The more I read about Hank Paulson’s proposed bailout, the more I’m outraged by its audacity. I’m not denying that something needs to be done quickly to shore up our financial institutions: by most accounts it sounds like many are hanging on by a thread, now inadequately capitalized to sustain the losses caused by the greed and poor judgment of their management and investors. However, the call to ram through without question a bill that would vest sole authority in the Treasury Department to take and apply hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, with no oversight and no accountability, is shameless.
If Congress permits this administration to pass this latest excuse for an emergency measure without some major revisions, then to an extent we get what we deserve: an executive branch that, despite the clear separation of powers enumerated in our Constitution, will have amassed all power under its own roof. How would the Founding Fathers have felt about that? I’d like to think that even that serpentine proponent of originalism, Justice Scalia, would see a problem here. Where are the checks and balances? Why does Congress keep rolling over for this president, when almost all the citizens of this country are in agreement that he is stupid, feckless, rash, and ill equipped to make good decisions for this country? His track record is abysmal. Why would we let him change the entire face of American capitalism, and of American government, before he shambles out of office? The prospect is ridiculous.
Apparently Congress is at least grilling the money boys on their plan. However, they’ve asked questions of this administration before, only to capitulate, mewling pathetically, in the end. The stakes are too high, and the timing is too suspect, for Congress to let this happen again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Our new plan of attack... when talking to "conservatives" (Evangelicals), we get them riled up that they have nobody to trust anymore after Bush, and that McCain isn't a true conservative anyway.
Then slip in that they should vote for Bob Barr on the Liberatarian ticket. Now there is a true conservative!
It is funny to watch their eyes glaze over and they get all excited.
This will get Obama 2 to 3 extra points. They don't even know they are really giving Obama their vote.
Hopefully Congress will grow a backbone and deny giving Bush everything he wants for a change.
From what I am coming to understand, the markets were thisclose to collapse on Thursday, as liquidity had all but completely dried up-- thus the emergency meeting and the dramatic changes. I think the bailout plan was a necessary evil to keep potentially cataclysmic domestic and then global market failure at bay. As you stated in your previous post, can we be *sure* that the market would collapse? Maybe not 100%, but it seemed a reasonable, if not probably outcome. This emergency money and the expediency it requires seems to demand a lack of stipulations at this point: I don't think we can risk allowing our economy to further stall out and finally heave its last sigh while our elected representatives debate and posture and quest for soundbites to use in their upcoming elections.
I am disappointed and dismayed that we are about to spend a trillion dollars to save our asses. It strikes at the heart of capitalism, a system in which I truly believe. No system is perfect however, and I recognize that the risk of letting things run their course without immediate action could be devastating now... and for the next generation. But it kills me that future generations will be financing this market failure.
I have a question for you though: what type of oversight would you like to see in this situation?
NO stipulations? I can't get my head around how it is appropriate to give one person authority over that much money with no accountability. Maybe you can argue the accountability is to the President, to the American public, but certainly with this president that would mean nothing.
It's not just oversight I would like to see, it's some of the same stipulations that your candidate and mine have suggested in the last couple of days: for banks that avail themselves of these funds, no golden parachutes for CEOs and a taxpayer stake in the companies so that if the companies rebound the return is to the American public.
As for oversight, it really is a tough one, because I agree that "too much" oversight is a potential hamstring on action that needs to be taken. However, I don't think it's too much to insist that the secretary's actions be subject to later review by Congress and the courts. We don't live in a dictatorship - yet. Also, why does the number have to start so high? Why can't we say $100 billion dollars, and a bipartisan commission can review at each new request for another $100 billion? That would keep me from feeling like this is such an unfettered potential abuse of our system.
There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday about how Sweden faced this same crisis in 1992 and how they dealt with it. There was a bailout, but the government required that it would take an equity interest in any bank taking $$. The support the government provided gave confidence to the markets, and the fear of having government running the show caused some of the banks to find it within themselves to reorganize without government aid. The whole process was deemed a success. So it seems to me it's not unreasonable to insist on some of these factors in the US as well - because it's always SOME emergency with these folks.
"It's not just oversight I would like to see, it's some of the same stipulations that your candidate and mine have suggested in the last couple of days: for banks that avail themselves of these funds, no golden parachutes for CEOs and a taxpayer stake in the companies so that if the companies rebound the return is to the American public."
Seems fair and reasonable to me-- especially nixing the golden parachutes.
The Swedish solution sounds really interesting... I'd be inclined to investigate it, as long as any profits generated by these banks which the gov't "owned" were returned back to the people by way of (1) repaying the original debt (no financing of wars or social programs) and/or (2) return the money to the taxpayers in the form of rebates.
See? We have mostly worked this out. Bipartisanship can work when it's not a bunch of self-serving a**holes running the asylum.
Post a Comment