"there's no excuse for misleading the American people while making them accept this mess."

AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.

Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Nancy Pelosi Puts Lipstick on a $700 Billion Pig

Posted by Scarecrow , Firedoglake at 3:13 AM on September 29, 2008.

There's no excuse for cheering for this pig of a bailout.

Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
2 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

AlterNet Social Networks:

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Scarecrow RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

I understand Democrats have concluded they have to do something to bail out Wall Street before Wall Street's impending crash freezes credit and devastates Main Street. They have to do something and hope it works.

But given the compromises they accepted from Republicans and Secretary Paulson (or imposed on themselves -- e.g., giving up on bankruptcy protection), there's no excuse for cheering for this pig of a bailout or making claims that aren't justified.

Speaker Pelosi has released a summary of the bailout package, and you can view it here. Several components are improvements over the original Paulson plan.

But since many economists view the changes as half remedies at best, or at worst unworkable fixes focused on the wrong problem, it's troubling to see Pelosi exaggerating the merits and the limited protection it provides.

For example, after initially stating that "[i]f the government loses money, the financial industry will pay back the taxpayers," Pelosi lists the following "Protection for taxpayers, ensuring THEY share IN ANY profits":

# Cuts the payment of $700 billion in half and conditions future payments on Congressional review

# Gives taxpayers an ownership stake and profit-making opportunities with participating companies

# Puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if participating company fails

# Guarantees taxpayers are repaid in full -- if other protections have not actually produced a profit

# Allows the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families

As Ian Welsh explained this morning, based on the New York Times initial description, several of these claims are, misleading:

First, while the initial outlay can be up to $350 billion, Congress would have to affirmatively pass legislation -- and possibly override a Presidential veto -- to stop the Treasury from utilitizing the entire $700 billion.

Second, it's not clear how much of an ownership stake Government would get, because Treasury can choose to acquire toxic assets without taking an equity stake. Given Paulson's preference for these other non-equity mechanisms, taxpayers could get little or no equity.

Third, unless the NYT article is wrong, it's false to claim the proposal "guarantees taxpayers are repaid in full." The ability to recover losses after the fact is something the next President would have to get Congress' approval to implement; the package includes only the idea of letting the President ask for this, a power he would have had in any event.

Indeed, on CNN this morning, Barney Frank complained that Republicans successfully opposed a Democratic proposal to impose a fee on Wall Street transactions to recover program losses if they persist after five years. While arguing for Wall Street insurance for all transactions -- exposing Treasury to enormous risks later -- Republicans refused to hold Wall Street accountable for losses in the meantime.

In other words, there's no guarantee of any protection to taxpayers other than we've passed the buck -- the current President and Congress do not have to take responsibility for paying for this mess, and neither does Wall Street.

If the Democratic leadership has concluded they have to gather support for an imperfect bailout because they think doing nothing is worse, let them say that. But there's no excuse for misleading the American people while making them accept this mess.

Scarecrow is a regular blogger for FireDogLake

Return to Scarecrow » Post Tools: EMAIL PRINT 2 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Also by Scarecrow
WSJ Uses 'Reporting' to Print Free Political Advertising for Anti-Labor Group Political agendas instead of news. Welcome to the Wall Street Journal. December 23, 2008.	Which are McCain's Biggest Lies? With so many to choose from it's hard to say, but the truth is McCain’s biggest lies are about Obama’s tax cuts. September 10, 2008.	Pentagon Manual: OK to Destroy Gitmo Interrogation Notes At Gitmo, destroying evidence is standard operating procedure. June 9, 2008.	81% of Americans Dissatisfied with Our Country's Direction -- the Highest Level Ever How do you know when government has abysmally failed and driven the country into a ditch? Just ask the American people. April 4, 2008.

Comments	Turn comments off sitewide	Give us feedback »
Comments closed. The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.		View:
Pelosi... [Report this comment] Posted by: Gisele on Sep 29, 2008 9:18 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] gives women in politics a bad name. Had she done what the American people begged her to do when she took office (Impeaching Bush and Cheney)...I don't think the States would be where they are right now. They wouldn't have had time to set it up so perfectly. Instead she chose to play her silly little games, being the "female decider"...proving that, as yet, women are not ready to handle political office in a responsible, reliable way. First on the list of impeachments should be the name Pelosi. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] "there's no excuse for misleading the American people while making them accept this mess." [Report this comment] Posted by: oregoncharles on Sep 29, 2008 10:33 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Of course they have to: otherwise, their ass is grass. You have direct recourse against Pelosi in particular: send Cindy Sheehan money: http://www.usalone.com/cindy_donations.php. Pelosi is actually vulnerable. Replace her. And you have recourse against the Democratic party: vote for someone who actually represents you. The Green Party are contesting ALL 5 House Districts in Oregon - look for us in your state. And Cynthia McKinney is running for President: look up her statement on the Bailout at http//votetruth08.com. Send her money, too: for some reason, anti-corporate candidates (and parties) never have much. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Newsletter

Search: