Congress and the big bailout
You’ve probably read about the proposed plan for the Treasury to buy approximately $700 billion in distressed mortgage-related assets from private firms. That makes this news very troubling:
Titans of the financial industry are battling to influence the government’s financial rescue plan, a package that will create new winners and losers in the sector.
[...]
House Republican staffers met with roughly 15 lobbyists Friday afternoon, whose message to lawmakers was clear: Don’t load the legislation up with provisions not directly related to the crisis, or regulatory measures the industry has long opposed.
Randy Kuhl has received 5K from the Credit Suisse First Boston PAC, 4K from the Goldman Sachs PAC, and 2K from the Morgan Stanley PAC in this election cycle. These firms are among the largest (still existing) investment banks and certainly in line for a huge payday if this plan goes through. There are undoubtedly other financial companies that have given generously to Kuhl.
Whatever one thinks of the bailout, to have these and other companies given hundreds of billions of taxpayer money without any strings attached is absurd.
It will be interesting to see if Kuhl listens to common sense or to Wall Street lobbyists here.
Related posts:
Not only are there no strings attached, but, according to the draft legislation, the courts would be prohibited from reviewing any decisions made by the administration under the plan. Check it out:
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html?ref=business
We’re being intimidated into making bad decisions, just like the buildup to the Iraq War.
The bailout is probably needed in some fashion, but this seems excessive. Perhaps the argument is that allowing judicial review could delay actions that are needed immediately, but why couldn’t the legislation allow the secretary to take all needed action and allow judicial review after the fact? We are talking about an enormous amount of taxpayer money here.
The bailout is probably needed in some fashion, but this seems excessive. Perhaps the argument is that allowing judicial review could delay actions that are needed immediately, but why couldn’t the legislation allow the secretary to take all needed action and allow judicial review after the fact? We are talking about an enormous amount of taxpayer money here.
I agree with this analysis completely.