by Deb Cupples | The first words that popped into my head were "You've got to be kidding." Yesterday, the New York Times reported:
"Bipartisan support appeared to be emerging Sunday among American lawmakers to give quick approval to a vast bailout of financial institutions....
"The Bush administration has proposed granting unfettered authority for the Treasury Department to buy up to $700 billion in distressed mortgage-related assets from private firms...."
Let's get past the fancy language: "Distressed mortgage-related assets" means assets that aren't worth as much as we taxpayers might end up paying for them. Economist Paul Krugman explained the plan as "having taxpayers pay premium prices for lousy assets."
I understand the need for our government to intervene, so as to prevent economic calamity.
But why is the Bush Administration insisting that no strings or requirements be tied to the generous gift from us taxpayers to those Wall Street firms that recklessly (if not fraudulently) drove our nation's economy to the brink?
We taxpayers need some sort of protection. And what about accountability? Shouldn't the people who greedily caused all these problems have to contribute to the solutions?
And what about preventing future problems? Shouldn't government officials figure out what went wrong and establish sensible regulations to prevent such things from going wrong again?
The New York Times also reported:
"[S]enior lawmakers put forward some of their own ideas for rescuing the nation’s financial system — including greater Congressional oversight, more direct assistance for homeowners, and restraints on the pay of top executives."
That's what I want to hear. It's nice that some taxpayer-funded politicians are actually bothering to consider the interests of us taxpayers.
But how far will that go?
Already, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (an ex-Wall Street executive, incidentally) are trying to quickly push through the bailout plan, and they don't seem to want Congress to take care of us ordinary taxpayers, establish greater oversight, or hold Wall Street execs accountable.
Another red flag is the sales job, which reminds me of the Bush Administration's Iraq-war sales job. Yesterday, according to Bloomberg, Mr. Paulson ran the talk-show circuit "to build public support" for the massive bailout.
He told Fox, for example, "'We want this to be clean, we want this to be quick.'"
In other words, Mr. Paulson thinks Congress should simply rush-approve the plan without taking time to achieve greater oversight and accountability.
He told Met the Press that "`This is not a position where I like to see the taxpayer, but it is far better than the alternative.'''
That misleadingly sounds as though there are only two alternatives: 1) give corporate miscreants $700 billion with no strings attached, or 2) face economic disaster.
As senior congressional Democrats have pointed out, there is a third alternative: bail out our economy while attaching strings and ensuring both greater oversight and accountability.
If the Bush Administration's plan is the right thing to do, why did Mr. Paulson devote precious time to spinning the issue to people who watch Fox or Meet the Press?
Why didn't Mr. Paulson instead devote that precious time to figuring out how to protect us taxpayers by ensuring greater oversight and accountability?
Memeorandum has commentary.
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* Executives Skate out of Disaster with Millions
* Skeptics Question the $700 Billion Bailout
* The Virtually Undebated Plan to Save the Economy
* Economic Crisis: Sen. Clinton Nails it (video)
* Hoping Congress REally Thinks Through "Solutions" to Economic Crises
*
Comments