Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

If Congress Agrees to This Rip-off Bailout, We'll Be Handing the Money to the People Who Got Us in This Mess

By Phil Mattera, AlterNet. Posted September 24, 2008.


The "Paulson Plan" would outsource the handling of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets to those who got us into this mess.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Phil Mattera

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The Bush administration is infamous for handing over its responsibilities to the private sector -- often with disastrous results -- so it is no surprise that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson wants to outsource the implementation of the Big Bailout he is now trying to ram through Congress.

Paulson has indicated he wants to hire private asset managers to carry out the purchase of some $700 billion in "troubled" securities. (That's after the federal government had already sunk a total of $900 billion into the housing and credit mess this year.) No restrictions are being placed, so far, on who these money mangers would be. This leaves open the possibility that some of the same firms that are being bailed out could be hired to oversee their own rescue. Institutions benefiting from a monumental giveaway of taxpayer money could turn around and earn yet more by acting as the government's brokers. Aside from the unseemliness of this double-dipping arrangement, there would be egregious conflicts of interest.

Paulson's original legislative proposal was oblivious to this danger. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd put forth a competing plan that went along with the idea of contracting out the asset management, though he had the decency to include a provision on conflict of interest. Yet rather than stating what the ethical rules should be, Dodd's draft would leave it up to the Treasury secretary to decide.

Paulson's approach to the bailout, particularly the insistence that there be no punitive measures for banks, shows he is not the right party to oversee the ethical issues. Paulson apparently can't help himself. He still has the mindset of a man who spent more than 30 years working on Wall Street, at Goldman Sachs. He is a living example of the perils of the reverse revolving door: the appointment of a private-sector figure to a key policy-making position overseeing his or her former industry.

Paulson also has personal conflicts of interest. Although he sold his Goldman stock after taking office, that $600 million personal fortune was presumably transferred to other investments that the current bailout plan would help protect. Paulson's wealth came from lavish executive compensation linked to his decision to shift the firm into more dangerous forms of investing. A 2006 article in Business Week about "Wall Street's culture of risk" read, "Goldman Sachs' CEO Henry M. Paulson Jr. has led the charge." Goldman managed to avoid the worst excesses that brought down the likes of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, but under Paulson it was betting in the same general casino.

Given his background, Paulson is not likely to impose very onerous conditions on the money managers he hires. Even if Treasury has the good sense not to choose firms that are getting bailed out, there remain serious pitfalls in having for-profit money managers handling the process. For example, there will be enormous temptations for those managers to use their inside knowledge to benefit their nongovernmental clients (and themselves) or collude with buyers to the detriment of the public.

There have been reports that a leading contender for a federal money management role is Laurence Fink and his firm BlackRock, which was involved in managing the portfolio of Bear Stearns when that firm was sold to JPMorgan Chase as part of an earlier bailout. In March, BlackRock -- which is 49 percent owned by Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America) -- announced it was forming a venture to "acquire and restructure distressed residential mortgage loans." Will Paulson see that as a conflict of interest -- or more likely as a credential?

Letting financial firms that have profited from the mortgage crisis manage the bailout puts the country even more tightly in the grip of Big Money. To Paulson's way of thinking, that's not a problem, but it could turn a bad plan into a total disaster.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: bush, outsourcing, paulson, bailout

Philip Mattera is director of the Corporate Research Project and editor of the Dirt Diggers Digest, from which this column was adapted.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

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:
Instead of bending over and taking it (the bailout) in the shorts...
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Sep 24, 2008 12:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we should be bending over and telling Congress to kiss our ass!

John McCain--OLD ideas, OLD solutions, OLD lobby connections

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yep , The Bailout Will Be Done By Wall Street ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 24, 2008 12:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And What is Wrong with FDR's Solution ?

The first step we need to take is have a bank holiday. In actuality 99.9% of the bad mortgage paper is at 25 or 30 institutions. It wouldn't be hard to close these companies and since they own the vast majority of junk net out the money balances leaving the core bank assets for appraisal.

The good banks move on, maybe with a cash infusion, the bad banks get liquidated, the assets merged with a solid bank, insured deposits honored while the stock and bond holders take the loss, Not the Tax Payers.

Under the plans being considered the tax payer is being tapped even before the stock and bond holders ! Even the equity stake idea lets the bond holders off the hook.

To add insult to the tax payers injury, some of the very players of the creation of this mess will stand to make tens of millions ...

We need FDRs Plan ... nationalize, freeze activity through a holiday, analyze, then liquidate and merge the insolvent banks and re-capitalize the solvent banks ...

But no, we throw tax payer money at the problem .... insanity ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» naive Posted by: Iconoclast421
FDR
Posted by: frank69 on Sep 24, 2008 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FDR did it right when he declared the Bank "Holiday" in 1933. Of course, the RepubThug party denouced him as "a traitor to his class." But FDR restored sanity to the Financial Markets!
This current RepubThug "plan" is just more BS from Stupid and his cronies!
FDR: Greatest President of the 20th century!
GWB: Worst President in the history of the Republic!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And still nobody talks about the REAL problem...
Posted by: Cybershaman on Sep 24, 2008 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHY people can't pay their mortgages! The 800 lb. pile of elephant crap in the middle of the room! We don't need friggin' tax breaks! We need our wages to go up proportionately with what has happened at the top of the wage scale.
The transfer of wealth has already happened and the average Ameican worker can no longer pay their bills. For decades we have been using credit cards to make up for what our employers failed to do, keep our wages up with the cost of living. Now everyone is in debt up to their eyeballs. Stupid bailouts are just going to funnel money away from where it is actually needed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And how about electing new non-monied independents to the House and Senate?
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 24, 2008 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if the House and/or Senate stops this one, they're only doing this for "election" stunt purposes. Once the election's over, they'll just go back to doing it but in smaller "installments".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» it would be nice, but... Posted by: thistleblower
» RE: it would be nice, but... Posted by: maxpayne
The Bush Legacy
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Sep 24, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Bush was (S)elected in 2000, I knew this was going to happen. I knew that this presidency would be marked by a massive orgy on Wall Street, paid for by the taxpayer.

I didnt see 9/11 on the horizon.

I didnt see the US invading and occupying Iraq, at a cost of 3 trillion, killing a million, and displacing 4 million more.

I didnt see 2.1 trillion missing from the Pentagon.

I didn't see the US presiding over the transformation of Afghanistan into the world's largest opium exporter.

But a bailout of Wall Street that is like S&L on steroids? Come on... who didn't see that coming?

May as well just bend over and take it, like you've taken everything else. I mean really, what is $700 billion when ten times as much has already been stolen? And ten times more will be stolen. You'll just go on believing that big government is the answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The final part the plunder plan
Posted by: frankly1 on Sep 24, 2008 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I'm trying to protect my invest - my contributors from unscrupulous practices"
-Houston Chronicle, July 18, 1998.
That was G.W.Bush letting it slip. He's just doing what he did in Texas but on a much larger scale. He is simply performing the duties of agent for his investors. Look where the money has gone and where it is going and you can see who he works for. It's just buisiness folks (you know the buisness of America is buisness)and if the lives of milions are destroyed as a result, either literally or fiscally, remember the thief or con artist has no sympathy for his "mark"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"You go to bailouts with th' bailout plan you have...."
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H on Sep 24, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, when's the last time we got the hurry-hurry-rush-rush-no-time-to-lose treatment from the Bushite Cons?

Was it Katrina? Mmmmm...NOPE! Certainly no hurry there.

Oh yeah: Back in 2002 and 2003, we had to hurry-hurry-rush-rush (we've answered all your questions) because Rummy, Dickie, and Colin swore that those WMDs were growing Mass-ier and Destruct-ier by the minute, and that Saddam might airmail us a Nook-you-lur Deezaster by noon.

Now the Bushite bailout spin-up features the same brushoffs: Same old hurry-hurry-rush-rush, same old no-time-to-talk-details.

That similarity makes me wonder: The Bush Iraqi Adventure was originally priced (For Quick Sale!!) at only sixty billion dollars -- reconstruction included. We all know how accurate that estimate turned out to be.

Why then should we swallow another Bushite estimate that $700,000,000,000 is all they need?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From: Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Posted by: thealltheone on Sep 24, 2008 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the next few days I will push for a plan that includes equity for
every American in any taxpayer investment in this so-called bail-out
plan. Since the bailout will cost each and every American about
$2,300, I have proposed the creation of a United States Mutual Trust
Fund, which will take control of $700 billion in stock assets,
convert those assets to shares, and distribute $2,300 worth of shares
to new individual savings accounts in the name of each and every
American.

I will also insist that all of the following issues be considered in
whatever Congress passes:

Reinstatement of the provisions of Glass-Steagall, which forbade
speculation

Re-regulation of the finance, insurance, and real estate industries

Accountability on the part of those who took the companies down:
a) resignations of management
b) givebacks of executive compensation packages
c) limitations on executive compensation
d) admission by CEO's of what went wrong and how, prior to any
government bailout

Demands for transparencey
a) with respect to analyzing the transactions which took the
companies down
b) with respect to Treasury's dealings with the companies pre and
post-bailout

An equity position for the taxpayers
a) some form of ownership of assets

Some credible formula for evaluating the price of the assets that the
government is buying.

A sunset clause on the legislation

Full public disclosure by members of Congress of assets held, with
possible conflicts put in blind trust.

A ban on political campaign contributions from officers of
corporations receiving bailouts

A requirement that 2008 cycle candidates return political
contributions to officers and representatives of corporations
receiving bailouts
And, most importantly, some mechanism for direct assistance to
homeowners saddled with unreasonable or unmanageable mortgages, as
well as protection for renters who have lived up to their obligation
but fall victim to financial tragedy when the property they live in
undergoes foreclosure.

These are just some thoughts on the run. You will hear more from me
tomorrow.

Dennis J Kucinich
www.Kucinich.us
216-252-9000 877-933-6647

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's sad Posted by: thistleblower
No guts... old glory
Posted by: zeofredo on Sep 24, 2008 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I'm not American, this shouldn't concern me, but since y'all folk are stinking it up for the rest of the world, I have to ask: How many among you are willing to give up comfort and self-interest and prepare yourselves for a hard fight ahead? For sure, I realize there are going to be domestic security measures soon to appear, and doubtless there will be surprising (at first) casualties on the front lines of resistance. I know this is speculative, and I wouldn't wish insurrection Spanish-style (circa 1930's) on anyone, but it looks like that is a poignant model at present...

For all the pontificating in the U.S. about how the rest of the world is lacking in self-determination and spunk in contrast to themselves, I would be surprised to find regular folks mobilizing and sacrificing themselves to fight off this disgraceful encroachment of citizenship. Palestinians will explode with laughter to see how inept Americans will prove to be in a desperate domestic situation.

Where are the master plans to organize and deal with this debacle? Think what it would achieve if all homeowners were to defiantly stop making payments on their mortgage at this time! Yes, some folks would be terribly molested by authorities, but how can enforcers possibly deal with the entirety of that situation? With some casualties, I still see a chance for serious resistance, if anyone wanted it badly enough. But how 'bad enough' does it have to be?

I suspect instead that the self-adoration of American life is too entrenched for this sacrifice, however. Too many people are ingrained to believe that all solutions to all problems are biographical and individual in nature. Instead, neighbors will be at each others throats based on the behavior we've already seen in milder times of crisis.

Man, it must suck to be you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We should all be Donkeys
Posted by: sre on Sep 24, 2008 11:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't you know that Barak on His white horse will ride to the rescue of all of us if only we elect him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We should all be Don Quixote Posted by: ranchero42
CASH FOR EQUITY, NOT FOR WORTHLESS PAPER!
Posted by: Peter Mackrael on Sep 25, 2008 3:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US Congress is currently under pressure to quickly pass Paulson’s $700 billion bail-out proposal. Paulson's initial proposal will give the Bush administration incredible power to privatize profits while socializing the losses!

If any company is given federal assistance, the US government should receive equity in the company otherwise any massive cash infusion will merely reward those banks that got deepest in debt. Buying their worthless paper makes no sense. There is no clear method to evaluate the paper to be 'bought' and worst of all, no regulations to address the real cause or to investigate possible criminal activity. Buying this worthless paper without enforcing new regulations will merely encourage continued derivatives trading and increase the total debt. If this occurs, does anyone believe that $700 billion will be enough? I expect total bail-out costs could run into the tens of trillions if foreign banks are included.

On the other hand, government ownership will ensure that future profits (if any) are returned to the people and that new regulations to manage derivatives trading - assuming Congress writes them - are followed. If and when these banks become profitable and socially responsible, they can be sold back to private investors.

I do not trust Treasury Secretary Paulson and the Bush administration to administer this huge 'bail-out/buy-out'. As with the war in Iraq, I fear that most of this money will go to political allies and cronies.

A separate bi-partisan committee/agency should be created to assess other alternatives. If it is agreed to buy these failing banks at their current market value, the guidelines and restrictions must be transparent to all. All purchase offers should be subject to review and approval by Congress.

I believe it is highly likely that conspiracy to defraud and outright fraud has occurred before and may occur during this 'rescue' plan. An independent agency should be assigned to investigate fraud/conspiracy and these investigations should begin immediately.

The current approach uses "fear of imminent financial collapse and appeals to the need for public sacrifice" combined with a rush to push a "clean" bill through a Congress distracted by “how to protect the interests of homeowners facing foreclosure”, without allowing adequate time for assessment. This reminds me of the method that President Bush used to pass the bill to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

There is no need to reward investment banks for their reckless behavior. Here are two recommendations for your consideration.

1. There is no need to buy any derivatives paper - this paper is absolutely worthless and should not be purchased by the government! If Congress is convinced that a cash injection is needed (and I am not convinced), there are at least three better alternatives: provide credit through an existing bank that was not involved in this derivatives fraud/casino OR buy an existing bank outright and issue new credit through this bank OR create a new federal bank for this purpose. A new bi-partisan committee should be created to assess the need and to administer this activity. Let the investment banks and insurance companies that did gamble with derivatives fail as they should. There is no reason to bail out these irresponsible and socially harmful operators. This credit injection need not be the full $700 billion, but should be injected in small pieces to legitimate borrowers and only if absolutely needed.

2. Regarding homeowners facing mortgage default, these owners got in over their head by choice. They and their lenders chose to speculate in the housing market. If they believe that a lender defrauded them, they should initiate a law suit against the bank that gave them their mortgage. The federal government should not assume any responsibility for these mortgages.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement