« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Obama Team: We Promise We'll Do Second TARP Differently
Looks like Barack Obama's word is worth quite a lot just now. About $350 billion, in fact.
To explain:
Congress has been talking tough lately, for good reason, about the need to impose strict conditions on the second $350 billion for the bailout -- lest it meet the same fate as the first $350 billion, which, at least for now, appears not to have eased lending or stabilized the housing market.
But yesterday, the Senate went ahead and voted not to block the incoming administration from getting the money -- despite the fact that there are no strings attached. Congress could still add restrictions, of course, but, as we've reported in depth over at Election Central, leaders in both the House and Senate have suggested that they won't. Instead, they're apparently willing to accept the Obama team's voluntary assurances that they'll do things differently from the Bush crew.
As for those voluntary assurances, they're not nothing. As laid out in a letter to Congressional leaders by Larry Summers, who'll run Obama's White House Economic Council, they read as a pointed indictment of the current administration, which failed to do any of them.
For instance, Summers pledged:
The Treasury will require detailed and timely information from recipients of government investments on their lending patterns broken down by category.
and:
Executive compensation above a specified threshold amount [will] be paid in restricted stock or similar form that cannot be liquidated or sold until the government has been repaid.
and:
Prevent shareholders from being unduly rewarded at taxpayer expense. Payment of dividends by firms receiving support must be approved by their primary federal regulator. For firms receiving exceptional assistance, quarterly dividend payments will be restricted to $0.01 until the government has been repaid.
and:
Preclude use of government funds to purchase healthy firms rather than to boost lending.
Limit assistance under the EESA to financial institutions eligible under that Act. Firms in the auto industry, which were provided assistance under the EESA, will only receive additional assistance in the context of a comprehensive restructuring designed to achieve long-term viability.
And perhaps most important:
Implement a sweeping foreclosure mitigation plan for responsible families including helping to reduce mortgage payment for economically stressed but responsible homeowners, reforming our bankruptcy laws, and strengthening existing housing initiatives like Hope for Homeowners.
Those all sound like crucial ideas. But it'd be nice if we didn't have to take anyone's -- even Obama's -- word for it.













What written guarantee can he provide before next Tuesday. Hallelujah!!!! Next Tuesday is coming!
January 16, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about "change we can believe in" and cancelling the entire bailout?
If the Bank of America posted profits of over $4 Billion last year, Why in the HELL are the American taxpayers being asked to bail them out?
Is the American taxpayer now responsible to see that certain companies remain grossly profitable?
This whole sub-prime mortgage meltdown was caused by banks and financial institutions packaging sub-prime mortgages and selling them (for a profit) to other banks and financial institutions. Then those banks and financial institutions repackaged the sub-prime mortgages and resold them to other financial institutions (for a profit). This continued until the packaged sub-prime mortgages were so completely overpriced that they could no longer be sold to other banks and financial institutions. It was like musical chairs with the last bank or financial institution to buy them left without an out. So these banks and financial institutions concocted this scheme to sell them (at their inflated price) to the American taxpayers.
To make matters worse, the banks and financial institutions wanting to be bailed out are largely owned by foreigners.
Thankfully, the American politicians saw through this scheme and refused to buy these overpriced securities at their inflated prices.
Oh!, I'm sorry, The American politicians are buying them at their inflated prices. How stupid.
January 16, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you think that Obama would lay down all those restrictions (through Summers) and then not follow through on those promises. You certainly don't have a lot of faith in Obama, do you.
January 16, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about "change we can believe in" and cancelling the entire bailout?
Sure, we could do that. And then when the economy tanks to the point where we are all screwed, you and yours will be the first to blame Obama for what happened. That's actually what you folks would like, isn't it. You would love to see this country slip into a Depression just so you can blame it on Obama. How compassionate of you and yours.
January 16, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
When an individual, corporation, or government is in financial trouble, the answer is to cut spending and/or increase income.
The US politicians are doing the exact opposite - increasing spending and decreasing income.
I realize that it is unpopular for politicians to raise taxes, cut expenses, and balance a budget. They are more interested in getting re-elected than in doing what is in the best interests of the country. That involves doing the feel good thing now and letting someone else (subsequent politicians) worry about paying for it later
Deficit spending is, by definition, one great big ponzi scheme and also, by definition, must eventually collapse under its own weight.
January 16, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with your theory is that individuals, corporations, and governments are three very different things. Take you as an individual: even though extra debt and spending by you will stimulate the economy, the value of your stimulus might not come back to you sufficiently to repay your debt. Even for a corporation that's the case. The government however can must the nation's resources, and when the economy improves, it can raise taxes to pay off debt and cut spending that's not needed anymore. You, on the other hand, can't say I helped you by spending money, now give me a pay raise.
Besides, theory aside, we know this sort of fiscal policy works. The government spending money when others are reluctant gets money circulating again. The ability to raise taxes allows the debts incurred during recession to be paid off. Focusing on balancing the budget now is guaranteed to make things worse.
January 16, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The policy of deficit spending may work when the money spend by governmnent is spent in a way designed to stimulate an economy. I really admired your claim that when the economy improves, government spending is reduced, deficit spending is eliminated, and payments are made on the national debt. This runs counter to any and all historical facts.
When it is used to protect massive profits of foreign investors (banks and financial institutions) there is only the chance that it will make the underlying problems worse.
Take the auto companies bailouts. These companies have flooded the market with products that are just not selling - mostly because of the flooded market and the fact that fewer people can afford to buy new (or used) cars, trucks, or SUV's than there are cars, trucks, or SUV's available to be bought. Just look at the new and used car lots and this should be apparent.
Bailing these companies out by an infusion of cash so they can build more cars, trucks, and SUV's only makes the problem (overproduction) worse.
It is easy for politicians to hire economists who will tell Americans that basic economic principles do not apply to governments in return for paying them six figured salaries. It is up to the people to recognize BS even when it is repeated over and over as fact. That is a part of the Karl Rove playbook - tell a lie often enough and people will start to believe it. There are still people who believe that Iraq was a partner of Al Queda, that Iraq had WMD's, and that Iraq is a democracy not occupied by the USA.
January 17, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
bygollymissmolly:
Wake up.
The economy in the USA has tanked.
The USA is in a depression.
I blame it on George W. Bush and the Republicans.
However, I now see Obama and the Democrats buying into the Bush economics and those policies which got the USA into this situation.
I'm looking for that "Change you can believe in" and see Obama following in Bush's economic policy footsteps - Trillion dollar deficits.
January 16, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be feeling more comfortable if it wasn't Summers being the front person for this.
John
January 16, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks to me as though these proposals could be reformatted in a few minutes and be ready to be voted on within minutes of the inauguration.
January 16, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What nobody is bothering to mention is how bad our infrastructure is. If there is any 'hidden blessing' in the current Depression is that it finally gives us a chance to overcome the Reaganism that starved government services, then took the inefficiency that this caused as a way to attack those same departments.
Paying for infrastructure repairs is a lot different from 'paying one group of people to dig holes, and another group to fill gthem in' which was the slander against the WPA and PWA during the New Deal. The fact is that infrastructure improvements usually more than pay for themselves, sometimes obviously -- roads, schools -- sometimes more subtly -- healthcare improvements lead to fewer sick days, fewer time wasted (usually during business hours) fighting with insursnce companiues, or trying to get the doctor, the pharmacist and the insurance company to agree on the same medication for a problem, etc.
Even something as 'wasteful' -- in Reaganite eyes -- as purely cosmetic changes in the appearance of government offices can repay its cost. When someone seeks necessary assistance from the government, there's no reason he should suffer the indignity of the 'cattle call' atmosphere of the usual office. If he's surrounded by all the warmth and atmosphere of the (tv version, at least) standard visiting room in a prison, he starts out angry and uncomfortable, immediately seeing the government as 'the adversary.'
Something as simple as comfortable chairs and a lack of filth might, in one case out of a hundred, make the 'client' more willing to work with the agency, instead of trying to squeeze whatever they can out of it. And that 1% improvement might pay back those expenses very nicely.
I'm going to try to do a diary later expanding on this to my usual interminable length, but no promises, the weather and impending doctor visits and procedures may eat up my time.
January 18, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink