« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A Hard Time vs. Hard Times [Monday AM Update]

McCain, Republicans purge Paulson-Pelosi bailout of most onerous Obamanations

By Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority and HinzSight Reports

We are going to have a hard time no matter what plan wins this weekend. The issue re times, is will the plan ensure long hard times (see many years).

[Monday, September 29, 2008 UPDATE - Bailout bill less likely to usher in long, deep recession thanks to McCain and House republicans. See my post-bailout bill posting Column:

Republicans purge Paulson-Pelosi bailout of most onerous Obamanations

EXCERPT:

Thanks to the House GOP and McCain, we learn, the following:

Democrats backed down from a controversial proposal to let bankruptcy judges alter the terms of mortgages, and from another that would have steered any ultimate government profits from the package to affordable-housing programs.
Not one thin dime for a bridge to ACORN for any squirrelly leftist, and as to help for homeowners:

Treasury will buy mortgage-backed securities, mortgages and other assets secured by residential real estate. The legislation requires Treasury to use its position as the investor in those loans and securities to "encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages" to help minimize foreclosures.

All investors should, of course, “minimize” foreclosures. This language simply states the obvious in prudence. The Obama Democrats wanted the government to have non-gambling insured mortgagors to pay for gamblers’ homes and in essence buy them loyal democrat voters for life, and forever socialize the housing market.

[Rush Limbaugh is reporting today - FRIDAY UPDATE - This is now occuring in the context of Democrat politicization of the process as Reid blames the arrival of McCain to DC as causing a bi-partisan deal to blow up. That is a lie. All but a few Republicans were on board for anything like the Paulson Plan, and the intent of the Dems is to force the GOP to alientae its conservative base. There is hope that this action is backfiring and bringing McCain closer to the base. Moreover, the Dems let Obama speak first in Thursday's White House meeting and the first words out of his mouth attacked a Republican Study Committee originated plan that he was ignorant of until a short time before the meeting when he got an e-mail from Treasury Dept. employees.]

[September 26, 2008 UPDATE - It appears to Gamecock that suspension of the mark-to-market rules would accomplish the main goal of the bailout (removing bad loans from the books), by raising the value of capital on the books of financial institutions, thue freeing up capital for new loans.

I also favor two-year moratorium on cap gains taxes and corp taxes and repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley and would reject any plan that requires taxpayers to bail out mortgagors holding mortgages they can't afford based on their income (people that gambled their homes would appreciate hoping to then re-fi down to an affordable mtg payment) as this would do semi-permanent damage to the free market and be a giant step towards wealth destroying socialism we see in Europe.

But it seems to me that the accounting change ought to provide the confidence the markey needs to unclog its new loan producing arteries.]

Many Americans are now in the midst of a year-long hard time born of skyrocketing energy prices and/or the housing/credit crunch. It has been nearly impossible to get small business loans for many months and home loans for all but the top ten percent of credit risks for many more months.

This column has long chronicled the Democratic Party’s explicit policy of energy self suicide since 1978 in restricting access to expanded oil drilling and their regulations (especially including the Endangered Species Act and environmental lawsuits) making the building of oil refineries and nuclear power plants nearly impossible.

Below, I discuss the artery-hardening diet the Democrats have force-fed the credit markets since 1998 that is the cause of the present crisis. But before we look at what got us to this precipice, let us look at where we are.


The hard time got worse two weeks ago when the credit crunch finally clogged bank to bank loan arteries, prompting Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to propose a massive government bailout (for lack of a better word) aimed at preventing a full-blown panic in U.S. financial markets (and world markets that catch pneumonia when we sneeze) that would most certainly precipitate a deep recession.

Deep recessions are bad. In fact, they are very bad, and if one could be near certain that massive government actions could prevent same and also be the kinds of actions that we could reverse to prevent even worse long term recessions, then such actions must be seriously considered.

To date, and after intense study for days, I am not convinced that we can avoid the extension of the hard time we find our self in nor that we can keep it from getting harder before it gets better, even with the massive Paulson plan.

The burden of persuasion is on Paulson, with said burden all the heavier given the $700 Billion price tag.

I am certain that we could take actions now that would prevent a precipitous stock market crash for a time, but that would not in any way ensure that it would not crash in the not too distant future and that which actions would exact permanent, serious Hard Times with an “s” causing, damage on the goose that has lain historic golden eggs for over 200 years: The America Free Enterprise System.

Americans in the past have had to endure recessions born of panics, but only one Great Depression and we most surely don’t want to repeat the mistakes that caused the hard time of 1929, nor those mistakes that lengthened it into hard times through 1941. We have learned many lessons from that era regarding stable money supply, deposit insurance and other safety nets that are the proper province of government in a post-agrarian society. Unfortunately, the post-Depression/post-World War II generation left too much of Big Government in place despite peace and prosperity, and have used same to buy votes with prosperity-producing Liberty being the victim in a slow motion creep, or slouching towards Gomorrah.

The current crisis is only tangentially related to the above, but the proposed solution to the current crisis could be an antidote worse than the cure, as it would accelerate the loss of Liberty on a scale never seen in America.

As we make momentous choices with the Panic-Threat Gun at our head, it is vital that we spot already smoking guns so that we not be destined to repeat acts born of historical ignorance.

Democrats hold the smoking gun that keeps America oil in the ground and beneath the sea in their left hand and the one that keeps American credit market arteries clogged in the other.

Ignore the pox on all (Dems and Republicans) their houses, hands in the air populist anger at “greed” in general and “greedy corporate CEOs” in particular. No, saving ourselves from very hard times for many years requires that we focus on what and who caused the crisis.

Greed is one of the seven deadly sins that has existed since Eve bit the apple. The beauty of the America system has been how the free market exacts punishment for greed and forces it to provide goods and services that others freely want.

The present crisis was born in 1998 when a “quasi” (and this is key) governmental entity was unleashed in a way that it had never been before. Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac) was born in the midst of the Great Depression and amended to expand its reach to assist lower income families attain the American Dream of homeownership under President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. We experienced no crisis at Fannie’s hands for at least 60 years.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton and his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin reinterpreted Carter and the Dems’ “Community Redevelopment Act” to force lenders to prove a negative, i.e. that they were NOT denying loans to low income would be borrowers based on race. Former Senator Phil Gramm (McCain advisor) and many other Republicans railed against the changes Clinton appointee as CEO of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was bringing to the credit markets in guaranteeing and/or buying risky loans. Then came the accounting scandals at Fannie and Freddie in 2003-4 that forced Raines to resign, albeit with millions in his parachute.

In 2005, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Republicans, prominent among them John McCain, making dire warnings before the Senate Banking Committee that Fannie and Freddie had bought/guaranteed a dangerous percentage of the overall mortgage market. Democrats on the committee voted the party line against a McCain-sponsored bill that would have stopped the practice and prevented the present crisis.

Given the above, it is a mystery to me that candidate McCain doesn’t emphasize this fact rather than make populist appeals about “greedy CEOs” and lack of regulation by the SEC, that absolve the guilty parties. Yes, Raines was a CEO, but his corporation was a government agency now shown to be “too big to fail”. It never was quasi. Moreover, given that Fannie was not subject to normal free market forces and distorted the free Markey by buying up risky loans, no amount of regulation at the SEC would have made a difference.

It is possible that the crisis would not have developed had investors not fled stocks for real estate in droves due the 2000 tech bubble and flat stock market of the past seven years and had Greenspan not kept interest rates so low after 911. I doubt it, but one lesson we should take away from this debacle is that homes need to be homes first and not an investor’s substitute for liquid investments.

The fact is that Democrats and Democrats alone prevented the McCain bill that would have changed the regulation that caused the crisis from even coming to the Senate floor for debate. Democrats passed the CRA in 1978, changed the regulations bureaucratically in 1998 and rejected the 2005 that would prevented the current 2008 crisis.

They must be held accountable politically. Their policies must be rejected economically.

McCain needs to make the case everyday against his Democratic opponent who favors Hoover era Smoot-Hawley Depression causing trade policies, and all Republicans and responsible Democrats must reject socialistic panic-prevention measures that would usher in Hard Times down the road even if they lessen the current hard time for a short time.

I now lean toward the proposal by Steve Forbes (see my first comment below blog for link), but am still studying the matter as, it appears, most conservative Republicans are doing. I have concluded that if any proposed law is anything like huge socialistic slouch towards Gomorrah, then let it pass at the hands of President Bush and Democratic Party majorities.

More later re possible solutions, but one of the main solutions America needs to learn is that electing more than 40 Democrats to the U.S. Senate is more hazardous than bad cholesterol to the nation’s health.

[update]

I am looking at Rep. Hensarling’s RSC proposal to eliminate capital gains and corporate taxes for two years in lieu of the $700 Billion bailout as well as the Forbes’ plan above.

The GOP must reject more aid to current mortgagors (July law required banks to renegotiate ARMs with certain mortgagors).

This crisis is about unclogging the arteries of the financial system to make future good loans, not bailing out bad ones.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
Legal Editor for The Minority and HinzSight Reports
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

COMMENTS

  • gamecock

    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1006/017.html

  • woodsman

    to provide a standardized valuation of the critical instruments that are causing this issue? This seems to be the underlying reason for panic once you get past the $700B give-away program being proposed.

    I listened to former Sec. John ONeil on Cavuto last night and he thought there is a way to provide guarantees on the instruments without providing outright cash in almost limitless quantities.

    While it sounds a lot better than a blank check, could it work and provide a calm for the markets?

  • StephC

    nt

  • gclaghorn
  • gamecock

    will try and address it thursday

  • Flagstaff

    where are the viagra jokes?

  • gamecock

    5

  • Flagstaff

    would provide a starting point. Adjust for time. Factor in a realistically expected default rate.

    Somewhere between there and zero.

    If it could be done on a macro basis, they could be assigned a purchase value based on a formula, thereby avoiding the sure-to-come charges of favoritism towards one bank/company or another.

    Throw in a provision that any institution holding MBS valued this way could carry them on their books at anything at or more than the formulaic value (if warranted by reality, or cost of the MBS if lower), and a market would re-emerge for them.

    Problem solved, no $700 billion needed, and even not much needed immediately.

  • JSobieski

    when they changed to the mark-to-market rule, which laid the groundwork for this crisis

  • JSobieski

    without mentioning Forbes

    http://www.redstate.com/diaries/jsobieski/2008/sep/23/plan-b-plan-c-2/

    The Fed wants to deviate from the mark-to-market rule in purchasing the securities from the current holders, but won’t just let the current holders do it for themselves.

    Why no bypass the middle man and save $700B dollars?

    Again, the entire purpose of the President’s plan is to get temporarily distressed paper off the books of their current holders. To do this, Fed/Treasury will be assigning some “market plus” value in purchasing the securities.

    Why not have the Fed/Treasury assign the “Market value” and avoid the $700B thing?

    I am so frustrated by the apparent inability to start a discussion on this point.

  • gamecock

    5

  • JSobieski

    have reached the same conclusion, as there is now chance that this issue actually gets addressed in the media.

    Can Forbes somehow get 5 minutes of MCCain’s time?

    Maybe 5 minutes of Rudy’s time, and Rudy can get 5 minutes of McCain’s time?

    The debate on this topic is pathetic.

  • stang

    Note: This was originally posted as a reply to J’ski’s diary on the same topic. Also rec’d.

    I’m hearing calls from a lot of quarters for scalps. As you pointed out, this is about saving the economy, not settling some political or economic score. Putting that kind of money in any politician’s hands will inevitably lead to picking winners and losers on the basis of political affiliation. That’s what got us to this point in the first place. I fail to see how more of the same will either fix the current problem or prevent more of the same in the future. Frankly, this is way too important to leave in the hands of politicians.

    I think Forbes’ solution and some of the other’s of a similar mind have correctly identified government meddling with market mechanisms to achieve (so-called) desirable political/social outcomes as the reason for the problems we are facing. Their suggested remedies address this; get rid of the government implemented distortions and remove the impediments to the market working this out on its’ own.

    Of course, that would require a major political miracle, ie politicians admitting their own culpability in this mess. The fact that most of the proponents of the $700B government adminstered plan either hold their jobs as a result of being elected or being appointed by elected office holders, or stand to benefit by the actions of elected or appointed officials, is prima facie evidence of collusion and corruption on a gargantuan scale.

    Giving $700B to the same people that screwed this pooch in the first place reminds me of P.J. O’Rourke’s admonition in re politicians:

    “Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to young boys.”

    Highly recommended!

  • gamecock

    g

  • pilgrim

    I also listened to part of Rush today, and he mentioned Lindsey Graham’s conversation on NBC with Meridith Viera. Graham told her the following:

    SEN. GRAHAM: Yeah. As I understand it, about 10:00 or 11:00 in the morning, I was in the House, meeting with House Republicans to talk about what we could do. You had three senators, I think, from the Republican side and several senators on the Democratic side meet by themselves, have a news conference — “We’ve got an agreement.”

    I never heard about it until I went to the Republican lunch. And if you were in the lunch, it was clear that there was not a consensus about this agreement. There was never an agreement that had buy-in by the House and the Senate.

    I appreciate their efforts. But 20 percent of the money that would be collected back to retire the debt we’re going to incur would have went to housing programs, programs like ACORN that have been very fraudulent in nature. So nobody on the Republican side was going to sign up to that. source

  • gamecock

    Gc Rule of life #4 that I have been preaching for 8 years.

    Rules 1-3 are death, taxes and gravity.

    Let’s use the KISS method for inattentive voters. See a D, don’t vote for it. Better odds than Vegas house odds.

  • DonPMitchell

    Great article!

    I think the market can and must correct, but that doesn’t have to toss us into a depression. Let’s hope the “bailout” will permit the former and avoid the latter.

    It’s funny to hear nut cases like Ron Paul talk about the gold standard. Any real fiscon knows the elements of Adam Smith, that the Wealth of a Nation depends is created by the productivity of its people. Get Americans back on their feet, and our economy will boom.

    I think energy is also at the heart of this problem. Energy amplifies human productivity, and there is plenty of correlation between times of cheap energy and booming econpmy. North Sea oil saved Europe from the stagnation of its socialist economy, and now they are facing recession as that oil has passed its peak.

    I hope people are listening to folks like T. Boone Pickens. There is plenty of cheap energy to be had, but we need to encourage it and we need to build the infrastructure to transport it.

  • MikeO

    My wish to see scalps taken is not motivated by simple vengeance.

    This macabre desire to see scalps is because the same bad actors behind this mess are still in charge. Mounting their severed heads on pikes in the Capitol Rotunda would serve two useful purposes:

    1. It gets them out of the way so that the distortions they created to cement their powerbases can be destroyed

    2. It warns those who come after that hubristic meddling in free markets invites dire consequences

    There is a small chance that we get out of this situation by reversing at least some of the totalitarian slide into regulation-mania. There is a small chance that we face chaos and a breakdown of society. The question is whether it is worth risking the latter in a stand-off to achieve the former, or if we [most likely outcome] band-aid it and keep on sliding.

    Chaos and a societal breakdown would suck, but at that point, there would be nothing better to do than to settle scores. Make a list.

  • kowalski

    I’ve said for a long time that the problem with America, its most persistent problem, is that the price of energy here is too high for too many people and that we need to use more energy less expensively and more cleanly.

    Part of that is developing our own oil and natural gas resources. Part of that is developing wind and solar power where they are appropriate to do so (it’s not everywhere). A big part of that is a renewed emphasis on conventional fission nuclear and a long-term emphasis on fusion nuclear.

    We need to take back the grid and make it not only cheaper, but cleaner. The technology is here, the question is whether we’ll find the national will to do it.

    Inexpensive power is the single most important ingredient to continued economic growth.

  • nod90

    I think changing mark to market accounting rules is a cosmetic solution that will fool nobody. It could very well backfire if it undermines the credibility of bank balance sheets with the buyers of short term paper.

    Forbes gives the example of somebody with a 30 year mortgage. In that situation a mark to market seems silly. However, what if you had a six month mortgage which you needed to roll over every six months? What if you only had 3% equity based on the original purchase price of the house? While an individual obviously can’t do this, it is my understanding that this is how a lot of financial institutions work.

    In my example I think it is quite reasonable for the lender to insist on a “mark to market” before they roll over the loan. If the market price of the house has fallen then the borrower has to come up with cash.

    Where things become murky is if the “market price” is based on a very small number of transactions. I believe the accountants have rules for this.

  • DonPMitchell

    Exactly, we should be doing everything — except import energy from our enemies.

    Pickens believes 200,000 megawatts can be generated in the high-wind region around Oklahoma. Wind farms have already brough money into stagnating rural economies there.

    Liquid fuel may always be expensive from now on, but electricity could be cheap, and our economy can adjust to that reality.

    Wind and solar energy are irregular, and electrical energy is expensive to store on a large scale. So suppose the price of electricity varies on an hour-by-hour basis? A free market can adjust to that, and it even creates an incentive for people to develop energy storage, if you can make a profit by buying electricity when it is cheap and selling it back to the grid when it’s not. The free market could solve the energy storage.

    For energy transmission; however, I think we need government help to permit building power corridors that permit power to be sold and shipped around the country. The current electrical grid is a mess.

  • DonPMitchell

    Exactly, we should be doing everything — except import energy from our enemies.

    Pickens believes 200,000 megawatts can be generated in the high-wind region around Oklahoma. Wind farms have already brough money into stagnating rural economies there.

    Liquid fuel may always be expensive from now on, but electricity could be cheap, and our economy can adjust to that reality.

    Wind and solar energy are irregular, and electrical energy is expensive to store on a large scale. So suppose the price of electricity varies on an hour-by-hour basis? A free market can adjust to that, and it even creates an incentive for people to develop energy storage, if you can make a profit by buying electricity when it is cheap and selling it back to the grid when it’s not. The free market could solve the energy storage.

    For energy transmission; however, I think we need government help to permit building power corridors that permit power to be sold and shipped around the country. The current electrical grid is a mess.

    (Good heavens, what a hassle posting this, I had to try three times…why is www.redstate.com still so broken?)

  • RWB08

    This is all a big scam to steal money from the American people and transfer it to wealthy Wall Street pigs. Paulson and Bernanke are snakes and need to be thrown out

  • OccamsRazor

    :)

  • OccamsRazor

    Why? Have you ever studied Complexity theory?

    Have Faith and be a personal leader that YOU will carry the day. :)

  • switter

    this is a bailout package that appears necessary because liberals in congress twisted the arms of lenders to borrow money to people who couldn’t afford it via freddie mac and fanny mae (ie subprime loans).