At the start of yesterday it sure looked like a goodly portion of House Republicans were ready to leap off the cliff of ideological purism in resisting a financial sector rescue package...potentially taking the head of the GOP ticket with them.
Media coverage had ID'd House Republicans as the remaining obstacle to a plan and as unwilling to budge on philosophical grounds. This was not well-received late in the game, and prompted Hugh Hewitt of all people to call the caucus out on the carpet for its failure to understand both the proposed deal and the implications.
This looked like a worst case scenario for Republicans, lose the policy war and the political fallout thanks to being fundamentally outmaneuvered on the PR front. Whatever the ideological merits of their arguments (which in many respects remain solid ideas for long-term economic policy), House Republicans had missed the boat on what was about to happen both economically and politically.
The economic impact looked catastrophic (with a credit "lockdown" already beginning). The political fallout, atrocious - making the aftermath of government shutdowns of 1995 look like good times for the GOP.
Charles Krauthammer summarized the dilemma well:
Congress has every duty to be careful with taxpayers' money and to suggest improvements in the administration plan. But part of Congress's reaction has nothing to do with improving the proposal and everything to do with assuaging the rage of constituents -- even if it jeopardizes the package's chances of success...
The problem was too many House Republicans appeared to going off of roughly the same playbook that their constituents were believing based on blurbs from the evening news: $700 billion "bailout" = fat checks written to rich guys in expensive suits.
Mercifully, word starting leaking that the caucus was coming around to the reality that the core of the Paulson plan has to be an integral component to this deal. Indeed, it would appear Larry Kudlow may have done some yeoman's work explaining the true reality of both the plan and its impact if enacted (or not) to reluctant Members. Indeed, his post describing matters indicates a number of holdouts still didn't understand either what had happened in the credit markets or what the outcome would be of Congress not trying to clean up the mess it played a big part in making.
For now it appears a deal is in progress, and some worthy components of what House Republicans were bringing to the table will likely be included. And certainly there will be opportunities in the coming months for broader, ongoing debates about economic policy and the best course for the federal government to take.
For now, however, the short-term problem is still all about addressing the psychological problem affecting the financial sector:
The primary importance of a deal, almost any deal, is its immediate effect on investor confidence, to prevent things like massive bank failures, a run on the money market funds and a freeze of the commercial paper markets, which would collapse the stock market and lead to Very Bad Things. Even if this might be the healthiest solution in the longest run, we are at the point of a potentially massive short-term system failure with huge real-world consequences for millions of Americans.[snip]
All the policy arguments in the world can't stop a herd of frightened investors from stampeding off a cliff, and will do us no good at the bottom.
Pleasantly, it appears that House Republicans got an admirable wake-up call to avoid the self-immolation into which they had almost been maneuvered.
UPDATE: some commenters, representative of a notable voice in the conservative community, point out public opinion as expressed to Members of Congress is overwhelming against the package.
True.
But asking the lay voter to have a full understanding of what's at stake here and what the deal actually contains is liking taking a public poll on the details of the national intelligence budget: very few average citizens have enough information on the topic to make an informed decision.
This is why our Founders established a "representative democracy" rather than a pure democracy. Sometimes, those representatives have to take tough votes. They have to deal with issues being as respectful and understanding of public opinion as possible, but ultimately their task is to assess the totality of information in front of them and make the best decision possible - not just depend on a public opinion poll to determine their votes.
Case in point: how many Americans actually understand the mechanics of why the Great Depression unfolded the way it did? How many have a working knowledge today of what a virtual freeze of the credit markets means to business activity around America, with resulting economic consequences? Answer to both: not many.
For now, Congress created much of this problem through the allowed (and encouraged) excess of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spreading now unstable investment instruments throughout our financial system. Thus, Congress played a big role in distorting the market. Consequently, Congress has to play a role in remedying the problem.
That stinks, but it's still better than Great Depression 2.0.
UPDATE II: I should also add that I think commenters whose first reaction is to disagree with the post - as is their right - should be sure to read Larry Kudlow's post linked above.
It is apparent that significant portions of the American public and even Congress itself don't actually understand what the core of the financial sector rescue plan accomplishes. Kudlow does as good a job as any of laying out what it does and does not entail in concise fashion.
UPDATE III: I've enjoyed the feedback from commenters that disagree with me on this issue, in this thread and others. Thanks for making the debate thorough.
It is my impression, however, that as a general rule many of those with strong concerns with the plan in question still don't grasp that this isn't the "gift to business" that my less than dear friend "Hinton" describes in the comments.
We can argue about the pros and cons of the approach the House Republicans took throughout the course of this, but ultimately what passes Congress - probably with at least 100 House Republican votes - will look more like a modified Paulson plan than a version of what House Republicans broached late last week.
More importantly, those that say we should do nothing, or something close to it, are whistling past Dixie. Rich Lowry extracted an exceptionally relevant passage from an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal:
The critics have many good arguments, not least that neither the current Treasury nor the Federal Reserve inspire great confidence. Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke have practiced ad hoc-ery for 13 months, piling up serial bailouts only to watch the panic get worse. They are finally attacking the problem in a systemic way, however, and with enough resources to begin repairing the larger damage. The execution risks are real, as in any government exercise, but the risks of doing nothing are just as real for the economy and for believers in free markets.Above all, the risk is that the current panic will damage the overall economy and lead to a deep recession that causes a further decline in housing values and continues a spiral to even greater financial problems. The libertarian blogs are full of tut-tutting that the economy has held up surprisingly well, and for a year we've been arguing the same thing. But there's no guarantee this will continue, especially as unemployment climbs and as evidence grows that banking distress is squeezing credit to small and big business alike. Credit spreads over Treasurys are back at agonizing levels, as investors and lenders flee from even plain vanilla risks.
Nobel economics laureate Gary Becker is no alarmist, but this week he wrote on his blog, "I have reluctantly concluded that substantial intervention was justified to avoid a major short-term collapse of the financial system that could push the world economy in a major depression." Anyone who thinks that capitalism will fare better after a crash should recall that the 1930s didn't end politically until 1980.
That's a turn in history I think we'd rather not repeat.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 27, 2008 10:03 AM | Email ThisThe House Democrats have the votes to just pass whatever they, as the majority party, want. And they were planning on just forcing agreement via the "The Sky is Falling" argument. In the House, there aren't nearly as many tools for being obstructionist as in the Senate. To the point that the whole "House Republicans are making this fail!" argument is ridiculous.
MINORITY party.
Posted by: Al on September 27, 2008 10:15 AMhttp://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253762/rge_conference_call_on_the_economic_and_financial_outlookand_why_the_treasury_tarp_bailout_is_flawed
Posted by: shane on September 27, 2008 10:22 AMHouse and Senate members' phone lines and e-mails are burning up with people who oppose a bailout. Any bailout.
It's not 'ideological purism'; it's opposition to the idea of bailing out crooks who screwed up.
Posted by: jimg on September 27, 2008 10:27 AMFrom an AP story on this reckless bailout:
Aides to lawmakers in both parties say telephone calls from constituents are running heavily against the bailout — in some cases nearly 100-1 against, making the vote a potentially tricky one for a candidate in a competitive race.100 to 1 against. We got into this mess by borrowing money so we could spend more than we take in, both individually and as a nation. And we're supposed to believe that the solution to our problems is to borrow more money?
All this bailout will do is prolong the pain. If you want a 5-year correction, drop the bailout. If you want a 20+ year correction, then by all means, lets throw trillions of dollars we don't have at the problem.
Please feel free to correct this statement.
and everything to do with assuaging the rage of constituents
And this is wrong, how? Because we're not smart enough to know a pig in a poke when we see it?
Posted by: jimg on September 27, 2008 10:34 AMEric,
Do you agree with the media when they say the House republicans were resisting on philisophical grounds? If yes, what philosphy was it they were resting on?
Posted by: Lysander on September 27, 2008 10:42 AMThis was David Boze's homepage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
I won't comment. You can watch it for yourself and come to your own conclusion.
Posted by: Silkworm on September 27, 2008 10:48 AMThere is a difference between negotiating effectively and getting rolled. The House R's were teetering on the edge of the later as of late Thursday. They weren't negotiating, they were saying "no" to the central premise of the deal itself.
Now, they - or at least their leadership - have figured out that a) the core components of their plan wouldn't actually address the problem of a credit market freeze (especially in the short term) and b) they're getting more of what they want included be agreeing to that basic starting point.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 27, 2008 10:50 AMACORN's housing efforts are a major part of the problem we're facing now. They demanded the kinds of loans that are now failing by the thousands, if not tens of thousands.
Like John Stossel said: You trust government to get us out of this? These people can't even count votes, and you expect them to fix this?
No, John.... I don't. And neither should anyone else.
Posted by: Hinton on September 27, 2008 10:50 AMThe fact the Ds are insisting upon getting R votes so they can spread bi-partisan blame is proof enough to me that this 'deal' sucks.
I honestly couldn't care less about negotiations. At some point somebody needs to step up and say, 'Enough.' And if not now, when?
Posted by: jimg on September 27, 2008 11:12 AMhttp://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/the-democratic-acorn-bailout/
This c*%p is why I am against this debacle. I hope the Rs hold out and keep this garbage out of any bail out. We will have to go through some chaos while we come up with a real solution but America will be better for it.
Posted by: Silkworm on September 27, 2008 11:18 AMKrauthammer? Hewitt?
What the hell do they know?
Here are several economists on the matter:
http://mises.org/story/3128
Posted by: Pete on September 27, 2008 11:22 AMMy congressman is Baghdad Jim so I always vote against him-whether he votes on it or not.
Posted by: LCRW on September 27, 2008 11:31 AM1) It won't work. The size of the frozen credit markets dwarfs 700 Billion.
2) The bailout isn't a plan: it is vague, illogical concept with no chance of success. First, if the treasury isn't going to buy those assets at premium to what investors are already willing to pay, then the bailout will not help and has no point. If the treasury does pay a premium, then how much and to whom does it pay? Ignoring the implications of giving out free money to the banks responsible for this mess, how in the world will the premium be fairly distributed? Can we really, even with safeguards, give that kind of authority one man?
3) US can't afford it. We are fast approaching the point where the world will act as though the US has lost its AAA credit rating. If congress passes the bailout and is forced to back out of it later to save itself, the collapse of Wall Street will be far more destructive than if congress does nothing.
4) "It will get worse without a bailout". This is not only WRONG, but also incredibly CONCEITED. Just because YOU would be better off with this bailout doesn't mean that applies to the rest of us. Stop and think about the nature of this bailout:
a) it won't create jobs
b) it won't help Americans who are losing their homes
c) it won't help deal with rising costs (it will make it worse actually)
d) it won't reduce the tax burden (again, it will make this worse)
So, what is the purpose of this bailout? The purpose is to preserve wealth. The biggest beneficiary of this bailout will be America's richest 1%, who will see their wealth preserved, and the losers are everyone else.
(For example, Last week Warren Buffett invested 5 billion in Goldman at 10% interest, counting taxpayer to prevent the firm from going under. Without a bailout, Goldman will fail and Buffet will lose most of his 5 billion. With the bailout, Buffet not only keeps his 5 billion but also gets 500 million interest a year courtesy of the taxpayer, paid by you and me.)
5) It will cause inflation. Do you understand how badly middle/lower class Americans are suffering because of rising food, gas, and heating costs? This bailout offers the guaranteed, crushing pain of higher prices for Main Street while offering a small unlikely chance to save Wall Street.
6) This bailout jeopardizes social security. How can sacrificing Social Security to bail out the ultrarich ever be justified?
7) It would set a terrible precedence for public servants:
"Fail miserably and wait for the last minute right before an election to spring the ugly surprise to congress. As a reward, lawmakers will give you 700 billion in free cash to be divided among your Wall Street buddies in any way you see fit with little supervision."
8) It is morally repugnant. The reason wall street needs the bailout in the first place is that main street is suffering terribly. Job losses, foreclosures, and rising costs are killing the average American, and this pain has now filtered up to Wall Street. Wall Street's answer is to increase Main Street's pain in order to save itself. This is sick and wrong.
---
Nothing anyone says will ever make me accept an expensive, harmful, and immoral bailout that is guarantied not to work. I will vote against anyone who supports it.
Posted by: Eric deCarbonnel on September 27, 2008 11:32 AM"There is a difference between negotiating effectively and getting rolled."
The House Republicans weren't consulted. There was even audio of Nancy Pelosi chuckling over the thought of consulting with them over this. They (and we) were completely getting shafted, and it had nothing to do with how well the HR's were negotiating.
Posted by: Al on September 27, 2008 11:52 AMI never said they were being treated fairly; welcome to life in the minority sometimes.
Where they were getting rolled was on the PR front. They didn't have a plan that anyone else viewed as viable and had allowed themselves to be painted into the corner of being the only holdouts on the deal. Whether that's what actually happened or not, that was the public perception, and their poor communication strategy during the bulk of last week almost led to them being the scapegoats had a deal collapsed.
Nothing good would have come from that.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 27, 2008 12:21 PMAnd here are two thought-provoking links from the website of Rush Limbaugh:
and
If this $700 billion bailout is such a good "investment," it is not necessary - because in that case, letting the market work would eventually bring forth those investors.
If this $700 billion bailout is not a good "investment," it won't become a worthwhile investment just because the taxpayers are put on the hook.
Instead of dropping a $700 billion bill on the taxpayers, we should face the current economic challenges with long-term and fundamental solutions that promote economic growth and increased flow of capital investment.
We need to lower corporate taxes, sharply reduce the size of government, reverse the negative economic effects of illegal immigration, and reverse the negative economic effects of dependence on Mideast oil.
To read my campaign policy statements on taxes, spending, and the economy, go to
Lower Taxes, Increase Liberty, Reduce Poverty
and
Cut Spending, Reduce the Deficit, Balance the Budget, and Limit the Size of Government
Posted by: Steve Beren for Congress on September 27, 2008 12:39 PMhttp://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=103884
Posted by: Michele on September 27, 2008 12:48 PMYes. And the job of the minority party is not to cut deals with the majority. Its job is to make the majority look as foolish as possible and to make their life as miserable as possible. And if they manage to get a few token gestures in the process, that's gravy. I know. Spent several years in the minority.
Believe it or not a bi-partisan solution is simply another term for giving the Ds what they want and if things go south, Rs get blamed. See: NCLB
Again, if this is such a good thing, why aren't the Ds running it out there and voting on it themselves? Blaming the minority party for 'blocking' something is lame and lazy. And far too many people fall for it.
And you keep mentioning how they were getting killed PR wise. According to whom? People who favor the bailout? Because from what I read, saw and heard the only ones getting kudos from the public at large were the House Rs for holding this up.
Sorry, Eric. You're seriously misreading this.
Posted by: jimg on September 27, 2008 01:20 PMGOP stay away from this mess, let the lib's hang themself's.
Don't touch it or the dem's well blame you when it fails.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 27, 2008 03:06 PMBecause they know it is a sham, and they want to be able to blame conservatives.
Yet another insult to the intelligence of the American voter.
Posted by: Independent Voter on September 27, 2008 03:12 PMLeftists typically use that reasoning to justify almost everything. Eric, apparently, is no exception.
I don't happen to believe that Eric is gifted with a greater political understanding of this or any other issue then the understanding of the people in general.
Clearly, we do not want a $700 billion gift to business that couldn't handle the situation before they got stuck on stupid.
This nonsensical idea that our position in this issue is too ignorant, that we are, somehow, incapable of achieving the high level of understanding exhibited by Eric is a crock. In fact, it is political arrogance of the highest level. And now is not the time.
The American people HAVE to buy off on this package. The dems know that, or else they wouldn't give a rip what the minority says or wants. They know that if they went out on this limb without our support, the American people will rise up and cut it off behind them.
We have that type of utter nonsense in Vancouver. The mayor wanted a Hilton. The voters TWICE tried to get the question on the ballot. TWICE the city sued to silence the voters. Now, we have a Hilton... and in order to get it, the city had to GUARANTEE they'd make a profit every year.
So, since this thing was built, guess what?
No profit.
And where has that money come from?
The downtown mafia had Eric's attitude: they said we didn't know what the hell we were talking about, and not only should we not have had a say, they actually SUED US INTO SILENCE.
They told us: "If you don't like it, you can always vote the mayor and the rest out."
Well, what the hell good would THAT do? Would that "unbuild" the Hilton that taxpayers have now subsidized with millions?
No.
So, yes, we have a "representative democracy." But when the stakes are this high, it is the duty of our government to LISTEN to us. Because even if we voted them all out... we couldn't "unbuild" a $700 billion giveaway.
Further, if the government ignores us on this... then they can, using Eric's arguments, ignore us on ANYTHING. And I wore the uniform too damned long to allow that.
Posted by: Hinton on September 27, 2008 03:53 PMRight now, nobody really knows how many good or bad mortgages are in these bonds and this has created the market freeze. A private investor will not touch these bonds until they can see what is inside so they can determine the risk and therefore properly price. The main problem is the lack of transparency and nobody knowings exactly what is in these bonds. We have to get the bonds off of the corporate books so the banking system does not collapse and give some time (which we don't currently have) to pick these deals apart, sell them and then put in place regulation so this never happens again.
Posted by: JK on September 27, 2008 04:17 PMIn 1982, Washington State Senator (later Congressman) Jack Metcalf, along with six other Republican senators and six Democrat senators, co-sponsored and passed Engrossed Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 127 in the 47th Legislature, Second Extraordinary Session, challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve System, and requiring its independent audit. One dozen states also commenced similar proceedings to audit the Fed or repeal the Federal Reserve Act.
Metcalf blazed the trail before the internet was available, unfortunately the Fed is still extant. When this topic becomes de rigueur on political websites, the dominoes will start to fall. There is ample legislative precedent to reference in future efforts to abolish the Fed, implement the federal issuance of currency based on economic growth, and hold elected officials accountable.
Most political battles and conflicts are secondary to this one; some even say they are diversionary.
#1 These homeowners are not making their payments; that is why the CURRENT bonds behind these mortgages are in distress. 10-12% interest? WHAT! Not from mortgages.
#2 The bonds behind the homeowners making their payments are not at the same risk. These are not the bonds the government proposes to buy.
#3 As a banker you should know that there is no investment that guarantees a profit so there is more downside risk with these bad bonds than upside. Our government is taking a huge risk but their backup is that they can raise our taxes.
The only regulation we need is to abolish the Community Reinvestment Act.
You could have stopped right there. Didn't need to read anything else to know your position.
If these bonds are such a great deal why doesn't the free market buy them? 10-12% is pretty good return, you would think investors would be lining up to buy these, so why don't they? Because your full of it and so is Bernanke. The taxpayers are going to overpay for these bonds in order to recapitalize the rotten banks that caused this mess.
Posted by: shane on September 27, 2008 04:55 PMBasically, all the people who didn't go crazy and get debt they couldn't afford are going to pick up the tab for the irresponsible people. Is this really the incentive we want to provide?
Furthermore, if this fails, who will bail out the government? There are hard days coming, let's not make them even harder by digging the hole deeper.
Posted by: pbj on September 27, 2008 05:21 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/a_paulson_cantor_plan_is_a_win_win_for_taxpayers
This is how these things work, they are not working now because nobody knows what kind of mortgages back these securities....why? because there is no transparency on wall street. We will win, you just got to listen to the experts, not the politicians.
Now you are getting to the real problem. How does this bailout solve that? It doesn't, all it does is provide more smoke and mirrors to hide the real value of things.
Kudlow is the type I mentioned in my first post. Never saw this coming but thinks he knows the answer. Kudlow is another CNBS pump monkey who should be ignored, just like Cramer. There are lots of experts out there who disagree with this bailout, you and Eric just choose to ignore them in favor of people like Paulson and Bernanke, who have been spectacularly wrong about the health of our economy over the last year and a half.
Posted by: shane on September 27, 2008 06:22 PMFor example, the idea of appointing a special prosecutor is very appealing.
But in a situation like this, where the people in charge of our government can't lay politics aside for even a disaster like this and run all of this through the "what's best for the country" filter before they act, instead of their single-minded focus on running it through the "what political advantage can I (or my party... or both) gain from this situation" filter, I have to pause. I have to question. I have to wonder: these folks in charge now... were in charge during the development of this debacle... AND THEY LET IT HAPPEN.
The idea that ANYONE would rely on their judgment now, when it was their judgment that got us into this in the first place, simply boggles the imagination.
Eric, you would have us believe that this course of action, manufactured by the SAME people (Wasn't it House Financial Services Chair Barney Frank who told us in 2005 that there was no problem? That this was all exaggerated?) who got us into this in the FIRST place; will somehow magically be cured by wasting $700 BILLION in a risky scheme that amounts to a give-away to the same companies that got us into this under the incompetent leadership of both parties that now confronts us?
Not.
Hardly.
If these people had a clue, we wouldn't be confronted with the situation we now have. We wouldn't be in this in the first place.
They had their shot as part of the "representative democracy" argument that you are so enamored of. We depended on them to keep this from happening to us. We needed them to do the job that you would NOW suggest that magically, miraculously, you believe them capable of doing.
it's these SAME PEOPLE, Eric. How many times, and in how many ways, will you allow them to do harm to us, to injure us, to hurt us in so many ways before you begin to question their motives as well as their outcomes?
These people KNEW. And they did NOTHING. And now you would somehow trust that THIS time, they'll get it right?
No, Eric. They should have got it right the FIRST time. This isn't an argument over which color to paint the senate cloak room. This is an action that must undo the damage THESE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO BE DONE.
"Substantial intervention" should mean the recall of all of those involved. We should be DEMANDING the resignation of every one of these people. They had a responsibility to US...
... and they, all of them... each and every one of them who kept silent and failed to act to keep this inevitable disaster from taking place...
... failed us. They failed all of us.
And you would trust them to act in our best interests?
Since when? They haven't shown themselves capable of it in this matter... but you, Eric, somehow seem to believe that they'll mysteriously get the "right stuff" and do what has to be done.
Well, they won't. Even now, they're incapable of doing what needs to be done. Otherwise, the dems would steam-roll the opposition, and do what had to be done REGARDLESS of the political consequences.
But they're not putting their country first... they're putting POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES first. And that's why they lack the guts to do this without Republican cover.
I'm not interested in their words. I'm interested in their actions. And by any measure, our government's actions both in allowing this to happen and in reacting to it have been utterly abysmal.
They should listen to us, Eric. Because so far, there's a huge argument that by listening to us...
... they couldn't do worse.
Posted by: Hinton on September 27, 2008 07:50 PMKudlow is so full of crap it is coming out of his mouth! To hear him tell it, we should be asking ourselves why we didn't have things go to hell in a hand basket sooner.
I bet Mr Kudlow has some scheme to profit if the government throws $700 billion into scam street.
Posted by: pbj on September 27, 2008 09:52 PMyou may be a banker but by definition you are not a free market capilist if you support a 700 billion dollar bailout of your industry. that makes you more of a mercantilist.
Posted by: Lysander on September 28, 2008 06:33 AMRon Paul (R-TX) recently proposed elliminating the fed as well. I agree with you it is an essential part of any real solution to this problem.
I suggest everyone call their congressmen and ask them to support Paul's bill.
ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE (H.R. 2755)
We need more legislation than just abolishing the CRA. We also need to support ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE (H.R. 2755). And we also need to return to a gold standard. And lastly we need to have a balanced budget legislation.
Unfortunately neither McCain or Obama will move us forward very far on any of these.
Posted by: Lysander on September 28, 2008 06:39 AMPage 9 line 17…
Why not limit the purchase of assets to 50% or less of what purchasers paid for asset? Don’t we want to establish a base, so our markets won’t collapse? Why pay 100 cents on the dollar? Why insure 100 cents on the dollar? We want to encourage Market to right itself, yes investors will lose money otherwise the taxpayers pay the bill… Where is our free market? Not so free today…
Page 15 line 23…
“Board” shall be comprised of— these are the same guys whom got us to where we are today… The “Board” should be replaced with members of the below “Panel Members”. The Fed Chairman, the SEC Chairman doesn’t deserve a place at the table.
(1) The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
(2) The Secretary; the Director of the Federal Home Finance Agency;
(4) The Chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission; and
(5) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
Page 71 line 21… Replace the “Board” with the “Panel” Members
The Oversight Panel shall consist of 5 members, as follows:
(A) 1 member appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(B) 1 member appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives.
(C) 1 member appointed by the majority leader of the Senate.
(D) 1 member appointed by the minority leader of the Senate.
(E) 1 member appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the majority leader of the Senate, after consultation with the minority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the House of Representatives.
Page 68 line 8…
An increase in statutory limit on public debt to 11,315,000,000,000
Page 85 line 13
Confidentiality as requested of the Chairman of the Board? We need as much transparences as possible, don’t you think?
Page 88 line 8
Why suspend Market-to-Market Accounting? And why, should we protect investors confidentiality, shouldn’t be any different than any other public sale on the court house steps, right?
The sale of any assets or securities should only be at public auctions and not sold in the good-old-boy network.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Posted by: Jim T. on September 28, 2008 08:06 PMTommorrow, the stock market may fall 200+ pts simply because the whizzes at the treasury and Reid and Pelosi Punted. We'll be back again next year, bailing out more and more.
JP Morgan/Chase are going to get rich, I just have to wonder which Senators are in their pockets. They could have easily solved this situation by easing credit:capital requirements on the banks for a couple months, instead they forced guys like WAMU, Lehman, etc. to go under so they'd have to sell out for pennies to Morgan/Chase. Unbelievable.
Posted by: Doug on September 28, 2008 10:33 PM