Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Four Simple Things to Look for in a Bailout Plan That Isn't a Taxpayer Rip-off

By Hillary Rosen, Huffington Post. Posted September 23, 2008.


A quick take on the bailout if you don't have time to read what all the economic experts are saying about the financial crisis.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg


Lots of smart people with extensive financial and economic expertise will weigh in on the bailout legislation now winding its way through Congress.



I am going to look for four simple things:



1. Taxpayers need equity in the companies we are saving.



If the government is guaranteeing rather than buying the "bad" paper, once those investments pay off -- and many of them eventually will -- we will have gotten nothing for our money. We will absorb the losses but get nothing for the gains.



2. Executive pay must be limited.



Executives of the firms we save must not be allowed to be the ones benefiting. If the firms stock price and profit's increase during the time we are guaranteeing against their losses, there should be a pool where that money goes to ALL employees after the taxpayers are paid back equity on our investment.



3. Congress must have continued Oversight



The authority should sunset after 6 months. There should be a special committee of Members of Congress on an Oversight Board and they should be forbidden from taking political contributions from the financial sector.



4. Stimulus $ that focuses on more than just mortgages -- we need jobs




If sufficient authority already rests within the Federal Housing Authority, the Bush administration must be required to act on it to help regular folks from losing their houses due to bad loan practices and if it is not adequate, it must be increased.



But the other key point of our economic emergency is that too many people are losing their jobs based on financial decisions beyond their control. We have historically high job losses over the past few months. What could be more of an emergency than to address this now rather than wait another six months for Congress and a new president?

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

See more stories tagged with: bailout package

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! 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:
Not So Fast Hillary ... The Paulson Bailout Stinks ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 23, 2008 12:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In this issue of Alternet there are 3 articles that point out that this bailout is bunk ...

~ 10 Things You Should Know About Bush's Trillion Dollar Fleecing Plan ... AlterNet Staff, AlterNet

~ Let's Stop the Greatest Theft in the History of Humankind ... Otto Spengler, Asia Times

~ Calling Paulson's Bluff ... By Robert Kuttner

And This Just In :

~ Bank of America Says "Paulson Plan Benefits Mostly Goldman, Morgan"

Yes , that's right, Paulson's old firm, where he has many friends and many investments is the primary beneficiary of the Paulson Plan ...

Why ? Because Goldman Sachs has the most mortgage backed junk in the world ! The same junk that the Paulson Plan would purchase !

Call Congress Now ... Tell Them: No To The Paulson Plan !

Zip Code link to Your Senators and Representative

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

Listen to PNAC founder Bill Kristol.
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Sep 23, 2008 1:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I never thought I would agree with a neocon, especially someone as devious as Kristol, but he wants to cap corporate pay at a level no higher than what President Bush makes.

Don't tell me it can't be done. Nixon did a similar thing in 1971 by imposing wage and price controls and he wasn't a unitary chief executive!

John McCain--OLD ideas, OLD solutions

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

Does this mean that hell has frozen over?
Posted by: blogoffanddie on Sep 23, 2008 4:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who'd a thought that our free market Republicans/Conservatives 'masters of the universe' would become stock market socialists. I wonder, does this mean that hell has frozen over?

Even when they totally screw up, US presidents, bankers and weathermen get to keep their jobs. Why?

OK, the weatherman is amusing, but what of the other two.

But, thank God we have socialism for the rich. Seriously, how would they make the payments on their multi-million dollar mansions and Mercedes’ without a little helping hand from Joe Middle Class American Taxpayer - who might even get to keep his job, if those market boys don’t ship it to China with the rest of America’s wealth.

http://blogoffanddie.wordpress.com

The American Dream is failing because the American Dream has become the world's nightmare.

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

You missed the most important thing to look for
Posted by: AndyF on Sep 23, 2008 4:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
None of the above will really matter if the rules aren't changed to eliminate the use of the "risk management" tools and the debt pyramid allowed now. To return to sanity we need to significantly reduce the velocity of money through the system, reduce allowable leverage and strictly limit the packaging and securitization of loans.

Too many people are saying the sub-prime loans are the cause of the financial problems. THEY ARE NOT. THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM WAS FINANCIAL ENGINEERING WHICH INCREASED LIQUIDITY BEYOND THE NATURAL CAPACITY OF THE MARKET TO ABSORB IT.

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

Some Added Considerations
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Sep 23, 2008 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the government must bail out these banks, it needs to be made clear to these banks that their recent behavior is unacceptable.

We punish other criminals in order to set a warning that their behavior is unacceptable and corporate officers need to be punished for the same reason - to serve as a warning to them and others that this kind of behavior will be punished.

In this regard, I would tie any bail-out to

1. Re-institution of the Glass-Stiegel Act.

2. The large banks receiving these government bail-outs should be broken up into smaller independent banks, each of which is small enough to be allowed to fail.

3. Executives of the failed banks that receive bail-out money will lose their pensions and other financial benefits from the failed institutions that they led. They must be forbidden from working in financial institutions for a period of at least ten years.

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

» Ten years my ass - forever!!! Posted by: thekidde
To hell with Wall Street!
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Sep 23, 2008 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this crowd of sub-human assholes gave a damn about anything but filthy lucre, and the crooks that covet its stockpiling, they would have bailed out the Social Security raids on the Trust funds and implemented a single-payer all comprehensive health plan. Hah...that's off the table and watch the aiders and abettors in Congress jump on board while they "save" Emerica from financial ruin. Puke!Oh, just an after thought, will the foreclosures stop and how many more Emericans will become homeless while Paulson enriches his Morgan Stanley progeny?

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

And this coming from a Big Media/Entertainment hack who sided against consumers?
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 23, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ironic but thanks for coming clean.

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

X-POLYGAMIST WIFE in ARIZONA
Posted by: X-POLYGAMIST WIFE on Sep 23, 2008 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we don't stop the white supremacist neocons in this country we're all going to be living like the Stepford Wives/Body Snatchers in the FLDS.

Watch the video:

http://bankingonheaven.com/

BANKING ON HEAVEN . COM

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

You can tell a lot about a man by the cars(s) he drives.
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Sep 23, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama owns a new Ford Escape Hybrid.

McCain, who doesn't know how many vehicles he owns, has 13, including two foreign-made luxury cars.

And what would the bigots of America say about that -- Democrats, Republicans and independents?

"I told you he was uppity. Osama [intentional slip of the tongue] is driving one of those expensive gas/electric cars!"

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]

» Obama's Cars?? Posted by: gellero1
ABOUT THE BAILOUTS - AN ALTERNATIVE
Posted by: Liberty G on Sep 23, 2008 10:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Note: I ran my note (below) by an economist professor friend and he said it wasn't a dumb question at all. And the following paragraph from a recent news story explains the problem:

"The sub-prime crisis is the result of good people getting bad loans. Loans that triple or quadruple in interest rates, riddled with small print, are unbearable by most homeowners. But they are particularly unsustainable for low-income families working two or three jobs to make ends meet. Still, lenders scammed hardworking families with the promise of owning homes they really couldn't afford. And then greedy Wall Street managers, looking for a new way to squeeze a buck from an already bursting-at-the-seams economy, bundled up these bad loans into worse securities, sold them off, and tried to gain a profit as our national economy lost its shirt."

MY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTION:

I keep watching and hearing reports about bailing out all these financial giants,
and am wondering this:

Isn't the root cause of the mortgage/financial disaster that they sold deceptive loans to people, with payments they could afford at first, but then were bumped up by large increases in interest rates? If this is true, why not somehow make the greedy lenders just reduce the interest on those mortgages to the original rates, while regulating future loan conditions?

It would seem that doing this would allow many homeowners to avoid foreclosure, the banks/lenders would be getting their money repaid, albeit with much smaller profit, and we wouldn't be putting out what at least one pundit described as an eventual trillion dollars bailing out the greedmongers who cause the crisis?

Is this a dumb question?

For confirmation of other concerns about the current bailout plan see: "Many Economists Skeptical of Bailout", http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080921/pl_politico/13689

Blessings,

Liberty G

[« 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