Blog

What the latest bailout plan means

Sunday, September 21, 2008, 9:26 AM

Now that the details are out, we can safely state that the US political
and financial leadership has completely sold out the taxpayers and has
done so in a manner that is startling, both in its recklessness and its
brazenness.

The reckless part I will spell out in the details below.

The brazen part is in how this is being spun
out, as if the entire plan were hatched in a hurried rush, at the last
minute, after events forced the issue.  This is the spin, but it is
completely false.

Because many financial commentators, ranging from Roubini to Roach to Calculated Risk to myself, foresaw these events, we can be completely confident that these events were both anticipated and planned for long in advance.  The only question left was how they were going to be 'sold' to the public.  What better way than in the midst of a "massive financial panic" that required urgent action?

And now that the details are out, the plan is even more insidious than I ever dreamed.

On Friday  the news started to leak out  that perhaps $500 billion was the, uh, 'floor' for the bailout, and that it might be up to 60% larger than that:

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury will propose a $500 billion to $800 billion government program to take toxic mortgage-related assets off the books of U.S. financial firms, banking industry sources said on Friday.

The sources said the government would acquire residential and commercial mortgages and mortgage-backed securities under the proposal, which needs Congressional approval.

A Treasury spokeswoman declined to comment.

So it looks like we are being 'softened' up by Extremely Large Numbers coming in quick succession so that we'll be too numb to argue when the real plan comes out.  For the record, my solution would have been very different.

Instead of buying these failed assets off of the banks for $500 billion, I would have preferred to see the banks receive $500 billion in loans, which they'd have to pay back from profits over time, while they retained the failed loans on THEIR books as a reminder to be more careful next time.  Same cost to the government, but a very different message sent to reckless lending institutions.  

And here are the critical elements from the real plan released yesterday (Sat., 9/20) (hat tip to Lemonyellowschwin for posting this in the comments yesterday).  Full details are all the way at the bottom.

Quote:
(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase,
and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and
conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from
any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

OK, this starts out kind of like I expected.  The definition is a little vague, unfortunately, having stalled at "mortgage-related assets."  I would have preferred that they spelled this out, because then we could have assessed which institutions were going to be helped out the most.   Certainly these could have and should have been spelled out.  This is vague enough to leave open the prospect that practically anything could be defined as "mortgage-related", and I am certain we will see this provision abused.  100% certain.

Quote:
Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under
this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one
time.

Whoa!  Stop!  What is this "at any one time" language??  This means that $700 billion is NOT the cost of this dangerous legislation, it is only the amount that can be outstanding at any one time.  After, say, $100 billion of bad mortgages are disposed of, another $100 billion can be bought.  In short, these four little words assure that there is NO LIMIT to the potential size of this bailout. This means that $700 billion is a rolling amount, not a ceiling.

So what happens when you have vague language and an unlimited budget?  Fraud and self-dealing.  Mark my words, this is the largest looting operation ever in the history of the US, and it's all spelled out right in this delightfully brief document that is about to be rammed through a scared Congress and made into law.

But, certainly, if the combination of vague language and and unlimited budget will create the conditions for further fraud and abuse, at least we live in a nation of "checks and balances," right?

Wrong.

Quote:
Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are
non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be
reviewed
by any court of law
or any administrative agency.

This language literally took my breath away when I read it.  I am now beyond shocked at what is openly transpiring before our very eyes.  I can think of NO legitimate reasons(s) for the right of review to be stripped away right from the outset.  The illegitimate reason I can think of pertains to the vast riches that are going to flow into the pockets of the well-connected as a result of this act of piracy.

Many such people became fabulously wealthy as a result of picking up real estate assets for pennies on the dollar during the S&L crisis, and that model has being reproduced here.

You can count on it.  

This is just another straw, thrown onto an already-collapsed camel, that confirms the fact that the US political system is broken and that the rule of law no longer applies within the US.  

My final comment: If it looks like a looting operation, smells like a looting operation, and behaves suspiciously like a looting operation, it might just be a looting operation.

More on this later.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Full language of the act:

Quote:
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as ____________________.

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Sec. 3. Considerations.

In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer.

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.--The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Sec. 7. Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11. Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term “mortgage-related assets” means 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 September 17, 2008.

(2) Secretary.--The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) United States.--The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Where to Buy Gold & SilverWhere to Buy Gold & Silver

We endorse this dealer as our all-around favorite for purchasing and storing precious metals.

Learn More »

Related content

32 Comments

jhath's picture
jhath
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 17 2008
Posts: 2
Financial agents?
Chris, does this mean the Paulson Administration can deputize every bank in the country? "(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation: (3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;" That gives me a warm, secure feeling... not.
scotttherrien's picture
scotttherrien
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 26 2008
Posts: 13
Can it work?
Thanks Chris, the content is excellent and crash course is very well done. The way I understand this deal and correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that it should work. If the government buys this toxic debt for say 10% on the dollar, it has essentially purchased 7 trillion dollars of bad debt for $700 billion. At the same time, the financial institutions are relived of 7 trillion in bad debt in exchange for their original capital of $700 billion. This in turn allows these financial institutions to be fully capitalized again and able to lend out another $7 trillion!! No run on the banks and these financial institutions get to take a one time extraordinary write off of ~$6 trillion. While this is the end of American capitalism as we know it and we will no-doubt be in a massive recession, it should prevent a massive financial collapse and could even be a good deal for the taxpayers as it is likely that we would get a significant return on the investment over say the next 20 years. Obviously these are some broad assumptions and I am probably missing something but it seems to me that this should prevent financial Armageddon? With what the gov’t is doing, do you expect some short-term stability, say over the next year or so ?
tailwind13's picture
tailwind13
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 7 2008
Posts: 2
I Just Woke Up In Orwell's Nighmare
I can not express how angry and frustrated this garbage makes me. If someone had asked me about the sub-prime mess a year ago, my response would have been, "We are in for some rough weather lasting maybe 6-9 months." But since last August, I have watched as the Masters of the Universe that got us into this mess (e.g., Wall Street whiz kids, Treasury Dons and Fed intelligentsia) have made not just bad decisions---but decisions which are directly contrary to the best interests of our country. To add insult to injury, the results will directly reward the same morons that created & stoked the monster that is the current banking (and shadow banking) system and then stood by and watched it capsize into crisis. Even more insulting is their soothing rhetoric that "All is well. Go home and shop" (which makes me laugh because I think about Kevin Bacon in Animal House--but I digress). We have reached a cross roads and had better decide--soon-- whether we will be led by these dolts or we will lead them. Personally, I think the old tradition of using Tar & Feathers ought to make a comeback.
jrf29's picture
jrf29
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2008
Posts: 453
"No Court Can Review" Provision
It should be pointed out, that while this bill may be every bit as bad for the economy and the nation as Chris states, the section providing that the act "may not be reviewed by any court of law" must be read in its proper legal context. This provision does NOT have the full effect implied by its words, and its purpose is to "fill the legal envelope," and is very common in law. Congress doesn't have the power to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing congressional legislation. The surpeme court can do so regardless of what language to the contrary appears in the law. When such language is used, the court will give it as much of the intended effect as is allowable, so far as it goes. In other words, this is the equivalent of the congress telling the court "we know what we are asking for is impossible, but we ask the court to assign as much meaning to this clause as is it can." The effect of this provision is on lower courts only, and the intent is to to give the supreme court primary jurisdiction over the law. This one part of the law, at least, is not an insidious attempt at dictatorship - it is a common legal tool used in the most important bills designed to give the supreme court first bat at hearing the issue.
Theprintingpress's picture
Theprintingpress
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 1
It just got even worse: bailout now includes FOREIGN banks!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13690.html That's right - this has just turned into a GLOBAL bailout plan, funded exclusively with U.S. taxpayer money/fiat debt. Chris, I think you better hurry up with Chap. 20 because we don't have much time left...
cannotaffordit's picture
cannotaffordit
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 12 2008
Posts: 273
Maybe, but....
oops. pardon the duplicate post
cannotaffordit's picture
cannotaffordit
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 12 2008
Posts: 273
Maybe, but....
Well, it all sounds good the way you describe it, but I have this concern. If these idiots and crooks didn't have the know how, or the ethical motivation, to handle business correctly in the first place, why should we think that giving them a fresh start will cause them to behave any differently. Hence, how in the world can we expect them to operate in such a way that they would earn sufficient amounts to EVER pay the interest on this, much less full payback? Isn't this just another example of shifting wealth from the working class to the wealthy elites? Ben (half of dbajba)
Roysyl's picture
Roysyl
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 21 2008
Posts: 6
A fiat currency requires
A fiat currency requires fiat Law for the system to "work". Fiat literaly translated from Latin - let it be, or by decree. We no longer have Rule of Law but rule of man by decree. Fight organized crime - Reelect nobody -vote early and often
srbarbour's picture
srbarbour
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 23 2008
Posts: 148
Clearing things up
[quote]If the government buys this toxic debt for say 10% on the dollar, it has essentially purchased 7 trillion dollars of bad debt for $700 billion.[/quote] You misunderstand the nature of the crisis. Many of the banks in question are insolvent not, as implied by the Fed, facing liquidity issues. To prevent being taken over by the FIDC most of these banks are refraining from 'writing down' mortgage related losses on the argument that these 'assets' will be worth more later.

In such, these assets will not for the most part be sold at '10%' face value. Instead, they are likely to be sold at anywhere from 30% to 90% face value. Why, because the banks can't sell at low rates. If they did, they'd fall below their capital limits. [quote]At the same time, the financial institutions are relived of 7 trillion in bad debt in exchange for their original capital of $700 billion.[/quote] Another misunderstanding. Even if the banks are leveraged 10:1, they are still on the hook for the $7 trillion in losses. They have obligations to meet. Otherwise those huge nasty Credit Default Swaps will kick in, and various debt owners (whom the government has been protecting most religiously) will be stuck with enormous losses.

In other words, if the banks sold $7 trillion for $700 billion they'd be marking down $6.3 trillion in losses.

Which is about 12x as much listed so far. [quote]it should prevent a massive financial collapse[/quote] It can't prevent a financial collapse, because the finances were never there in the first place to collapse. What the banks are asking for is for the US government to make all the 'illusionary assets' into real assets. No matter how you look at it, if the banks have to write down $6.3 trillion that means someone is going to lose $6.3 trillion as compared to where we 'thought' we were in 2007 and most of 2008.

I'd note: More realistic estimates put the raw cash at between $1-2 trillion. [quote]While this is the end of American capitalism as we know it[/quote] Not really. Much like that financial money that 'disappeared', American capitalism was never there in the first place. ;) [quote]could even be a good deal for the taxpayers as it is likely that we would get a significant return on the investment over say the next 20 years.[/quote] Its is zero sum game. For the banks to win, the tax payers must lose. There is no other possibility. [quote]With what the gov’t is doing, do you expect some short-term stability, say over the next year or so ?[/quote] Nope. It might buy short term stability for 1-6 months. After that point the USA will probably no longer be able to borrow enough cash to buy these assets. Once people start doubting the government's ability to pay, everything will fall down like a house of cards. This is simply way to much, I seriously doubt the USA can find $1-2 trillion dollars in the environment of 2009. Don't forget all our lenders have either been burned, or are facing their own economic difficulties.
joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
wait wait
i suggest a listen to wait wait dont tell me on npr. paula poundstone summed it up in two comments"i am well qualified to be a financial analyst i lost my house a long time ago --i was way ahead of the curve" and the clincher "now that the dollar has so little value we can put george bush on it"
jrf29's picture
jrf29
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2008
Posts: 453
Why Paulson is Wrong
Luigi Zingales, a Professor at the University of Chicago School of Business has written an excellent short essay entitled "Why Paulson is Wrong." http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi.zingales/Why_Paulson_is_wrong.pdf
machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
"Largest Looting Operation EVER"
Correcto-mundo, Doctor M. This is bigger than 9/11. Bigger than the Crash of 1987. Probably bigger than the New Deal, which was the greatest expansion of central government ever. Some are calling it the "PATRIOT Act of Finance" in its sublime high-handedness. If this gets done, words such as "capitalism," "democracy," "economic freedom" and "representative government" will no longer apply to the US. I call the new system Kleptofeudalism. Under this system, a one-percenter group of privileged Kleptocrats owns and operates the country. Meanwhile, Worker/Suckers -- the remaining 99% of the population -- serve as their livestock. Worker/Suckers exist only to service the Treasury debt, and breed more Worker/Suckers to keep servicing the debt in generations to come. As in feudal times, class lines will solidify into iron curtains. The chances of your children advancing from Worker/Sucker to Kleptocrat will be virtually nil. This is literally the most radical event which has happened on North American soil since the Declaration of Independence was issued on 4th July 1776. But this is an anti-Revolution, a rollback of liberty, an enslavement. It is a fundamental and irrevocable alteration of our form of government. The only certainty, under the coming tyranny, is that the dollar is doomed to become a weak, Third World currency, which may not even be accepted outside CONUS borders. As refugees from 1930s fascism learned, gold is good. But diamonds may be more concealable and transportable. Frankly, I fear social unrest. If busted plutocrats can loot the Treasury for $700 billion on a whim, why shouldn't the jobless homeless loot stores for clothes and shoes? There is no answer, other than than "the 'law' is only for little people." And such an answer may not be satisfactory. Congratulations on proclaiming -- well in advance -- "The End of Money." Ding ding ding, it's here. Now what?
EndGamePlayer's picture
EndGamePlayer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 2 2008
Posts: 546
Contact your representative ASAP-
Send out the following to everyone you know - ============================================= As a tax payer - I thought you would want to know that Congress is voting on a bill that will add $700 BILLION to your debt. This is a debt that can NEVER be repaid - only the interest can be paid and the interest is whatever "they say it will be". That amounts to interest on $11,000 per person (man, woman and child) in the U.S. every year for the rest of you lifetime. Contact your congress person and tell them to vote "NO" to adding to your debt and that poor practices by savings, loans and other institutions are not your responsibility. Tell them you will watch their vote and if they vote for this - you will campaign against them when their term is over. What you can do: Forward this email to as many people as you can by Monday morning (Sept. 21 2008) Email your congress representative on: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml ==========email============== SUBJECT: NO BAIL OUT BILL Attention Representative ______________, I will watch your vote on this bill and if you take part in passing this debt onto me and my children and grandchildren, I will campaign against you when your term is up. Let poor lending and banking practices speak for themselves and quit burdening me with their problems. Sincerely, Your Taxpayer ===========end email==========
dps's picture
dps
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 27 2008
Posts: 442
Spreading the word
Chris, If I can get the pastor at my local church to agree to allow me to show the crash course to my congregation, would you allow me to do so? I would not want to do so without your blessing. I so appreciate your efforts to open my eyes. I wish I could do more. In my poverty, I have become a registered user. I will always consider that the most important money I've "invested" in my life. Thanks! Don
cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 4653
With my blessing...

 

DPS - I put the Crash Course out there specifically so that people would use it however they felt like it.

 

Thank you for asking though.

 

Hopefully the new, faster server will make the experience quicker and easier for you.

 

Chris Martenson

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 4653
  MH - the "PATRIOT Act

 

MH - the "PATRIOT Act of finance".

 

That is a perfect description as the two Acts share everything but a similarity in volume.

 

Like you, I worry about whatever awaits in "Act III".

 

Chris Martenson

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 4653
  Chapter 20 ... working

 

Chapter 20 ... working on it... but everytime I think I have the problems sets described, the boundaries move...

 

Chris Martenson

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 4653
  jrf29,   Even if

 

jrf29,

 

Even if I shared your enthusiasm for the Supreme Court as legitimate balance of executive and legislative power (sorry, but I lost that completely and irrevocably in in the 2000 election decision), I would point out that it takes years and years to get something onto the docket of the Supreme Court.


And even then they can decide to either hear the case or not.

 

After this looting operation has run for several years, it will be cold comfort indeed to have the Supreme Court weigh in with a decision that all this was unconstitutional.  

 

The damage will have been done, the money all gone, and the suspects retired (or living in Paraguay).

 

I guess, though, my greatest barrier is contained in my opening sentence.  The 2000 election ruling based as it was (supposedly) on the 14th amendment  was so far off base, and so utterly without merit, that I have not yet been able to recover even the slightest sense of respect for the Supreme Court.

 

Since then, I've watched the court "divide their rulings", sometimes 5-4 this way and sometimes  4-5 that way, with the common denominator always being a validation of the expansion of government over individual and states rights.  Kelo V New London being a perfect example.  There a supposedly "liberal" majority decided that municipalities could seize private property for "public use" even if that public use was "higher taxes from that piece of property". 

 

So, yes, I tend to take the wording of these documents very seriously and do not, as you do, assume it's just "boilerplate" language.  It's there for a reason and it will be used for the reason it was intended.  

Chris Martenson

JR Wakefield's picture
JR Wakefield
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 29 2008
Posts: 93
What does it matter?
Chris, excellent videos BTW. But I have a question. If the entire economic house of cards is going to collapse anyway, what does it matter if the feds bail these banks out? Seems to me that it would just be a drop in the bucket of debt the US owes and is on the hook for. When it all comes crashing down won't that debt just evaporate anyway?

It's kinda like a mortgage when the next great depression hits. There is no way the government will tolerate having millions thrown out of their homes (mass rioting would occur, and with these mortgages in the hands of the government it is more likely they will forgive them), and there is no way people will be able to pay their mortgages in a depression. So I can see governments decreeing a moratorium on all loan payments. Essentually wiping out everyone's debt. You just don't want to be at the beginning of the crash, and get tossed out, but hang on long enough for the moratorium.
jrf29's picture
jrf29
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2008
Posts: 453
"These events were planned for long in advance"
There's no need to speculate. Secretary Paulson essentially said as much in an interview recently. A New York Times article reported on Sunday: "Paulson said that Bernanke had long warned that a moment might come like the one they saw last week. 'Going back a long time, maybe a year ago, Ben...said to me, when you look at the housing bubble and the correction, if the price decline was significant enough,' the only solution might be a large-scale government intervention,' Paulson said. 'He talked about what has happened when there had been other situations historically, and basically he said in his view the time might come when something like this was necessary.'" The article goes on, "[Paulson] had been reluctant to send lawmakers a plan that might not pass, worrying that a rejection would only further damage the markets." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21paulson.html?_r=1&sq=peter%20baker&st=cse&oref=slogin&scp=3&pagewanted=print Evidently, last week the timing was right. Congress was intentionally blindsided.
wmarsden's picture
wmarsden
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 6 2008
Posts: 38
In case democracy is not yet dead, try writing your congressmen!
I tossed and turned last night after reading Paulson's draft and got up this morning resolved to write my congresscritters. I cribbed liberally from this blog entry of yours, and then sent the two senators and Olver over to your Crash Course as a final parting gift. Sigh. I hope it helps make a difference. Here's how you reach your congressmen by email: Find your senators here and your congressperson here.

My letter read, ---

Regarding $700 billion mortgage-asset bail-out: There are three serious flaws in the proposal put forth this week-end.

1. Sec. 6: the language "at any one time", see below:

"Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases. The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding AT ANY ONE TIME."

This is unacceptable: this means that after, say, $100 billion of bad mortgages are flushed through this toxic waste dump another $100 billion can be bought. In short, these four little words assure that there is NO LIMIT to the potential size of this bailout. This means that $700 billion is a rolling amount, not a ceiling.

2. Sec. 8: is it even CONSTITUTIONAL to avoid all oversight and review? This seems to absolutely invite fraud of the type rampant in the Savings & Loan bail-out. What's to prevent people from selling their friends assets for pennies on the dollar? What's to prevent people from disposing of loans that aren't really bad, in effect forgiving loans they made to friends?

See below:

"Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and MAY NOT BE REVIEWED BY ANY COURT of law or any administrative agency."

3. Why do this as a bail-out at all? Why not put it through bankruptcy court where the equity investors will get nothing and performance-based compensation packages will suffer and companies will be punished for their failings? Sure, form a special bankruptcy work-out. But keeping the companies as going concerns and off-loading their errors to the government is wrong on so many levels. For one thing, it's not just a taxpayer bailout, it's a huge threat to our over-burdened currency already, nearly guaranteeing the horror-show of hyperinflation.

For a crash course on the economy, and why it is going to be different in the next twenty years than it has been in your entire life-time, I highly recommend Chris Martenson's course, to be found here:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse

You are dabbling in the most serious legislation of your life this week-end. Do not misunderstand this: it is every bit as bad a proposal as when Bush wanted authorization to go into Iraq. He does NOT SERVE US. Please make sure that YOU do.
-----------
joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
court
oh thank god i feel so much better. only the supreme court can decide on these issues. boy i was worried there for awhile after all they did such a bang up job on the election in 2000.
joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
course
thanks chris i was going to ask you the same thing i hope the quality will still be good to project thru the computer. you the man.
joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
essay
WOW jrf great post. i wonder if my congress people are smart enough to understand it...... nah.
johndaniels's picture
johndaniels
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 30 2008
Posts: 31
Seat of the Pants Bailout...
Wall street cheers as the Government saves the day in a seat of the pants 700 billion (per time?) bailout.. I think our government has just exacerbated the problem, and assured that we go into a full blown depression. Heres why: "From ured.com: What probably wasn't factored was that the government (taxpayer) has to pay all the maintenance fees for these loser mortgages. As a result, the bailout will cost far, far more than they are projecting. Its not just bailing out the banks; the government is buying long term liabilities. All the fees; HOA's, insurance, utility assessments...the government gets to pay these bills in an environment of record inventories, nonexistent sales, and record foreclosures. This means we as taxpayers get a conglomerate of long term liabilities, outside of the base bailout costs. Disaster. Lets not bother to discuss the major government administration and human resource costs to manage the properties they (we) will now own. Property management and accounting are major, non productive expenses. Or, that the Government will only get the worst loans on the banks portfolio, the ones that have no chance of maturing. Yet they are still trying to sell to the populace that the Government can actually make money on this. Please, sell that stale government liars bread to the tourists. The fundamental fact is that housing is a liability. By taking on many thousands of homes in an inventory saturated environment, the costs for the government just skyrocketed. All this when there is a drastically reduced buyers pool, more stringent lending criteria, actual rates at over 6%, no speculation, and no expectation of year over year equity appreciation. Prime borrowers will realize they have been taken. We can expect more prime mortgage defaults will come as the government is forced to dump these houses to compensate for their vast new collection of housing liabilities! I bet they didnt factor that into their 700 billion number. Additionally, expect more and more unemployment as the government takes these homes over and doesnt pay the fees. This means less realty agents, less state tax revenues, less county jobs, and less housing and commercial related service jobs (like utility workers, pest control, pool men, gardeners, etc). This will all just result in a major unemployment spike that will insure Depression II is now inevitable. Unemployment becaue neither the sophisticated defaulting homeowner nor the government is going to pay the state taxes, city assessments, or other fees."
mcafeejs's picture
mcafeejs
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 22 2008
Posts: 34
write your congressman--if only to clear your conscience
Example email to congressman. go to https://forms.house.go... or http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm The Honorable Dave Weldon, Please oppose further intervention by the unelected Fed & Treasury during this financial crisis. Please oppose efforts that fix the symptoms of this crisis and not the causes. Please exhibit leadership to shift the debate to fix the causes of the crisis rather than addressing the symptoms making your decision around what happens decades from now rather than next week. I believe the symptoms to be exorbitant social security & medicare/medicaid liabilities, any budget deficit, failure to invest public funds in ventures which have even a hope of yielding a public & appreciable, & and a palatable lack of moral courage to accept facts. The facts of the situation are the rich made loans to unqualified poor and the Treasury's current plan will have the moral middle class pay for those decisions. The US gov't must acknowledge the wealth destruction that has already occurred and let those directly responsible live with the consequences of their decisions to include the foreign investors, otherwise we will follow Rome and Britain in the destruction of their middle class & subsequent collapse in financial ruin. Acknowledging this wealth destruction will indeed cause credit market to seize up as is necessary. Debt needs to become harder to obtain in the US because that is the most effective way to transform this nation into once again being a producing rather than consuming nation which is a root cause of this crisis. As an Iraq War veteran, I find it sad that while the Iraq war has cost us under $700B over the past 6 years, the FED/TREASURY has already spent $900B in the past 3 months. On that scale, this is civil war and I thought only congress could declare war. The unintended consequences of further government intervention are private individuals withdrawing wholesale from the now seemingly state-run markets, wholesale buying foreign currency and international stocks along with gold/silver, & ultimately moving to another country as citizens will choose to not subject their children to this national debt. /////////////////////////////////////// The Honorable Mel Martinez, Now that we U.S. citizens are part owners of such illusory enterprises as AIG and Fannie/Freddie, I would like you to initiate a lawsuit on behalf of your FL shareholders/constituents to obtain compensation for breach of contract by CEOs and CFOs who drew bonuses based on earnings that had to be restated. The link below provides more detail. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=amhY7f0W2igY&refer=home
joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
we will bury you
nikita khruschev 1962 "we will bury you" ben bernanke and hank paulson 2008 "we will bury you"
EndGamePlayer's picture
EndGamePlayer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 2 2008
Posts: 546
what crap CNN is trying to feed us
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/news/economy/the_threat_and_the_bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008092208 As for me - I'll be buying things closer to home and energy conserving items so I don't get caught up in the prices of energy when this finally blows up in their faces. Solar, wind, solar heat and ANYTHING that replaces my high energy consuming life!
izadorafinlay's picture
izadorafinlay
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2008
Posts: 1
bailout
question? is it naive to suggest letting the banks fail. let the people who made hundreds of millions from risky bets suffer the consequence by paying hefty taxes on all profits they have made . spend the money on infrastructure such as national health, small business incentives,college funds,education, roads/efficient rail, debt consolidation and relief,care for seniors , sure up social security and pensions ,enrergy solutions... for all of us. or preserve our economy the way it is and still suffer a contraction/depression, lost jobs ,no available credit,a worthless dollar, to keep consuming the way we have. we end up carrying $11,000 or more each, to supposedly save the economy. I personaly would love to have my debt erased from my books, wouldn't would you? would we not clamour to get that done if it were offered to us?
Lisa_P's picture
Lisa_P
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 20 2008
Posts: 2
Re: What the latest bailout plan means

The mortgage bailout deal would essentially make the taxpayers liable for
bad mortgage lending by private companies, but federal officials argued that
this was the best way of stemming the credit crisis. Investors worldwide hold
$5 trillion in debt backed by the two firms, and their failure would shake the
global economy.

In this current economic situation, there needs to be some kind of viable
way to repair credit lines and get the economy moving again.
Treasury Secretary Paulson’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or
TARP, doesn’t seem to cover enough. The FDIC’s
chairperson, Sheila Bair, has set up her own strategy; a $24 billion plus plan
for the 1.5 million homeowners facing foreclosure. Her idea is to give a
stimulus of $1,000 to lenders for each renegotiated loan to owners in danger of
heading to foreclosure. In the event of default, the FDIC will
take on up to half of the burden. Paulson hates it, straight away, and
proclaims that its just more spending that will lead to the bankruptcy of the FDIC.
Some others view Bair’s actions as one of the first real attempts to help repair
credit
of the banking system and get cash flowing again.

Click to read more on Credit Repair

mpelchat's picture
mpelchat
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 10 2008
Posts: 214
Re: What the latest bailout plan means

Let me get this straight in simple terms:

1. Banks make bad loans and bundled them to make them look good

2. Sell bundles (derivatives) to people that just flat out did not know what they where buying

3. Market keeps selling these derivatives kinda like playing hot potato.

4. Many banks took out insurance to protect from being burned through AIG.

5. When the music stopped ((loans defaulted at an alarming pace)), the people with the hot potatoes where getting burned. 

6. The Executives/owners of the "Big 5" banks ((the ones that are too big to fail and the ones that give together $1 to $2 million to many of our elected officials in the form of campaign funds not to mention all the perks from the lobbyists)) if by law they went into receivership would lose a lot of money and ipsofacto so do our elected officials, therefor all these new bills and acts to protect "some" banks have been crammed through our government. 

In the meanwhile, I think the count is 21 other banks have closed plus 16 or so credit unions and went through the normal process with the FDIC.

7. During all this the government and the Federal Reserve have pumped Billions if not Trillions of dollars through AIG to help them pay for the insurance they issued to the "Big 5" banks and other central banks around the world (Germany and England to name a couple) at 100% the value of the insurance.

NOTE: I need to remember that the money from the Fed is loan to the USA at interest.  We get to pay that too.

8. The acts in place allow the "Big 5" banks to sell to PI's (privet investors) on auction.  The Treasury (Government) match what the PI puts in and the Federal Reserve covers the rest ((oh yeah with interest to us)). 

9. With the recent lose of Mark to Market, the "Big 5" can auction these "investments" at any price they want too.

10. Furthermore, the PI's can be front companies owned in part by the "Big 5" even all of them at once, so if there is a lose the "Big 5" will only lose a very small % through these companies.  And these companies can be funded by bailout loans from October last year or from AIG money.  The "Big 5" can even boost that they paid back last years loan with the new plan's money only losing a faction when they should have lost, around 30 to 70%.

If there is and most-likely will be a lose the treasury and the Fed take the hit, leaving us to pay back the money to the Fed with interest.

11. Last but not least, I have seen nothing in all that I have read that the PI's need to sell immediately.  This in my opinion means the Fed and Treasury will not show a lose until the PI's sell them.  If sold slowly over alot of time or held until things get better, the Treasury and Fed may not see such a hard lose at once or lose much less.  We just pay interest on the loan from the Fed till time of sale.  Then the Fed can absorb the money back slowly without letting inflation go too crazy or spike too fast.

If the PI's sell all at once for whatever they can get, game overTreasury takes a hung hit on the books now ((more taxes or more money from the Fed, more interest)), and the Fed balance sheet goes off the charts ((if the sale can pay back the loan, we pay no more interest on the money lowering money in the system, hence not paying for a dead horse)).  This will send our money into high inflation or worse.

Have we not given the bankers the SHTF button?  They can press it at anytime with no lose to themselves or much less intensive than main-street will see.

I really want to hear others opinions on this one, maybe I am missing something.  Maybe this is too simple.  Worse off, maybe this is right.

 

smiriti's picture
smiriti
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 10 2009
Posts: 1
Very informative...

One of my friend was asking about this question...I will let him know about your article.Thanks for sharing.

Thanks,


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments