Act or other available programs to minimize foreclosures.
(2) MODIFICATIONS.—In the case of a residential mortgage loan, modifications made under paragraph (1) may include—
(A) reduction in interest rates;
(B) reduction of loan principal; and
(C) other similar modifications.
Yes, in the quest to “preserve homeownership” at all costs, it appears the government will be determining the value of homes directly in the marketplace — not only reducing interest rates but also loan principal.
Reader Robert calls attention to another micro-meddling section:
SEC. 124. HOPE FOR HOMEOWNERS AMENDMENTS. Section 257 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-23) is amended—
(1) in subsection (e)—
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting before ‘‘a ratio’’ the following: ‘‘, or thereafter is likely to have, due to the terms of the mortgage being reset,’’;
(B) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting before the period at the end ‘‘(or such higher percentage as the Board determines, in the discretion of the Board)’’;
(C) in paragraph (4)(A)—
(i) in the first sentence, by inserting after ‘‘insured loan’’ the following: ‘‘and
any payments made under this paragraph,’’; and(ii) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Such actions may include making payments, which shall be accepted as payment in full of all indebtedness under the eligible mortgage, to any holder of an ex6
isting subordinate mortgage, in lieu of any future appreciation payments authorized under subparagraph (B).’’
Robert asks: “Is this about renegotiating mortgage rates of existing mortgages? Did I just get screwed for paying a point to lock in 5% fixed rate when my %^&*# neighbor went with no points adjustable rate? How the hell is this fair? I want his new rate and MY POINT BACK!”
Hold The Mayo rightly calls the bailout bill $700 billion worth of lipstick on a pig.
Here are the relevant portions of the draft (all emphasis mine):
Section 103. Considerations.
In using authority under this Act, the Treasury Secretary is required to take a number of considerations into account, including the interests of taxpayers, minimizing the impact on the national debt, providing stability to the financial markets, preserving homeownership, the needs of all financial institutions regardless of size or other characteristics, and the needs of local communities. Requires the Secretary to examine the long-term viability of an institution in determining whether to directly purchase assets under the TARP.
Section 107. Contracting Procedures.
Allows the Secretary to waive provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation where compelling circumstances make compliance contrary to the public interest. Such waivers must be reported to Congress within 7 days. If provisions related to minority contracting are waived, the Secretary must develop alternate procedures to ensure the inclusion of minority contractors.
Section 109. Foreclosure Mitigation Efforts.
For mortgages and mortgage-backed securities acquired through TARP, the Secretary must implement a plan to mitigate foreclosures and to encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans through Hope for Homeowners and other programs. Allows the Secretary to use loan guarantees and credit enhancement to avoid foreclosures. Requires the Secretary to coordinate with other federal entities that hold troubled assets in order to identify opportunities to modify loans, considering net present value to the taxpayer.Section 110. Assistance to Homeowners.
Requires federal entities that hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, including the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve to develop plans to minimize foreclosures. Requires federal entities to work with servicers to encourage loan modifications, considering net present value to the taxpayer.Section 124. Hope for Homeowners Amendments.
Strengthens the Hope for Homeowners program to increase eligibility and improve the tools available to prevent foreclosures.I’m neither a lawyer nor an expert at interpreting legislative language, but I see all that adding up to a continuation of the federal government using the banks and the mortgage industry as a massive welfare program…
…The quotes above are from an early draft. I have every faith that the final legislation will be far worse.
I concur.
One last howler for now. The enormously conflict-of-interest-plagued Paulson, who gets unfettered authority to hire whomever he wants and contract with whomever he wants, will get to determine regs and guidelines on conflicts of interest:
SEC. 108. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
(a) STANDARDS REQUIRED.—The Secretary shall issue regulations or guidelines necessary to address and manage or to prohibit conflicts of interest that may arise in connection with the administration and execution of the authorities provided under this Act, including—(1) conflicts arising in the selection or hiring of
contractors or advisors, including asset managers;
(2) the purchase of troubled assets;
(3) the management of the troubled assets held;
(4) post-employment restrictions on employees;
and
(5) any other potential conflict of interest, as the Secretary deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest.
Fox, meet henhouse.
The House vote is reportedly set for sometime tomorrow between noon and 12:30pm Eastern. Latest word from a Hill staffer is that the Senate will try and squeeze in a vote before sundown (when the Jewish High Holy Days begin).
There is still time to make your voice heard: 202-224-3121.
This is not a done deal. Via Roll Call late tonight, have an airsickness bag ready when you read how House GOP leaders are now adopting the b.s. rhetoric of the Democrats (e.g., not calling this pig of a bailout a bailout):
The House is making unsteady progress toward a final deal on a $700 billion bailout package for the financial markets, with both parties warily eyeing each other for signs that they will commit enough votes so a bipartisan victory can be declared.
Both the House Republican Conference and House Democratic Caucus spent hours cloistered in closed-door sessions Sunday night as Congressional leaders tried to gather support for the package within their own ranks by putting outstanding questions about it to rest.
All eyes are on the House Republicans, who threw talks on a deal into disarray Thursday when they abandoned bipartisan, bicameral negotiations with the White House.
Rank-and-file GOPers trickling out of their more than three-hour meeting Sunday night said the final bill is more palatable to Republicans than previous proposals, but it is unlikely that there will be a unified floor vote on Monday.
The bill filed tonight is “a giant improvement” over previous proposals, namely because it considerably reduces taxpayer risk, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters after the meeting.
“At the end of the day, there really is no taxpayer risk in this bill,” Boehner said, referring to mandated insurance provisions in the package.
Asked how many Members will vote for the bill, Boehner said he didn’t know but that GOP leaders “are working on it. … I made it pretty clear to our Members that we are supporting this.”
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) described the plan as a “work-out of the problem” instead of a “bailout of the problem.”
Tell your congressional rep: Don’t swallow this crap. Cut it.
***
Via FreedomWorks, 10 reasons to oppose the bailout. Click to sign their petition. Memo to House GOP leadership. It’s a bailout, not a “workout,” no matter how much lipstick you put on it:
Ten Reasons to Oppose the Wall Street Bailout
1. NO REFORM: The plan attempts to mask, rather than reform, imbalances in credit markets and in U.S. economic public policy. The plan props up reckless and failed banks by buying “troubled assets” instead of focusing on real reforms that go after government sponsored culprits Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and sustainable policies that will increase the availability of private capital and expanded economic growth.
2. TREASURY POWER GRAB: The plan raises Constitutional concerns by dramatically expanding the power of the current and future Treasury Secretaries, giving the government agency power to directly purchase assets from for-profit financial and non-financial firms.
3. STUNNING PRICE TAG: The $700 billion bailout figure is as much money as the combined annual budgets of the Departments of Defense, Education and Health and Human Services. It amounts to $2,300 for every man, woman, and child in America.
4. INCREASES NATIONAL DEBT: Instead of cutting spending elsewhere, Congress will borrow all $700 billion on global capital markets, and the bill raises the national debt ceiling to a staggering $11.3 trillion.
5. GLOBAL BAILOUT: The plan includes taxpayer purchases of distressed assets from foreign banks.
6. HURTS RESPONSIBLE AMERICAN BANKS: The plan punishes responsible U.S. banks by keeping reckless, insolvent investment banks in business. As BB&T CEO John Allison wrote in a letter to Congress on Sept. 23rd, “….this is primarily a bailout of poorly run financial institutions…. Corrections are not all bad. The market correction process eliminates irrational competitors.”
7. FLAWED PROCESS: Members of Congress and the public will have less than 24 hours and no hearings to discuss and understand the impact of this sweeping plan. This rush to pass a wildly unpopular plan without benefit of significant public debate and input will also undermine its legitimacy and effectiveness.
8. BY WALL STREET, FOR WALL STREET: Treasury Secretary Paulson, the architect of the plan, was formerly the head of Goldman Sachs, one of the firms responsible for the mess and a direct beneficiary of the bailout. Further, the advisers managing the bailout auctions and assets will be Wall Street firms and will likely receive billions of tax dollars in fees.
9. OTHER OPTIONS NOT EXHAUSTED: The idea that taxpayers will make money on the bailout is not credible. There are ready buyers for these “troubled assets” — Merrill Lynch sold its entire portfolio of mortgage backed securities in July– provided the price is low enough. If a profit was possible, private speculators would readily buy these troubled assets.
10. MORALLY OFFENSIVE: The plan violates basic principles of American capitalism and honest governance by creating a system of “private profits, socialized losses” that transfers money from taxpayers directly to Wall Street investment banks. Free market capitalism only functions if individuals and firms are held accountable and are allowed to both succeed and profit, and also to sustain losses and even fail.
***
The Republican Study Committee has put out on analysis. The committee points out that the bill “increases the limit statutory debt limit from $10.615 trillion to $11.315 trillion, an increase of 6.6%. If enacted, the 110th Congress will have presided over three debt limit increases—a total of $2.33 trillion or 26.2%.”
The full analysis follows:
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
Summary: The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (H.R.__) provides the Treasury Department with the authority to purchase illiquid, troubled assets on the books of private financial institutions, in an effort to resolve the current financial crisis. The highlights include the following:
*
Purchase Authority: Provides $700 billion in purchase authority at any one time to Treasury to purchase “troubled assets from any financial institutions,” of which $250 billion would be made immediately available and another $100 billion once the President certifies that Treasury needs the authority. The final $350 billion is authorized, but Congress could halt the authority by passing a joint resolution disapproving the action (under fast-track procedures). However, such joint resolutions require the signature of the President to take effect. While provided in installments or “tranches,” the bill provides the full $700 billion, as initially requested by the Administration to calm the financial markets.
*
Troubled Assets: Broadens the Treasury Department’s original request for mortgage-related assets to a larger class of “troubled” assets.” Such assets are defined as “any residential or commercial mortgages any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages” and “any other financial instrument that the Secretary…determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability” (emphasis added). This definition significantly expands the scope of the purchasing program to potentially many more classes of securities (e.g.., those backed by car loans, credit-card debt, etc.).
*
Insurance Component: Requires the Treasury Department to establish a federally-backed insurance program, similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), for holders of troubled assets, if it utilizes its purchase authority (which it is expected to do). Treasury would guarantee up to 100% of the timely payment of principal and interest on certain classes of troubled assets, presumably those worth more than the ones which will be immediately purchased. A risk-adjusted premium would be assessed to holders of these assets to self-finance the program through the participants. The total amount of assets insured by the program, minus the premiums, would offset the purchase authority available to Treasury. However, it is unclear whether the insurance program would be set up quickly or effectively (with a large enough class of assets) to ensure that it can be used to substantially offset Treasury’s purchase authority.
*
Private Firms as Financial Agents: Authorizes Treasury to designate private financial institutions as its agents to carry out such duties as may be required in exercising its new authority. The bill directs Treasury to solicit bids from a broad range of qualified firms and to “take appropriate steps to manage conflicts of interest, including requiring potential firms to indentify and disclose… potential conflicts.” The FDIC would be among the candidates chosen to manage the purchased assets.
*
Priorities: Requires the Treasury Secretary to exercise its authority in a manner that will protect the taxpayer, provide stability and prevent disruption to the financial market system, the need to help families keep their homes and to stabilize their communities, etc. (in that order).
*
Executive Compensation: Sets executive compensation limits on two classes of firms, 1) those which the federal government directly takes over “AIG-style” and 2) those who sell $300 million or more in assets to the federal government, so-called “high-volume sellers.” For those firms directly taken over, the Secretary would establish limits on compensation for taking unnecessary and excessive risk, a prohibition on “golden parachute” payments, and a process for recouping any incentive payments made to “senior executives” (top 5 executives of a public company) based on earning statements later proven to be materially inaccurate. For high-volume sellers, the legislation would also ban golden parachute payments and lower the current deduction for executive compensation from $1 million to $500,000. Many conservatives may be concerned that, while aimed only at participating firms, this change to tax law sets a dangerous precedent since liberals have pushed for years to lower this deduction. It should be noted that the limit on the deduction itself is one of the main reasons for corporations to structure incentives-based compensation that may cause corporate actors to take excessive risks to boost share prices.
*
Reverse Auctions: Requires the Secretary to use methods, such as auctions or “reverse” auctions, in purchasing firms’ troubled assets, in order to minimize the cost to taxpayers. Treasury intends to use a process whereby it indicates its intent to buy a certain class of troubled assets and competing firms provide the terms for which they would sell. If the process works, Treasury would choose the seller with the lowest sticker price. When these assets are later sold, the proceeds would flow into general revenues. However, some conservatives may be concerned that this process may not work in practice because: 1) all sellers have an incentive to hold onto to their assets until the government offers an inflated price over what the market would currently bear (since firms are undercapitalized and there is a limit to the losses that they can sustain by selling their assets at market or below-market rates), and 2) the classes of assets are not particularly large or homogenized, since many of these securities are so complex and unique, perhaps making it difficult to attract a large pool of willing sellers to drive down prices.
*
Warrants: Requires the Treasury to receive warrants for non-voting, common or preferred stock in firms that sell more than $100 million in troubled assets to the government. A warrant is a certificate that entitles the holder to purchase securities at a certain price. Giving the federal government a warrant to shares of participating firms provides a mechanism for taxpayers to recoup a portion of the initial price if share prices increase and the shares can later be bought and sold for a profit. However, it also sets a dangerous precedent in that it allows the federal government to own shares in private companies, if the warrant is exercised instead of being sold. While the warrants could only purchase non-voting shares, minimizing any authority that comes with such ownership, some conservatives had recommended that the federal government only be able to sell these warrants and never exercise them. This would have allowed for similar levels of taxpayer recoupment without setting a dangerous precedent of the federal government inevitably owning large swaths of the U.S. financial sector.
*
5-Year Recoupment Plan: Requires the President after five years to determine whether taxpayers have suffered a net loss as a consequence of the purchase program, and if so, to submit a legislative proposal to recoup that amount from participating firms. There is nothing in the bill to ensure that the President’s proposal is considered or passed by Congress, casting doubt on the efficacy of this provision—a variation of the Blue Dogs’ initial proposal to place an indiscriminate tax on the entire financial sector, regardless of whether a firm’s assets where purchased by the Treasury. But to the extent that this provision does lead to legislation, some conservatives may be concerned that it could result in a tax increase.
*
Market and Program Transparency: Requires the Secretary to make information regarding each purchase available to the public in an electronic form, including a description, amounts, and pricing of such assets. The language also requires the Secretary to make public the mechanisms for purchasing troubled assets, the methods of valuing assets, the process for hiring asset managers, and the criteria for identifying troubled assets for purchase.
*
Debt Limit: Increases the limit statutory debt limit from $10.615 trillion to $11.315 trillion, an increase of 6.6%. If enacted, the 110th Congress will have presided over three debt limit increases—a total of $2.33 trillion or 26.2%.
*
Foreign Banks and Financial Authorities: Defines a participating financial institution to include foreign banks if “established and regulated under the laws of the U.S. or any State…and having significant operations in the U.S.” A central bank or institution owned by foreign government would generally be excluded. However, the Treasury would also be required to coordinate with foreign financial authorities and central banks to establish similar programs in other countries, and to the extent that such foreign institutions lend money to firms with troubled assets that have failed or defaulted, they would be made eligible.
*
Oversight Board: Establishes a five-person Financial Stability Oversight Board, including the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Secretary, the Director of the Federal Home Finance Agency, the Chairman of the SEC, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, to review the exercise of authority under this legislation and make recommendations to the Treasury.
*
Bank Losses on GSE Stock: Allows banks to treat losses on shares of preferred stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as ordinary losses to offset ordinary income, not as capital losses (which is capped). This provision is targeted at many community banks who hold GSE preferred stock and sustained heavy loss after Treasury placed Fannie and Freddie in conservatorship.
*
Discharge of Mortgage Debt: Extends for two years the exclusion (set to expire on January 1, 2010) from a taxpayer’s gross income any discharge of indebtedness income, as long as the debt is for the acquisition, construction, or substantial improvement of the taxpayer’s principal home (in addition to certain refinancing).
*
Affordable Housing Earmark: Does not include the provision proposed by Democrat negotiators to earmark 20% of any funds recouped from the disposition of the purchased assets for the Affordable Housing Fund, whose funds flow to many non-profit entities such as ACORN or La Raza. It should be noted that this provision was not part of the original Treasury plan.
*
Mortgage “Cram-Down”: Does not authorize bankruptcy judges, as part of creating plans for debtors facing foreclosure to repay their subprime or nontraditional (e.g. interest-only) mortgage debts to reduce or delay adjustments to adjustable-rate subprime or nontraditional mortgages, set a new, fixed interest rate, extend repayment periods, etc.
*
Foreclosure Mitigation: Directs the Secretary of the Treasury, as an owner of mortgages underlying troubled assets, to implement a plan to maximize assistance to homeowners and to encourage servicers of the underlying mortgages to take advantage of foreclosure prevention programs. In addition, the language requires the Secretary to consent to “reasonable requests” (undefined) from loan servicers for mortgage term extensions, rate reductions, principal write-downs, increases in the proportion of loans within a trust, or the removal of other modification limits.
*
Expiration of Authority: Terminates the Secretary’s authority to purchase and insure troubled assets on December 31, 2009, but allows for extensions until two years after the date of enactment. These sunset dates do not apply to the Secretary’s ability to hold purchased assets, since many of these assets may still not be able to be sold by that point.
*
Mark to Market Accounting: Restates current law that authorizes the SEC to suspend mark-to-market accounting with respect to any class or category of transactions. The bill also requires the SEC to study the impact of mark-to-market regulations on the balance sheets of financial firms and the advisability and feasibility of potential modifications. Some conservatives may be concerned with the lack of stronger language, requiring the SEC to promulgate new rules that allow firms to better reflect the true economic value of the mortgage-related assets on their books.
*
Exchange Stabilization Fund: Requires the Secretary to replenish the Exchange Stabilization Fund for any funds used to provide a temporary guarantee program for the money market fund industry and bars it from ever being used that way again.
Conservative Concerns: No one would argue that the question before Congress of whether to give Treasury the authority to nationalize mortgage-related and other troubled assets is an easy one. Financial markets are clearly in turmoil, and many large—previously thought to be impregnable—financial firms have and may fail in the weeks to come. Many experts and news reports also warn that without some federal action to bolster market confidence there will continue to be either stagnation in the capital markets or worse, a run on all depository institutions. No one wants those fears to be realized.
However, many conservatives may be concerned that authorizing the Secretary of Treasury to purchase up to $700 billion amounts to an indirect tax of $6,034 per American household, and it will likely forever change the landscape of the nation’s free-market system. Institutions, policies, and precedents—right or wrong— enacted in crisis tend to become permanent fixtures.
As Luigi Zingales, a professor at the University of Chicago, writes:
The decisions that will be made this weekend matter not just to the prospects of the U.S. economy in the year to come; they will shape the type of capitalism we will live in for the next fifty year. Do we want to live in a system where profits are private, but losses are socialized? Where taxpayer money is used to prop up failed firms? Or do we want to live in a system where people are held responsible for their decisions, where imprudent behavior is penalized and prudent behavior rewarded? For somebody like me who believes strongly in the free market system, the most serious risk of the current situation is that the interest of few financiers will undermine the fundamental workings of the capitalist system. The time has come to save capitalism from the capitalists.
Some conservatives may believe that Treasury is right, and given the present circumstances, the risk of inaction is so grave as to warrant such new authority. Others may indeed wonder whether in this moment of crisis, America is on the brink of something far worse—forfeiting its free-market system by placing an implicit guarantee on all economic failure. The message to rational actors with a bail-out of this magnitude is that your profits will be private but your losses socialized. But the system often does not work that way, at least not for long. If losses are socialized, it is likely that profits will soon be on the way, meaning Americans will no longer be free, not just to fail, but to succeed.
Specifically, many conservatives may have the following concerns with the legislation, because the plan:
*
Fails to adequately penalize the debtholders and shareholders (including many of the executives themselves), who should bear the risk of any losses, and indirectly infuses capital directly onto the books of these financial institutions.
*Alters fundamentally the nation’s free-market system in that it broadly socializes firm’s money-losing mortgage assets and places the U.S. on a slippery slope whereby profits may also be nationalized.
*Cedes massive authority to Treasury. Given the fact that the Presidential election is a mere six weeks away and a new Secretary will take office in January 2009, lawmakers have absolutely no idea what individual will ultimately be exercising this vast new authority over the long-term.
*Sets up Treasury to pay inflated prices for assets. Since there is nothing in the proposal that forces the financial institutions to sell their assets at a discount rate or event at all, many of these owners may simply wait on the government to increase their bid, leading to more inflated prices than the market would currently bear.
*Creates the potential for an enormous bureaucracy that will be needed to administer the purchase and insurance programs.
*Increases the federal deficit and national debt. The new mandatory spending, will cause a massive increase in the national debt and an immediate (although smaller) increase in the federal deficit. These annual deficits are funded by selling government bonds purchased by a host of large investors, including foreign countries. However, there is a limit to the amount of bonds that a government can float without adverse financial effects.
*Aids financial institutions that may not pose a systemic risk. Some companies, such as AIG, may truly pose a systemic risk to the entire market. However, there is no requirement under the proposal that a company truly be “too big to fail.” Instead, any financial institutions with mortgage-related assets would be eligible.
Additional Background: On Friday, September 19, 2008, the Treasury Department requested broad new authority to calm U.S. financial markets and purchase illiquid mortgage-related assets from various financial institutions. According to extensive press reporting, the Administration took this action after a series of repeated federal interventions were unsuccessful and a panic began to spread throughout financial markets.
The market for commercial paper, or short-term corporate bonds, tightened as institutional investors increasingly valued ready cash. These investors, namely money-market funds, continued to hoard cash in preparation of an expected run on their funds, which began as investors withdrew roughly $144.5 billion (compared to $7.1 billion the week before). In many cases, these investors fled to short-term government bonds, accepting little-to-no rate of return in exchange for the knowledge that their cash was secured. One money-market fund, Putnam Prime Money Market Fund, shut down because too many investors sought to take their money out at one time, and another, Reserve Primary Fund, announced that it would suspend redemptions temporarily. Administration officials feared that such a lack of confidence would spread.
The case of Reserve Primary Fund is instructive, because it was this money-market fund which seems to have set off the run due to the amount of corporate debt it held in Lehman Brothers. Lehman Brothers had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection the day before with more than $613 billion in debt. Between 2004 and 2007, this debt had been used in part to purchase almost $300 billion in securities backed by residential and commercial mortgages, otherwise known as mortgage-backed securities or MBS, which have been significantly devalued since the downturn in the housing market.
These “toxic” mortgage-related assets have been virtually unmovable from the portfolios of many financial institutions, such as Lehman Brothers, in part because the market has no idea what they are worth. This underlying predicament led to the Treasury Department’s request for blanket authority for the federal government to purchase them—taking them off portfolios, instilling confidence and capital in those firms who had previously held them, in order that lending and borrowing can resume.
Committee Action: The legislation has not been considered by any congressional committee.
Cost to Taxpayers: A CBO score is not yet available. However, the funding authorized is not subject to appropriations and constitutes mandatory spending. The bill treats the cost of purchasing the assets under the provisions Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, ensuring that the net-present value of the purchased securities will be scored instead of the initial outlays. This treatment recognizes that the securities have some value (even if less than the purchase price), but value which may not realized until they are sold. Under credit-reform scoring, the cost of the initial outlays is offset by an estimation of what the eventual sale of the assets will return in receipts, and it is this figure which will impact the federal deficit. Given the uncertain value of many of these securities, it is unclear whether CBO will have the necessary information to accurately score the legislation’s long-term fiscal impact.
Furthermore, Sec. 204 deems all costs arising under the legislation an emergency for purposes of the Congressional budget process.
Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal Government? Yes, substantially as the federal government would now be purchasing billions of dollars worth of troubled securities.
Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or Private-Sector Mandates? A CBO score is not yet available.
Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits? A Committee report designating compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI is unavailable.
Constitutional Authority: A Committee report citing Constitutional authority is unavailable. House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports contain a statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. [emphasis added]
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Dear Congress, A Plea from HardWorking Middle Class America « Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog
- GOP Leaders Support The Crap Sandwich of $700 Billion Financial Rescue | FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
- Kill (the) Bill: “Unfettered authority” would be given to Paulson. | LOUNGE DADDY
- Should House Republicans just vote NO on bail out? « Sharp Right Turn
- It’s the economy STUPID! « Northern Thoughts And Reflections
- There's My Two Cents
- Wow…This Bail Out Is Full Of… « Padna’s Ponderings
- links for 2008-09-29 | FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
- The Other McCain: Republicans: 'Let's pass this lousy bill!'
- Ogre’s Politics and Views » The Bailout
- The Boar’s Head Tavern
- An Alternative Bailout Bill | Musings From a Catholic Bookstore
- The Wall Street Bailout drama continues…. – Political Byline
- Plains Feeder: How to e-mail Congress
- 10 Reasons To Oppose “The Bailout” « Gunservatively!
- BlueRidgeForum » Malkin Against The Bailout-An FDIC Expert’s Alternative
- Sonoran Alliance » Kill the bailout
- Degree of Madness
- OpenMarket.org » Archive » Bailout Bill Just Got Worse, But Congress May Approve It Without Reading It, Based on Misleading Claims
- Opposing the Bailout
- Michelle Malkin » Kill the bailout: The House floor debate is on
- Populism is alive and well - the economy and the Constitiution | Conservative247
- Mike's Noise
- Michelle Malkin » Liveblogging Crap Sandwich 2.0: The House bailout debate
- Michelle Malkin » How ACORN got a piece of the bailout pie
- ACORN will help judges mitigate mortgages | Conservative247
- Michelle Malkin » McCain wants to spend $300 billion more to buy up bad mortgages
- Goldman Sachs of S**t! : The Armchair Energist
- Michelle Malkin » Duh of the day: McCain adviser admits bailout stance was a “blunder”
- Michelle Malkin » Spendulus Alert: $50 billion for “mandatory mortgage modifications”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Subprime crisis
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Stop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?JustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The TurkeyRiehl World View
» Uncle Jimbo Re-deploys In War With AllahSister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinkerPundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itWeekly Standard
» GOP Opens up 7-Point Lead on Congressional Ballot, Obama Numbers Dive on Health Care, Gitmo, and KSM
AS I mentioned on the other thread…Boehner is no more than another ‘New” Republican, can’t reach across the aisle fast enough. Anti-freedom creap.
I give up.
Sweet! Where do I go for my handouts?
/sarc
And all this power is being placed in a Cabinet position?????
The appointing of Hank Paulson as Treasury Secretary smelled rotten from Day 1 —- the whole thing reeks of conflict of interest.
Honestly, when you look at the Dems in DC and ask ‘How can these clowns be in charge of ANYTHING?’ Just look at the Republicans. They absolutely deserve to be a minority party. This is one reason we are in crisis right now. The Republicans raised a red flag then promptly caved. Way to go, boys!
I must admit this is still way over my head. Our Senator, Jon Kyl, says he is supporting it.
I still haven’t heard a statement from McCain. Is he supporting this current bill?
I am just worrying about Sarah Palin’s performance this Thursday. I haven’t had a chance to think about anything else.
She better kick butt!
McCain/Palin ‘08
So, Bush gets the votes while his buddy Karl throws billions of US Tax-dollars to the illegals his corporate cronies hired in return for the campaign contribution:
http://www.vdare.com/francis/contempt_bushman.htm
See how the Bush-corporate-cronies-buddy nexus works?
Broken down old man on disability here, if i’d have only known i could of had a $400,000 mansion(to me) and paid less than i do for rent now. course being an American loving conservative I wouldn’t haven’t done anyway. There is “no free lunch”.
and just how many of these crapweasels will be re-elected?
If The McCain campaign will let her be herself she will. I hope she ignores all of the advice and goes for the throat.
I’m scared.
This whole thing stinks. I can’t believe that the crooks who caused it are in charge of the bail-out. The astonishing inability of the Republicans to sheet home the blame where it belongs is so disheartening!
I was going to vote McCain as an anti-OhBlahBlah vote, but now I may just stay home. Let the Dems try to get the New People’s United Socialist Democratic Republic of Africa North off the ground and be stuck with this mess. Sure, we’ll have the Brownshirts, and they’ll (try – molon labe) to take our guns away, but they’re such incompetent fools, they’ll probably screw that all up anyway.
I live in Texas, maybe it will go ahead and become “a whole ‘nother country”. That’s about the one thing I would vote for, at this point.
At the end of the day and as far as believability goes, I’d put that statement right up there with “the check is in the mail.”
Don’t be stupid, Boehner. To pay for this boondoggle, the gov’t is going to borrow from China or some other country or they’re going to print more currency. Either way, we (the taxpayers) are at further risk due the declining value of the dollar.
Hey, I’ll suck it up, come what may, but don’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining.
Thank God I’ve got private financing for my mortgage, through a generous and wealthy couple from church. The government can’t find my mortgage to try and take it over and undermine it. Who KNOWS who they’d make me let move into my house.
I saw Dr. Zhivago…..it wasn’t pretty.
PS: Notice how the mortgage doesn’t even have to be in trouble to be a “troubled asset”?? WTH???
Doesn’t matter if there are 10 or even 100 valid reason against bailout.
Bush and team want this and will do whatever necessary to get this done even if that means banking on democratic votes (assuming many republican members will vote against it unless they are RINOs).
Just like pre-Iraq war days White House will use its tactics of fear mongering, pressurizing and hyping up negative things to get this done. Do you remember “We are in trouble, we know theres WMDs and we know victory will be quick”? Just change the same statement to replace Iraq/WMD with economy.
So, if I am understanding this, first Paulson gets to buy a lot of ‘assets’ for prices that may or may not reflect their underlying value. Then later on, if he finds one that is worth something he can sell it off, at a price of his choosing to some ‘good’ samaratin co, like Goldman’s. Now the ‘really bad ones’, well, he just leaves em on the taxpayers books for someone else later on to deal with.
Meantime, he gets to pick all of the ‘unquestionable’ people to handle the ‘management’ of these ‘items’. That way he can guarantee he is only selling the ‘best of em’ at ‘nice prices’ to his buddies.
Now, I wonder just who will be picking up those comercial loan and credit card mistakes? Clearly, we cannot even blame freddie and fannie for those. In fact, I would be willing to bet the vast majority of the credit cards debt will be for cards issued to ‘illegal aliens’.
Oddly, I also doubt this is going to help the credit market in general one flippin bit. At best, it will keep ‘high rollers’ like the Donald, fluid. But as for reaching ‘main street’, this is simply not going to happen. All the ‘little’ guys and companies can expect are higher interest rates for limited money.
I guess the only question is whether or not this all becomes apparent before or after the election.
I am truely depressed. …. sigh ….
It may be time for a true protest to Washington D.C. Let’s call it the Million-Man-Bearing-Arms-March.
Collectivists of America: beware the Pitchforks of October.
Si vis pacem, para bellum!
So.. minorities get preferential treatment, and defaulters get bailed out, but responsible fixed-rate mortgage payers who never miss a payment get zero relief, despite suffering increasing inflation and decreasing home value thanks to the irresponsible idiots, and those same irresponsible idiots are getting a decreased rate, the principle reduced and probably thousands of dollars of free counseling to alleviate their ’stress’, and gawd only knows what other privileges.
The only way to make this remotely fair is to give everyone the same fixed rate (unless theirs is already lower), and reduce all mortgages’ principle by an equivalent percentage – that’s for all mortgages, fixed or otherwise. And for those who didn’t buy a home because they were responsible enough to know not to take a high-risk mortgage (I am in this group) and instead continue paying high rent until we have more cash saved, what do we get for not adding to the problem – other than ridiculously high rent that is.. hmm? NOTHING.
Student loans etc should not even come into it – the risk of students not paying has not changed!
I see no reason there shouldn’t be a massive class action suit against all banks and the fed for unfair treatment to responsible mortgagees (and other loans too possibly). Sure, we can’t sue Paulson since he has total immunity, but we can sue everyone else.
When this bill passes, I encourage all hard-working bill-paying Americans to stop paying their mortgages. If we all default, it will make life a lot less complicated for Emperor Paulson. If the plan is to abandon personal property rights, let’s not be half-hearted about it. Let’s GO FOR THE GOLD! Who knows, maybe we can get someone appointed to oversee churches in the newly created Department of Religion. May God help us all!
On September 28th, 2008 at 11:27 pm, nyc123me said:
This is not about fairness. It is about enslaving you, your children, and your grandchildren to the state.
Sumptus censum ne superet
“Power to the People!” – Citizen Smith
Why are they pushing this through so quickly? Don’t the taxpayers DESERVE to know why we’re being bilked? Why can’t Congress look at other, less costly options? Consult with knowledgeable economists? Where is the deliberative process in all this?
I feel like me and other resposibile taxpayers are being forsaken. Forgotten. Trod on. Unconsulted. It’s our MONEY. Have these thoughtless politicians forgotten this?
In Pres. Bush’s and Congress’ haste to push this money sucker of a bill through, do they not realize that they will further sink the value of the dollar, increase the debt, and risk the money of the taxpayer? Where is the reason in this solution? Where is the win win?
I feel betrayed. They’re walking all over us and there’s nothing we can do about it.
We’re no longer a republic. We’re a liberal socialist hell hole.
On September 28th, 2008 at 11:31 pm, popcornguy said:
And buy pitchforks, or their modern equivalents, and be prepared to use them as was outlined to us in the 2nd amendment.
Hoc tempore obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I do not see how this thing is Constitutional. Someone needs to challenge this thing.
YO! Judicial Watch…..
Pitchforks, eh? As a cheesehead, I must say how much it seems we all love our guns and butter here in Wisconsin.
**As a fairly new contributor, I haven’t been introduced how to track back to other comments. Any insight will be much appreciated. -tks.
World markets have started to dive already.. the Hang Seng (HK) is down 2.3% and it’s only been open a couple of hours. Every single index that has opened so far has dropped. If this keeps up, the predicted ‘Wednesday at the latest’ action will be worth just so much dust in the wind. If those markets don’t level out soon then I’m afraid it might just be too late. Put your head between your legs and kiss your a55 goodbye..
Got it on the quotes. Now if I could figure out a trackback… Anyhow, cleaning out the basement this weekend and ran across my high school copy of ‘1984′. Based on the times, think it might warrant a re-read.
IOW, Paulson is now going to buy up all the troubled mortgages not securitized already so that Frannie and Freddie can sell off even more bad paper!
And then loan more money to more flakes according to “the needs of the communities.” That’s a giveaway to Acorn and La Raza.
We’re doomed. It may take a couple of years, but we are doomed.
Why don’t we just sell all this debt to China heavily discounted, then nationalize all the houses.
No more debt to China, and all that bad debt is off our books.
Brilliant!
The market is going to dive over 1000 points Monday. This is only the beginning. This is the end of American capitalism. History will not pull any punches and Bush will get all the credit for destroying American values and our economic system. Our history books will only be available in Spanish. How completely disgusting that this can actually be happening. We need to vote out all incumbents. It probably won’t improve anything, but it can at least teach these imbeciles that we can’t take any more.
Where’s our fence?
Looks like Bush’s legacy will be that he thought he could spread democracy to Iraq, but he couldn’t even make it work in America. He drove America into the hands of the Socialists.
Although he seemed to start off strong, as time passes he’s looking more and more like a RINO himself and he sure turned out to be a disappointment!
How about the Swiss market? Anybody heard what it is doing?
I am so against this bailout/socialism I could spit nails.
This Bailout part deux does not pass the smell test at all. I’ve written my congressman and am working on my useless MI Senators.
If there ever was a time for a Senate filibuster, here it is. Perhaps the good Senator McCain will even make an impassioned speech and vote a resounding NAY.
By the looks of the lack of public support, he’d probably move UP, way UP in the polls.
(I’m betting Sen. Obama’s a no-show for the rollcall)
@ ChristmasGhost : Swiss markets haven’t opened yet, it’s currently just after 6am Monday morning there..
Watch world markets <- here.
Only Asia Pacific & Australia open so far, and all are dropping.
someone needs to fight the constituionality of this piece of S##t. do we know if there is anyone preparing to fight this in the courts? God save this great nation. Lord Bless this nation. Lord, destroy its enemies.
They may pass this stinker, but we can still vote in November. Here’s an outstanding video I saw today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o
Describes how we got here, who the bad guys are, WHO TRIED TO WARN ABOUT IT AND MAKE CHANGES (hint: NOT democrats), and which presidential candidate tried to head this off, back when (and which one said…nothing, while taking huge $$ from Fannie Mae execs). Forward this video to EVERYONE everywhere and then VOTE this November.
We’re screwed ‘08, ‘09, ‘10, ‘11…
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n25_v45/ai_14779796/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
Vote ‘em all out, except for the very few conservatives like Shelby, Sessions, Bunning and the others like them. Can’t hardly preach to dems about voting for a democrap when your option is a dem in elephant clothing.
We’ve been betrayed again!
What scares me the most is…what else is coming? Is this just a diversion?
1) The initial 3 page Bush/Paulson plan was too favorable to Wall Street.
2) This “agreement” is too favroable to the Dem big government socialism that got us into this mess.
I think John McCain would be well servedif he came out against this agreement. He should reject the plan of the Bush administration and the plan of Congress. Tell people they have overspent and need to live within thier means. I think most Americans would appreciate that.
I support Government particiapiton to keep the market stable, but we should do it in a way that genuinely protects our tax dollars.
Got my pitch forks loaded and ready.
Just as I suspected…Democrats and Republicans are peas in the same pod. Unless McCain opposes this, it is a final nail in the coffin of his presidential hopes regardless of Gov. Palin’s popularity. Get ready for the socialism express folks.
I’m reading Atlas Shrugged right now. When I switch between that world and reality it’s hard to differentiate between the two.
Unbelievable.
Remember this: If the cost to ameliorate this pain was really ONLY $2300/person in the US, the gov. wouldn’t be scrambling to correct the problem – a recession would do the trick. This a straight-out, plain and simple power grab.
Our system is broken. How are we going to fix it?
I’m back in the USSA
Hey, you don’t know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the USSA, yeah
Welcome to the Unhinged Socialist States of America!
Well, looks like our Congressional morons have decided to take the Hugo Chavez approach to governing.
It is amazing to me that there aren’t riots in the streets over this in DC. Given that this bill has had no debate, no explanation, and no intelligent rationale, yet Congress will ram it down our throats thinking they are smarter than everyone else.
Most people in Congress are only good at one thing – getting re-elected at any costs. they take advantage of sheep who are uninformed and happy to be so. However, such ignorance can never hide their screaming incompetence to do anything even closely related to leading this country. They have no clue what any of this means, only that they feel it will help them get re-elected and retain power.
Sickening beyond belief. This is the beginning of the end folks… America is destroying itself. Thanks Carter, Cuomo, Frank, & Dodd. How about a “Mount Rushmore” to those who tore down this once great nation?
Breathtaking…
I don’t even know what to say. Get ready folks. Get prepared.
Yugoslavia and Lebannon were fairly successful countries before they both committed national suicide. I see this bailout as a bill that can never(ever) be repaid.
The shady organizations that are going to crop up to salvage the idiot taxpayers that cant even manage a basic mortgage, are going to being massively worse than predatory lenders are now.
I like the definition in the bill that a ‘Financial Institution’ does not include an institution owned by a foreign government. Unless I am reading this incorrectly, Wall Street can take the bailout for American entities but then move the assets (via buyouts?) to a foreign entity to avoid the need to repay anything.
You rolls dead bodies up in a TARP and bury them in the desert, right?
screwed by worthless lowlife scum libs once again. Why the hell should one dollar go to bailout obamas mistake?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o
Effin Crap weasel.
Plastik
Here’s our latest FAX to Congress:
WMD’S ON WALL STREET, REALLY!!??
So, Congress ??? MUST VOTE NOW ??? without hearing and without debate, on an impulsive, reactionary, proposal?
• NO “TARP” BOONDOGGLE! Let the market correction process eliminate irrational competitors, high risk speculators, irresponsible investors, & incompetent regulators.
• NO! TO “PRIVATE PROFITS & SOCIALIZED LOSSES”. If profits are possible for taxpayers, private speculators would be buying these troubled assets.
• NO! To the “whitewash”. “TARP” masks, it does not reform.
• NO! To the “THE FOX” issuing guidelines to manage conflicts of interest in the “THE HENHOUSE”.
Billions to go to Paulson’s hand picked asset managers.
• NO! To the Government determining home values in the marketplace. Federal entities to work with servicers to encourage loan modifications — by reducing interest rates AND loan principals through “TARP” provisions.
• NO! To the Government further reducing “credit-worthiness”. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE SO MANY HIGH RISK PRODUCTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. “TARP” allows the Secretary to use loan guarantees & CREDIT ENHANCEMENT to avoid foreclosures.
• NO! To unfettered authority for Treasury Secretary Paulson to define “troubled assets” any way he pleases.
• NO! To the fast-tracking authority for the Sec. of Treasury.
• NO! TO punishing responsible U.S. banks by keeping reckless, insolvent investment banks in business.
• YES! REPLACE “Too big to fail” with “To stupid to survive”!
Isn’t this bill unconstitutional because it is giving a branch of the government more control?
Is it still worth it to contact our representatives and protest this tomorrow?
Or is this a “done deal”?
WHY STOP THERE???
Why doesnt this congress show some leadership and just finally admit to what is going to happen anyway.
American does not need a debt limit and we are never working to a budget again!
Show some bravery, INCREASE the debt limit to $15 trillion NOW (you are going to do it in a few months anyway.)
Amongst the crap, there might lurk a few undigested nuggets of conservativism — for those who study this sort of scat.
I still think the best idea would be to eliminate cap gains and lower corporate tax rates for a couple years. A self motivated market could quickly move assets around to buy up, fix and flip broken assets in no time with a lot less waste than some government bailout.
Geraldo didn’t tell you but in Al Capone’s vault he found a bumper sticker Al had – I heart Paulson. Professional respect, one crook for another.
I just hope our national health insurance is run this well…
Dear Rep. Boehner:
You are what you eat.
Paulson won’t be in charge after the 2008. Who will Obama pick?
Makes you wonder who will be in these other cabinet positions under Obama’s rule.
If the government obeyed the Constitution, none of this would have happened. National Health Insurance? Look at Canada, Australia and England for an answer. Who in their right mind would hire a contractor to do work on their home, when the contractor has a terrible record of screwing up every job he’s done so far? Well, the same people who bless the virtues of National Health Insurance, would hire that contractor, and probably pay in advance for the “work”.
Henry Paulson used to be CEO of Goldman Sachs, he only has 4 mos left in office; one of the first he’ll take care of is Goldman. Do we know how many shares he still owns in Goldman, or does he have any deferred compensation?
Jim Johnson, yes the Jim Johnson “sweetheart of all sweetheart mortgage deals” and “sure I’ll help Obama choose a VP” fame; sits on the board of Goldman. While Paulson was CEO, Johnson, as Chairman of the Compensation Committee of the Goldman BOD, determined Paulson’s compensation.
OK! Who put the crazy pills in the DC water system? This bill is insane! OK, insure the bad debts. Tell ACORN to have a bake sale. Stop this bill,then, Chill!
In principle I am against this bill. As a starving writer with a so-so day job, I may not be able to weather the financial storm as well as others, but DAMN I am against this bail-out.
It stinks to high heaven and the folks that caused it will inevitably be the ones to benefit from it. The DC crowd has yet to convince me that they are looking out for the interests of the taxpayer.
Damn. Just DAMN.
I figure I will have to work until the day I drop dead.
Heck, by then we will probably be under Sharia Law anyway. There’s only 2 choices we will get soon, Communism or Islam. Looks like its Communism first.
Hugo Chavez will be proud.
More like “Fox, meet insane asylum.”
Maybe it is time for “change”….
sigh
Few to none of these bloggers and talk show hosts are economists and yet they go on and on as if they were. I’ll take my chances with the group in DC since some of them, at least, have some expertise.
The FreedomWorks’ “Ten Reasons” is mandatory reading for the uninformed.
Point #1 (”The plan attempts to mask, rather than reform”): i.e., a terribly-flawed stall tactic that is probably delaying the inevitable. Reform is supposedly the next step, but how do we know that our elected representatives won’t screw that up, too? Never mind, we already know they will.
In the interest of transparency (
), I made point #3 (”It amounts to $2,300 for every man, woman, and child in America”) a few days ago. The figure more than doubles if you narrow it to the amount of people who filed tax returns.
Point #5 (”includes taxpayer purchases of distressed assets from foreign banks”) is troubling. Are they unknowingly (knowingly?) funding people who may not have our best interests in mind?
Point #6 (”punishes responsible U.S. banks”): are there any responsible banks left? I’m glad I don’t have a WaMu account anymore.
How aware is the general public of point #8 (”Treasury Secretary Paulson, the architect of the plan, was formerly the head of Goldman Sachs”)? I would expect a Tonight Show “Jaywalking” segment-type of result, in which I would have been included until recently.
Since Congress doesn’t want to allow anyone to be unhappy, why not add an earmark that calls for a free nationalized dating service, some Office for Homeland Yearning Awards (OHYA), while we’re at it? ‘Cuz everyone deserves to be loved. Maybe there is one already, I don’t know. I do know Congress wants to feel the love. Let ‘em know why you love them so much.
Seems like we should all do something to mourn the passing of capitalism and of our great republic. We can pray for God to save us but the majority of our country abandoned God for new age bullsh*t ages ago.
I’ve yet to see any government program, although well intentioned, that did not attract bottom feeders and blood suckers to find loopholes and exploit it to the max. Sort of like asking the UN to distribute food to the poor – a few get very wealthy while the masses still starve.
On another note, I keep hearing how Katie Couric’s interview of Sarah Palin was so good at exposing Sarah’s lack of foreign policy experience – in particular, whether she ever negotitated any deals with the Soviet Union or Canada – I thought Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibited states or private parties from negotiating with a foreign government. If so, that would make Katie Couric’s question naive at best and stupid at its worst.
How many negotiations with foreign governments (photo shoots don’t count) have Barack Obama and Joe Biden had?
Could someone please itemize a list of accomplishments by Barack Obama?
I feel the same way as most people here. Angry, frustrated, helpless. I look at what the greatest country in the history of the world has become and I can only shake my head in disbelief. I feel like I want to give up, move to the backwoods of Maine and tell the world to go to hell.
But I won’t. The feeling of hopelessness stops today. I have two fantastic young kids. I damn sure am going to try and make sure they have every chance to succeed in this world. So today I start to fight. How? In little ways. I will no longer bite my tongue when my associates say how great Obama is. I will no longer tolerate people around me blaming America for all the world’s ills. If I think of new ways to fight, I will do them, too. Will it make a difference? Not at first. But if we all do this, gradually, we might reclaim our freedom.
I realize the government is the enemy, but the Constitution is my ally.
I’m tired of being tired. I think I would prefer to fight.
Last night I watched the vile worm Democrat enabler Rahm Emanuel (of Chicago, no less) blame the Republicans for the mess his own party allowed to occur (i.e. Dodd, Frank, et al) and no one called him on it. Godalmighty.
All of the overseas markets have dropped dramatically, in some cases over 5%. To give you some idea, that’s like the DOW losing 600 points – it’s massive. Futures markets here point to a steep drop in our markets when they open. The House of Reps is supposed to be voting on the bill right now, and the Senate on Wednesday. If the House of Reps votes no, I’m reasonably sure we’ll see the economy collapse by the end of today.
The real Axis of Evil:
REED, PELOSI, PAULSON
or is it:
Democrats, News Media, Uhbama ?
Live on CSPAN.
I do not believe for one second that even half of the representatives read that bill.
Yet they are freely voting Yes.
Sickening.
On September 29th, 2008 at 8:05 am, iamsaved said:
There is no such thing, and never has been, a collectivist State that has not been corrupted to benefit the few. For instance, the “party apparatchik” in the Soviet Union. The Nazi loyalists. Or in our case, “democrat politicians” and “activist lobbyists”.
Why? Because all collectivist States practice Statist Slavery. There is no such thing as a benevolent slave master.
It is human nature that any man who is cast into the role of a slave master will eventually come to disdain and hate his slaves.
Just as the warden comes to despise and fear his prisoners, the slave master despises and fears his slaves. In fact, the slave master fears more, for he knows, deep down, that the natural state of man is to be free, and that his enslavement is a perpetration of evil.
Stalin never slept in the same bed twice.
Hope you’re listening, D.C.
I called Dick Durbin’s Capitol office. He’s not available and not taking messages. I couldn’t even leave a voicemail.
Like I have a chance in Hell of changing his mind anyway.
I didn’t even bother calling Obama’s office. I don’t think he’s ever seen the inside of it…
Rep. Michael Bugess (R-Tx) on C-Span:
Watch: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=l7B4laX1E70
That really does not sound very good…
I just called Rep. Scott Garrett’s office and was told he’s voting NO.
Sigh – just called my congressman (Gus Bilirakis – R) and got a message that his voicemail was full. I pray it’s full of my fellow neighbors telling him that he better vote hell no!
I was just reading Bill Fleckenstein at moneycentral…
doesn’t sound like they’ve fixed anything….just kicked the can down the road to a worse crash later…
As demonstrated by our multi-trillion dollar debt. With expertise that like, I’m inclined to turn the whole thing over to 535 check-out clerks from the nations supermarkets. At least they have basic math skills.
San Fran Nan blaming Bush… cspan
what a loser.
Off topic: Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement
http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem
Wow. Just wow.