« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

A Tale of Two Bailouts: One From Paulson, and One From Congress

Let The Backside-Covering Begin!

Well, the sausage factory worked overtime this weekend. What a bizarre result we got.

Secretary Paulson came to Capitol Hill about ten days ago with a very simple, three-page plan to do something I could describe in three paragraphs.

Congressional Democrats gave us over one hundred pages of additional weirdness that is either ineffectual, noxious, off the point, or will work against the goals of the original Paulson plan.

Congressional Republicans clawed back a lot of the weirdness, and added in some weirdness of their own.

In the meantime, the public was led to believe that their pockets were being picked in order to make a small group of exceptionally wealthy men even wealthier. If you really believed that, then why would you even consider supporting this plan? The fear of losing their jobs is what made the Congressional leadership act as they did.


It never made any sense to propose thoroughgoing alternatives to the Paulson plan. There just wasn’t time to do so. The original plan had been the Treasury’s red-button emergency plan for about six weeks now. They cracked the seals on it at a moment of dire stress, when global money markets looked set to melt down and freeze paychecks all over the world, in the wee hours of the morning of September 18.

The plan was limited in scope, conceptually very simple, and targeted at a single, highly-leveraged pressure point in the global financial system. It was a lot like hacking out the source of a festering infection that has started to threaten the rest of the body.

What did anyone think? That in just a few days, with the pressure on, that a lot of not-disinterested people would be able to walk in with better ways to do the same thing, than the people whose job it is to stay on top of the financial system every hour of every day?

Let’s be completely clear about what Congressional Democrats and Republicans did.

They started with a list of objections to the Paulson plan, and a list of unrelated legislative priorities. These included, among other things: punishing executives of failing financial firms; giving taxpayers a direct upside from the recovery of the financial system; making the bailout fully risk-free for taxpayers; giving Congress the opportunity to second-guess and modify the plan later; satisfying the demands of the AFL-CIO, which popped up with a laundry-list of extraneous items they’ve been trying to enact for years; allowing overextended homeowners to avoid foreclosure; and funding left-wing activist groups.

Then, in a marathon of acrimonious negotiations, Congress added some version of all of these things and more. Paulson and his negotiating team from Treasury were concerned above all that they retain the ability to execute the core of the original proposal. In case you’d forgotten, that was to borrow money from global investors to buy distressed mortgage securities, and either hold those to maturity or sell them at a profit.

So it appears that the Treasury negotiators were basically successful. As far as I can tell, the sausage makers kept in some version of almost all of their weird extras, but softened each one to the point that it would have little effect in the real world.

All Congress really wants is to be able to say they did all of these little things. Not that they did them in a way that will mean anything to anyone. And these meaningless extras will become the focus of the news reporting about the bailout.

This wasn’t an exercise in intelligent legislation. It was an exercise in butt-covering ahead of an election.

And everyone in Congress knows it, too. That’s why they’re all hanging their heads, saying that this was something they had to do, even though they all think it’s just dreadful.

Congress’s priority now will be to sell the bailout as a valiant response, lovingly written and carefully directed by our very own Dear Leader, Barack Obama, to a problem caused by eight years of evil Republicanism.

Heck, if it keeps everyone’s attention away from the implementation of the actual bailout itself, I guess that could even be a good thing.

In the end, Paulson will get authorization for his plan, with a few warts on it (including having the funds authorization broken into three pieces), and he should be able to proceed to implementation.

If you want to know what all of Congress’s extraneous priorities were here, you need look no farther than the upcoming public statements of Barack Obama. Throughout the early stages of the legislative miasma, early last week, Obama’s statements were elliptical, content-free expressions of concern. He didn’t really know what to think. But he knew from long experience that when he has nothing to say, the way he says it makes people think he’s the smartest man in the world.

So now Obama is taking credit for all the sausage that got added to the bailout plan. No word on whether he thinks the original core idea was any good or not. Hey, if it gets you elected President of the United States, you do it, right?

Whoever said America deserves the leadership it gets, was right on the money.

Market reaction this Monday morning is muted but mostly negative. The Chinese are not trading due to a holiday. Japan is down about 1%.

A major developing story in Europe is that three large financial institutions with exposure to real estate makets have failed and are being rescued by government regulators this morning. This crisis is growing. It isn’t just for Americans anymore.

There is an additional point related to monetary policy that is worthy of mention, and in fact deserves its own post.

The bailout legislation immediately gives Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke something he asked for two years ago, and was originally scheduled to get in 2011.

Starting next month, the Fed will now be able to pay interest on the deposits (reserves) that all banks are required to maintain with the Fed in order to ensure their solvency. Other central banks already have this ability.

This is a very technical point of monetary management, worth a longer explanation, but it basically means that the Fed will have an easier time adding liquidity when necessary, without creating unwanted inflationary pressure.

-Francis Cianfrocca

COMMENTS

  • VolunteerPride

    This failure to act responsibly will destroy the worldwide banking system and with it the fiat currency of modern nations. As it is written. Mt 24:34. Today is the Feast of Trumpets.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    This entire sordid, shameful affair end up at the doorstep of Hank Paulson. Unless things have changes at Treasury, he has the ultimate responsibility in these matters. Where are his video clips and memorable quotes saying this was coming? Not to be found and victim of the same political proclivities that gave us forced lending regulations ultimately leading to the Fannie/Freddie debacle which started this crash.

    Paulson had a plan ready to be unsealed? That?s nice. He is either very na?ve or arrogant to believe it would be passed without any intervention or oversight from Congress. We, the American people, are the owners of this government. Not some would be czar, who goes on bended knee before Nancy Pelosi to get his plan for economic socialism passed.

    I have expressed support for a ?plan? both privately and publicly. That is only because at this point we have no choice. However this was contingent on;

    • Liquidity be provided in stages

    • Goals and standards were set (securities quality, return)

    • Measurement and reporting (that is, oversight) was legislated

    • Further liquidity was contingent on performance (id est., the process was managed to targets)

    Do we expect any less from our own personal investments? Surely Hank understands accountability having been the CEO at GS, don?t you think?

    I saw Thaddeus McCotter on Fox yesterday talking about the final bill and he had fire coming out of his eyes. I therefore believe it will be nothing less than the usual dung we see from Congress. As usual, we get stuck cleaning up the mess that Congress makes.

    The bill will pass, but based on conversations I had this weekend McCain should vote against it, explicating all the flaws and overt costs to future generations. That single vote would truly drive home his commitment to the American people and ending business as usual in D.C.

  • The_Fastest_Squirrel

    This weekend nearly all of the football teams I was rooting for lost. All the ones that I care about lost. Polls look crappy. Now this.

    Not to sound alarmist, but I’m glad that my household is heavily armed. Things could go badly.

    • The_Fastest_Squirrel

      I should mention that, while heavily armed, I’m actually talking about the apocalyptic-type stuff that I’m reading everywhere else. Heh.

  • enrique

    …along the Road to Serfdom. FA Hayek explained it best. We keep waiting for planners to clean up the chaos in the market much of it that was caused by the meddling from these same planners/legislators.

    I suppose we’re on step 4-6 somewhere.

    By the way, the lowering of bank reserves to 0% concerns me a ton. The Fed has pretty much hit the floor when it comes to the fractional reserve method of expanding the money supply.

    I look forward to your analysis Blackhedd of the Fed’s liquidity tools changing.

    • blackhedd

      Assuming the vol premium doesn’t make it impossible for you to trade.

  • itrytobenice

    BO hit 50 in the Gallup again. The Rove map looks ugly. Congress is plundering the treasury. Economic morons are writing economic legislation.

    And I work in banking. They say lime is good for headaches. I think I’ll put mine in tequila.

    • blackhedd

      Sorry, not following that.

      • enrique

        Here is the section I was referring to (perhaps I misinterpreted it):

        Section 128 changes effective date from Oct 1 2011 to Oct 1 2008 for this section of current law:

        SEC. 202. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO ESTABLISH RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.
        Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)(A)) is amended–
        (1) in clause (i), by striking the ratio of 3 per centum' and insertinga ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)’; and

        (2) in clause (ii), by striking and not less than 8 per centum,' and inserting(and which may be zero),’.

        TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XIV > ? 461
        Amendment of Subsections (b) and (c)
        Pub. L. 109?351, title II, ?? 201?203, Oct. 13, 2006, ?? 201?203, 120 Stat. 1968, provided that, effective Oct. 1, 2011, this section is amended? (1) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by striking ?the ratio of 3 per centum? and inserting ?a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)? in clause (i) and by striking ?and not less than 8 per centum,? and inserting ?(and which may be zero),? in clause (ii); (2) in subsection (b)

        • VolunteerPride

          I am heavily armed too….

  • enrique

    Here is the passage I mentioned. Perhaps I misinterpreted it.

    Section 128 changes effective date from Oct 1 2011 to Oct 1 2008 for this section of current law:

    SEC. 202. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO ESTABLISH RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.
    Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)(A)) is amended–
    (1) in clause (i), by striking the ratio of 3 per centum' and insertinga ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)’; and

    (2) in clause (ii), by striking and not less than 8 per centum,' and inserting(and which may be zero),’.

    TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XIV > ? 461
    Amendment of Subsections (b) and (c)
    Pub. L. 109?351, title II, ?? 201?203, Oct. 13, 2006, ?? 201?203, 120 Stat. 1968, provided that, effective Oct. 1, 2011, this section is amended? (1) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by striking ?the ratio of 3 per centum? and inserting ?a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)? in clause (i) and by striking ?and not less than 8 per centum,? and inserting ?(and which may be zero),? in clause (ii); (2) in subsection (b)

    This will in effect allow banks to hold zero reserves if the Fed says it’s okay, right?

    • SirRobert

      Whether people like his complete prospective, I am prepared for the Long Emergency that Kunstler wrote 3 years ago. He been barking about this down fall for quite awhile. Now it is like in accelerated mode. Here in Columbus, we got hit with a wind storm due to Hurricane Ike and out of power for 5+ days. For us, we were ready and not even phased by it. So stock up, it is only the beginning.

      Just last week Thursday night, WaMu tanked. This morning Wachovia. And the list has been growing. These are 2 “large” banks. And it is treated as small news compare to the bailout. Ouch. Your money is at risk. Time to work with each other on the bartering and helping each other out. Time to get people to learn survival and have physical skills. Starbucks will turn into corner monuments in a short while.

      As for football, Michigan comeback was just unbelievable last Saturday. Maybe with new leadership, our government maybe able to comeback. Oh, I’ll just stock up and prepare, the government will implode on its own.

      • enrique

        Can’t use the block quote right *and *double posting. My apologies to everyone.

        • PaRep

          .

          • Marcus_Traianus

            Point of fact, I have been short since Congress got involved and will remain that way until this 110 page legislative document is digested. As for the short term effects, we shall and always persevere and I won?t be persuaded by scare tactics using nomenclature such as recession, crash and chaos.

            As a watch Hypo, Fortis, B&B, et al across the world ?nationalized? either directly or vis-?-vis capital injections I can?t help but think we have fallen to the same socialist dichotomy. On one hand, we have free markets subject to all relevant forces and on the other we have statism. It is indeed seems we are on a dangerous ?Serfdom? road described so aptly by Hayek. That is my fear in all this.

            I know better than most our existing liquidity situation requires action to support the markets current decline. After all it is government?s intervention which caused it in the first place. But that ?intervention? should be short term, temporary and designed to remove all the root causes of our failure and future impediments to success.

            Based on what I currently see, there is no reason to believe any of the aforementioned will be accomplished. That means, as seems to be the modus operandi of this Congress, we will kick our problems down the road, prolonging any sustainable recovery and return to true free market principles which ultimately rewards the wise and punishes, without discrimination, all who take foolish risks.

          • The_Fastest_Squirrel

            Hawkeye, but I was happy to see Michigan with a great win! I’m doubly happy that we won’t be playing each other this year. :)

          • Marcus_Traianus

            See this in section 109;

            CONSENT TO REASONABLE LOAN MODIFICATION
            REQUESTS.?Upon any request arising under existing investment contracts, the Secretary shall consent, where appropriate, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to reasonable requests for loss mitigation measures,including term extensions, rate reductions, principal write downs, increases in the proportion of loans within a trust or other structure allowed to be modified, or removal of
            other limitation on modifications.

            Try reading section 100, et all if you dare. It shows absolutely no awareness of what led us here in the first place.

          • Marcus_Traianus

            See this in section 109;

            CONSENT TO REASONABLE LOAN MODIFICATION
            REQUESTS.?Upon any request arising under existing investment contracts, the Secretary shall consent, where appropriate, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to reasonable requests for loss mitigation measures,including term extensions, rate reductions, principal write downs, increases in the proportion of loans within a trust or other structure allowed to be modified, or removal of
            other limitation on modifications.

            Try reading section 100, et all if you dare. It shows absolutely no awareness of what led us here in the first place.

          • Marcus_Traianus

            See this in section 109;

            CONSENT TO REASONABLE LOAN MODIFICATION
            REQUESTS.?Upon any request arising under existing investment contracts, the Secretary shall consent, where appropriate, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to reasonable requests for loss mitigation measures,including term extensions, rate reductions, principal write downs, increases in the proportion of loans within a trust or other structure allowed to be modified, or removal of
            other limitation on modifications.

            Try reading section 100, et all if you dare. It shows absolutely no awareness of what led us here in the first place.

            Plus I must have missed the part where this entire authority dissolves itself; but it is 110 pages long and I haven’t finished reading yet.

          • Marcus_Traianus

            See this in section 109;

            CONSENT TO REASONABLE LOAN MODIFICATION
            REQUESTS.?Upon any request arising under existing investment contracts, the Secretary shall consent, where appropriate, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to reasonable requests for loss mitigation measures,including term extensions, rate reductions, principal write downs, increases in the proportion of loans within a trust or other structure allowed to be modified, or removal of
            other limitation on modifications.

            Try reading section 100, et all if you dare. It shows absolutely no awareness of what led us here in the first place.

            Plus I must have missed the part where this entire authority dissolves itself; but it is 110 pages long and I haven’t finished reading yet.

  • enrique

    New articleup on Bloomberg that shows that Secretary Paulson’s friends over at Goldman Sachs cleaned up mightily in the AIG bailout.

    The spiderweb of banking deception and backroom deals grows with each day…

    And I’m not even a conspiracy believer. At least I didn’t use to be…

    • SirRobert

      Say no more. Sorry for your lost, but to NW. WHAT!?! I can handle the OSU (a.k.a “Go Bucks”) issue here but more challenging is this neighborhood is the thick OH-15 district and the push for MJ Kilroy. Check the recent RS post on her thought process (or lack of it).

      I would rather tolerate the Buckeye flags flying high and mighty than the BMO signs that are littering the hood. One for sport and college loyalty, the other is for the death to our nation.

      • enrique

        …man. Living in Ohio for one thing. But to live near Columbus, wow. The game Saturday was unbelievable. UM looked like a high school team in the first half and the poof unstoppable spread offense.

        I think the good PAT then no-good PAT was the most unbelievable.

  • PaRep

    Rick Santorum on Fox News said his sources say they DO NOT Have the votes in the house to pass it

    • The_Gadfly

      that I was complaining to our ESOP trustee that I didn’t care for the glib answer from our CFO about the safety of our corporate accounts with Wachovia. Makes me look positively psychic. At least it sounds like there won’t be any problems with making payroll next Monday. But I’m kinda worried with Citibank now having almost 10% of the banking market in the US.

  • blh1976

    Blackhedd:

    Assume the current deal goes down – I know it’s unlikely, but assume it does. The markets then go down 2k to 3k points, or loses 20 to 30 percent of it’s value, credit freezes, etc. What happens if Congress comes back and then passes another bill – assuming its better – in 2 or 3 weeks? Are we already too far gone to help?

  • Dave_in_Fla

    It has been bouncing between down 215 and down 315 for the last 3 hours. DJA is down 251 right now (I have a 20 minute delay).

    We’ll see what happens the rest of the day, but the weekend work by Congress seems to be holding things together, given two major banks failed in the last 3 business days.

    • virgil

      and save any anxiety it might cause those who aren’t.

      And I have a farm. So let em fold.

      • The_Fastest_Squirrel

        I live in Northern Virginia now. Plenty of Obama floating around. I am the ONLY house on the street with a U.S. flag flying and one of only two McPalin bumper stickers around. I think that only reason that my F-250 hasn’t been keyed is because of the gun rack, NRA Life sticker, and my general mid-western “best friend, worst enemy” persona.

        Oh, and yeah… freakin’ NW? We can’t seem to defend against the pass… any pass. We head to Michigan State next week. fingers crossed

        • Old_Crow

          will respond favorably to passing this bill? I think we’ll get a bounce, heck the VIX is near 40 now, but I don’t think this bill will be a catalyst for any type of recovery. The DOW could very well remain below 10,000, NAS below 2000 etc until late next year as the economy slowly digests this mess. At best, this bill MIGHT prevent a crash, but the emphasis is on the word ‘might’ since this is just a ‘hail mary’ pass into the end zone on the last play of the game.
          The same people that are directly responsible for causing this mess are now trying to fix it – and they haven’t even acknowledged that they did anything wrong in the first place.

          • SirRobert

            Oh BTW, I live in Columbus, not near it. And the city section neighbor district is called North University district. Enough said. Not a place to fly my U of M flag, much less place a McCain-Palin lawn sign since this was the 2004 war zone for that election. At least we can enjoy the crazy Big-10 season. And what about old Joe’s team up in Happy Valley. They will probably bury him in the middle of that stadium when he passes away.

            This will be a great season to watch.

          • SirRobert

            Oh BTW, I live in Columbus, not near it. And the city section neighbor district is called North University district. Enough said. Not a place to fly my U of M flag, much less place a McCain-Palin lawn sign since this was the 2004 war zone for that election. At least we can enjoy the crazy Big-10 season. And what about old Joe’s team up in Happy Valley. They will probably bury him in the middle of that stadium when he passes away.

            This will be a great season to watch.

          • Swamp_Yankee

            With Obama/Reid/Pelosi, I suspect well see a beefed up Title Nine. People will probably get tax credits for attending Major League Soccer and the WNBA. Eventually, they’ll try to do to football what they did to dodgeball.

          • The_Fastest_Squirrel

            But I’ve also gotten a lot of pleasure out of watching the SEC games. Also, watching Nebraska/VT was fun… especially as the Huskers make their way back to something approaching “hard.”

            And, yeah JoePa will die within a day of retiring. I hear that the administration would like him to leave, but… seriously… who is going to make him…

          • The_Gadfly

            Nah, we’ve already put the bronze up in front of the stadium. Joe flirted with retirement a while back, but I think his head now knows what’s in his heart: he’s going out with his pants legs rolled up. Besides, the way we have it figured, he gets the chariot ride directly up to meet the big guy, so there won’t be a body to bury anyway.

  • The_Gadfly

    Today has been a heck of a ride and your insight are always appreciated.

    • ChicagoLaura

      I know you meant no offense, and I am sorry for your loss, but I didn’t breathe during that entire 4th quarter as a dyed-in-the-wool, red-but-also-purple, Northwestern fan. And I still can’t get over how great it is to be 5-0 for the first time in over 60 yrs. (We call it “NU” btw, no matter what the MSM calls it…maybe “NWU” can be Northern Washington or something.)

      So may the Hawkeyes go on to greatness through the rest of the season, and may the Big Ten (and the Wildcats) arise again!

  • Flagstaff

    from that set forth by the Congressman from Oregon, whose name escapes me but whose face promises to become familiar by the end of this crisis.

    He very convincingly portrayed the original Paulson plan as a “three-page insult” which guaranteed his personal opposition.

    I have written that this appears to be a case of precipitous action in the face of a very scary situation. Your essay doesn’t see it that way; in fact you paint it as just the opposite–the original plan was carefully crafted, and the opposition was impetuous.

    Whichever is correct, I was definitely on the mark when I said there is a need to “explain what must be done, and more importantly why it must be done, to the American public.”

    That explanation has been sorely lacking, and it needs to come with the updated package that apparently is truly needed by our financial systems and markets. Without it, there will be more hesitations, and the resulting bill may well look like a Democrat’s dream of a Christmas tree. A convincing explanation of the problem to be solved, the remedy to be applied, and the expected result will go a long way towards alleviating the public’s antipathy. Without knowledgeable public support, the actors with our best interests at heart may end up at the mercy of the sausage-makers.

    • speciallist

      n/p

      • Flagstaff

        set up in the Senate chamber.

        The situation these weeks is rock-solid evidence that we are sending people to Congress who just don’t get it.

        While I’m at it, John McCain is fulfilling my worst nightmares as a candidate.

        • Flagstaff

          it makes more sense. I don’t understand why it needed all the ornaments though, even if they are all good ideas.