So there was "Goldman" Hank, holding a gun on the economy and staring Congress down. "Give me the 700 billion, or the economy gets it!" he threatened. For two days it looked like he was going to get away with it, 700 billion dollars to spend on the Wall Street gang, the boys who'd already shot the economy up so bad it was in danger of bleeding to death.
Then Marshal Dodd came swinging through doors, shotgun in hand, and said "not so fast Hank. Put the gun down, and back away from the economy. We're going to do this my way."
For a moment calm reigned, then from off one side came a high pitched squeak, "you just put down that gun Dodd," said Bush as he leveled his blunderbuss "the Veto" at Dodd, "and you let my good friend Hank walk away with the money or I'll use this gun." He swivelled and instead of aiming it at Dodd, put its muzzle right against the economy's head. "I'll do it. Don't think I won't! I've killed an economy before!"
Hand still on the trigger, Dodd glanced over at Reid. The old man's fighting days, some said, were long gone. Dodd hoped Reid had one big fight left in him. If he didn't, the economy was done, and Paulson would get away, scot-free.
So yeah, the Dodd plan. Good plan. Buying up mortgages for 15% less than the current market value of the house, then reissuing a clean mortgage to homeowners helps the banks while still giving them a slight haircut (but only slight, odds are home prices will drop more than 15% before the slide is over.) It helps homeowners stay in their houses. It sets a market price so that banks know what mortgages are worth and thus what the derivatives based on houses are worth. And giving the mortgages bought to the FDIC, one of the few agencies that Bush didn't cripple, is genius.
Giving the government stock equal to the value of any bailout for the company is also only fair. If they get bailed out, taxpayers should have a chance to get their money back. If they don't like that, well, beggars, and they are beggars, shouldn't be choosers.
Having a review board is a good idea, though having the Treasury Secretary, Fed Chairman and FDIC chief on it is perhaps unwise. Still Congress chooses two of the members. I'd prefer direct oversight through the Congressional Budget Office, which reports directly to Congress, but this isn't too bad.
Clawing back compensation based on fraudulent financial reporting is a stroke of genius and may be what Dodd put in so that he could eventually trade it for something else, because fact is, almost all of these bastards have used dubious accounting to inflate their earnings and therefore their bonuses and salary. They're all guilty and they know it. Under a vigorous Department of Justice (say, oh, an Obama one) they could all be prosecuted.
Allowing bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages is both humane and reasonable, so many mortgages were sold under false pretenses. Banks really, really hate this provision, as it takes away part of the bankruptcy bill, but when they themselves are asking for all their contracts to be, in effect, modified by government (what's buying for 15% less than face when you couldn't get 30 cents on the market but modification?) they don't have a leg to stand on.
There appear to be other details, but those are the highlights. It's a good plan and it helps more than just the banks. It includes a lot of what outsiders were suggesting, especially with respect to help mortgage holders. It doesn't go quite as far as I would have liked—I would have preferred to just buy up entire failed corporations rather than their assets, but if the share program is done properly the government could wind up with effective control of many corporations anyway. This is only reasonable, if the government has to bail you out for more than half your value, the government should own you.
There is a provision that might let corporations pay off the government with superior bonds, I don't like that. However, I suspect most companies won't go for it unless they're in relatively good shape already (you want to owe more money when you might be bankrupt?)
Dodd deserves a lot of credit for putting this bill forward, as does Leahy. Leahy put back in the most important thing—no dictatorial powers for Paulson without court review. Anything Paulson or anyone else does can be reviewed by judges during or after the fact. No man should be above the law in America.
The question now is how much of this will survive negotiations and if Bush will veto a good bill. Also in question is if Republicans will vote against a good bill, handing Democrats a club to beat them with. I do wish that Dodd had put in more poison pills he could trade away, to improve his bargaining position, but in my opinion Dodd, Leahy and the Democrats still have the stronger hand here and should use it to beat the Republicans into submission. No one on Main Street liked Paulson's bill, and even most Wall Street workers, unless at the very highest levels, didn't like it either. Force the Republicans to vote for Dodd's bill or they can take huge losses in November.
Good work Marshal Dodd. Now finish the job. Make sure that the Bush gang's last attempted raid on the treasury goes down in flames.
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
is the actual proposal anywhere for us to read? thanks ian, fingers crossed.
and fyi - P&B show tomorrow and wednesday:
Good for Dodd. I’m grateful that we still have him in the Senate.
Good news indeed.
Thanks for the info selise. You are an invaluable resource*G*
Please digg this…
So what if Bush vetoes the rescue bill? Why would the Dems knuckle to that pressure?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26836295
OK Carly Fiorini lets see who has the big ones here
Time for the 3:10 to Yuma, Marshall Dodd — time to round up the town drunks and lock ‘em up.
awesome post, deppity
According to CR, this is it:
Discussion Draft
Done. Thanks.
“In 2007, Wall Street’s five biggest firms– Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley - paid a record $39 billion in bonuses to themselves.” ABC’s Political Punch — I say no Bail Out!
AND
Sen. John McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09.....f=politics
More McCain Hypocrisy! - And for those who think we will not have another Bush/Cheney Whitehouse if McCain gets elected, please be advised that McCain has 10 former Bush strategists and operatives working and advising him now. They are: Steve Schmitt, Tucker Eskew, Tracey Schmitt, Nicole Wallace, Mark Wallace, Stephen E. Biegun, W. Taylor Griffin, Matthew Scully, Greg Jenkins and Matt McDonald, which spells McCain-Bush all over again!
McCain who has been Chairman of the Commerce Committee for years says he knows very little about the economy, the one truth he has been honest about, because it has always been about Corporations first, only and last! It is our turn now and no more corporate bail outs who are in fear of losing their luxurious way of life on the back of the American people.
Hi all-
Does anyone know if Obama has taken a position on the Dodd plan?
Hi, Gnome!
can’t say i’m disappointed. the longer this goes, the more bullshit (Paulson’s plan) comes to light
Have we heard from Barney Frank yet? It would be nice for the House version to have some poison pills to trade away, like insisting on Paulson’s and Bernanke’s resignation. Something swift and retributive.
good question.
(you want to owe more money when you might be bankrupt?)
If you mean *already* bankrupt, then the answer is “Hell, yes”. If you mean that this extra money would push them *into* bankruptcy - opposite answer.
Question - where do we stand on golden parachutes? I can’t possibly imagine a better place for Dem’s to draw a line in the sand - and *then* wait for Georgie’s veto blunderbuss…
I’m surprised McCain’s pants haven’t combusted by now.
The guy is a shameless liar as are all his thieving “advisors”.
Yeah, it is quite clear that Paulson pulled a “we’re all gonna die, Al Qaeda will eat our babies if you don’t bail us out right now…hours are all we have”…24 scenario anyone?
What a crock.
Make them sweat. Better yet, let them fall…
uh, is my computer not working or is that supposed to be a blank page?
in any event, i appreciate the laugh - whether the joke was intentional or not. *g*
I’m surprised McCain’s pants haven’t combusted by now.
lack of fuel inside?
Um, is there any revenue mechanism?
Hi Ron!
I read over at TPM that a CA D-Rep - Brad Sherman has a good proposal out
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi.....roposa.php
It’s a mazing that the same state could elect a senator as wonderful as Dodd and as deadful as HoJo.
Lack of fuel? But he’s all dry and withered!
Talks may “drag” into next week? Jeeze, it used to be called a national discussion. I guess when theocrats are in charge, there is nothing to discuss.
kbnxbai
“…home prices will drop more than 15% before the slide is over.”
They need to fall a lot more than that in California.
Lack of fuel? But he’s all dry and withered!
Withered, or completely gone? *g*
Speaking of Holy Joe, have we heard from him yet? I’m sure he’s not in favor of the Paulson Craptacular…after all, Harry assures us he’s with us on everything but the war.
OT but nonetheless relevant
McCain adviser files lawsuit against Ohio
Well I just tried to call the Marshall to thank him and his box is full. I hope that’s a bunch of folks thanking him.
Thanks Ian for all your work on this. I donate $10/month to FDL and that doesn’t begin to repay you (especially in this crisis), Jane, emptywheel, and ALL the other great FDL writers for what you have provided.
I’ll fully support whatever you want, but I’d still like to see Dodd hold their feet to the fire on an immediate (and orderly)pullout (with the safety of our troops paramount) from Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re allowing the GOP to live in denial.
It worked for me. May take a minute or so to load, it’s a big file.
Bush and Paulson need to get House and Senate GOPs on board with this. Bring your own party along, sirs. We aren’t going to stand for talk about the Bush-Dodd-Pelosi bailout from GOP challengers and incumbents in tight races over the next six weeks.
Get your stupid party members in line on this, Bushie. Or it won’t pass at all.
“craptacular”
Yet another word I wish I had invented.
Me, too.
Everyone is constantly talking about the role of the SEC and FED in this but no one seems to talk about the OCC which prevented state AGs from getting into the mortgage mess long ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.....e_Currency
Not to be a wet blanket, but the kind of law officer that is referenced is spelled with one “l”: marshal.
Thank you.
Link to a Contact form for the Senate Banking Committee.
I’ll defer to others about how effective using that is.
Is Dodd gonna dole out the money all at once? That seems unwise. How about thirds? One-third now, one-third after the election, one-third reserved for the next Administration.
I mean, can Paulson really use a trillion dollars all at once?
(Don’t answer that)
McCain: My friends, to show my faith in the American Economy, I will volunteerly give up using one of my 13 cars until things turn around.
Does anyone besides me find it ironic that the sky hasn’t fallen yet despite Paulson and Bush’s insistence on ’speed and clean’?
I suspect that this is going to go on further than this week:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/....._plan.html
Last week, Garrett and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) came across the aisle to call for the formation of a bi-partisan Select Committee on Bailouts to investigate the actions taken by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department with regard to bailouts.
Add to the above Shelby’s opposition, Rep. Hensarling’s ‘concerns’:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....8579.shtml
And the obvious political attempts to parlay this for political gain leads me to believe that the legislation may not get done this week.
And Frank and Dodd haven’t come to complete agreement yet.
Writing about that is what got Spitzer in trouble.
People who live in twelve houses shouldn’t throw stones.
His Goldman severance package didn’t meet his personal financial needs. /s
Paulson and Bernanke haven’t been able to convince the GOP to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, they totally missed this crisis.
I hope Dodd asks them point blank, under oath and with the teevee cameras rolling, how the f*ck they missed this. I also hope he asks why we should trust either of them to get us out. It’s like asking Custer for military advice.
Please keep in mind Dodd is a proponent of ‘Plan Columbia’.
For what it’s worth - some of the compensation packages look very nice for these guys. These are just a few figures from the aflcio.org/paywatch/ site.
$13,960,382 AIG (Sullivan – CEO - 2007)
$40,004,315 Bear Stearns (Cayne – CEO - 2006)
$25,520,621 Citigroup (Prince – CEO - 2007)
$42,994,306 Countrywide (Mozilo – CEO - 2006)
$53,966,198 Goldman Sachs Group (Blankfein – CEO - 2007)
$22,052,273 Lehman Brothers (Fuld – CEO - 2007)
$28,286,332 Merrill Lynch (O’Neil – CEO - 2007)
$41,790,854 Morgan Stanley (Mack – CEO - 2007)
$15,795,984 Wachovia (Thompson – CEO - 2007)
$14,364,883 Washington Mutual (Killinger – CEO - 2007)
I don’t feel too sorry for them, do you? Maybe they should bail out their own firms.
Banks aren’t lending to each other, because they don’t trust what each is holding on their balance sheets. Rates on commercial paper are headed north. Those are real good indications imho that the sky is pretty close to falling.
My friends, to show my faith in the American Economy, I will voluntarily shoehorn my Ferragamos until election day.
Absolutely right but it all ties into the entire corruption scenario.
If Dodd can stop this generational looting of the economy, I’ll support him feverishly…and then bring up Plan Columbia.
Offhand remarks on CNBC today suggest they think Dodd’s a bit of a buffoon. Don’t know what was behind the dismissive remarks. It seemed like an inside joke, you know the kind where you just need to mention the punch line to remind of the joke.
Or it could be that they don’t want anyone to stand in the way of getting the deal done.
So that is why shining a light on them is now a taboo. Wonder if this is the stick
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/22/headlines#10
In that document above, it looks like 11 trillion, not 700 billion.
Politico says they’ve seen Dodd’s plan that’s circulating on the Hill:
Ok, but it is the money market mutual funds that provide most of the commercial paper businesses use for their operations, not banks. And most banks are not in trouble. They’re regulated whereas the ‘investment banks’ weren’t.
CNBC is where that Kramer guy works, right? And that Maria Bartilomo?
And they call anyone else a buffoon?
eCAHN, you’re the only real economist I know, and I have never felt even remotely competent to argue with you about anything…so what do you think of the Dodd Plan? Are we all missing something obvious?
I live in Sacramento and my house has gone from $380,000 to $240,000.
Yoonitary Daddy Warbucks need to reveal how much in
bribesdeferred compensation, he receives from Goldman Sachs. Paulson apprently receives millions, whole being Secretary of Treasury. Now he wants to steal our money and get automatic legal immunity. No, No, No, No. Oh, Goldman Sachs has a history of corruption.We still love Dodd. And why not….we’re rational people! ;-)
Leahy has been on a rampage ever since he got the anthrax-laced letter. He’s a fighter and never gives up in the face of adversity!
“
Debt
Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by striking ‘‘$10,615,000,000,000’’ and insert
ing ‘‘$11,315,000,000,000’’.”
My word, not theirs. And not offering the observation for its veracity, but rather so to provide info on how others are thinking about the process. My little service to try to make sure we don’t suffocate in our own little bubble.
There are many good reasons to mock the financial sector & the cable business channels, but don’t minimize their importance in the process.
Dodd’s on PBS NewsHour right now
You are the first person I have heard say that banks are not in trouble.
Kay, taking the temperature of your clients, how do they feel about this?
Heckuva Job Bushie blustery bullying: The whole world is watching….
Dodd…The whole world is watching all right — to see that we cancel your credit card, Bushie. Oh, and rehab would be nice, too.
I like Obama, but Dodd was the guy I gave money to in the primaries.
That’s the total national debt, to be raised to allow borrowing of the $700B.
I hope Barney remembers some stimulus, like unemployment compensation extension or just another damn check. As long as we are borrowing from our Chinese overlords, can’t everybody get some?
I haven’t been able to find it. I had to piece together from over a dozen different articles.
To be honest, I’m too lazy to go thru it. The final will be some variation, and I don’t feel like getting into the weeds on all the variations in-between.
The Dodd plan, whatever unintended outcomes might be lurking there, is sure to be MUCH better than the Paulson highway robbery.
The only thing I picked up from watching CNBC all day was the following cute interchange:
Q: Why, if the govt gets the assets at market price should they also get an equity stake in the companies?
A: If there were a market for the debt, there wouldn’t need to be a bailout.
And don’t forget Kudlow - who makes Cramer seem rational…
Exactly. I was commenting on their little bubble, which I find endlessly amusing. Thanks for the reports!
I do not understand the problem with the executive comp limitations.
The alternative is: No bailout, have no comp from defunct company v. limited comp from a live one?
Oh, and the idea that “if you don’t pay, nobody will want the CEO jobs….”
….somebody always wants to be in charge, very often the biggest weenie in the company, and it is not always about pay.
LOL…I realized that just as I hit “submit”…*g*
Thanks.
(((eCAHN)))
And another $700 billion on top of the first, iirc.
i could use some help beyond the 6 months unemployment compensation i received for 6 months back in Jan 06. ::sigh::
Actually, most of my clients seem to be in good shape. No cancellations yet, and besides, they know if they cancel me my economy will be affected much worse than their own. Let’s just say I have great people in my life. ;-)
You’re welcome (((RonD))).
Probably one reason you trust me is that when I don’t know something I say so.
er, drop one 6 months reference.
thanks.
Off on the business of the Queen. See everyone later.
700 billion is a lot to pay for the emperor’s clothes..
I would say that Dodd is seen by business types as a progressive and so not to be taken seriously like the real business people who created this shitpile.
thanks. doesn’t look big, but for some reason my ibook couldn’t cope. imac got it though… will take a look…
That said, most of my clients are in the high end of wealth here in Maine. They have a lot to fall back on when times are tough. My parents and their friends on the other hand remember growing up during WWII under Great Depression parents and fear for us kids (not so much for themselves). My mother said to me the other day, “Don’t take your money out of the bank just yet. Panicking now would be bad. Stock up on canned goods and other necessities just in case”.
Oh Ian - was doing a virtual Snoopy Dance duet with you late last night as the story was unfolding.
and my goodness, they hung together - was so very concerned about their standing ‘off-the-table-before-November’ m.o.
Whiskey for the House, Barkeep !!!!
Me, too, Albert Fall.
Lot of truth in that, probably.
There wasn’t a lot of talk on CNBC about the risk of having Paulson in complete control of $700 billion with no controls. Though concerns about that were not entirely absent.
‘cept in this the emperor’s clothes aren’t invisible (or never existent). They’ve been stolen. By the palace guards.
That’s great. I love how you can tell them what you think.
But have they expressed any opinions on this?
this the one you are referring to?
give her a wave for me!
That is why these compensation packages are so outrageous. If you get rid of the current guy, there will always be another guy (or gal) to take his place. Between CEO pay and Boards of Directors “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” the whole thing stinks and needs to be regulated.
Atrios links to whose-to-blame-for-this-financial-meltdown-shit poll
But they’ve been chopped up and separated into millions of pieces…a window here..a lot there…it would be hard to identify who has what mortgage to what property.
Thanks, Ian. If you’re satisfied then I feel much better.
A thought occurs to me, though, after reading that Lehman is passing out a few billion to execs. I don’t think a restriction on golden parachutes is a surprise. Lehman is the only one we didn’t bail out. And lo and behold, they socked away a few bil before declaring bankruptcy. I don’t understand how they can do that, but, it seems they weighed a bailout vs a bonus and they chose bonus.
Yet another example of a market imperfection. The Olde Boys Club.
Do you have the link for that? It sounds like the “Cheney canceling the election” scenario that Mr. Gnome has predicted.
Ian, I have to respectfully disagree. Have read the bill myself, and will it contains lots of provisions I like, there are no decent provisions for effective enforcement. There are enough holes in it to drive a panzer division through unscathed. (For example: there’s no fixed share price, so the market can bid up the value of the shares making the equity trade much less attractive. I could continue in that vein.)
Meanwhile, there’s this.
God Himself couldn’t have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the Administration. That’s why I want to see 40 Republican No votes in the Senate, and 150+ in the House. If a bailout is to pass, let it be with Democratic votes. Let this be the political establishment (Bush Republicans in the White House + Democrats in Congress) saddling the taxpayers with hundreds of billions in debt (more than the Iraq War, conjured up in a single weekend, and enabled by Pelosi, btw), while principled Republicans say “No” and go to the country with a stinging indictment of the majority in Congress.
This creates pressure on the “change” message. If this issue is made controversial, and Obama is not the first to make it an issue, how exactly is a Washington deal backed by Bush’s Treasury Secretary “change?”
But for this to be actionable, it has to be controversial. So this can’t be a few lonely voices like Coburn and DeMint. It needs to be the bulk of the Republican conference. In an ideal world, McCain opposes this because of all the Democratic add-ons and shows up to vote Nay while Obama punts.
History has shown us that “inevitable” “emergency” legislation like the Patriot Act or Sarbanes-Oxley is never more popular than on the day it is passed — and this isn’t all that popular to begin with. All the upside comes with voting against it.
A bailout may be inevitable, but so to can be the political benefit for Congressional Republicans if played correctly.
So to summarize, the Bush administration deregulates the industry, the industry winds up in a crash scenario, Paulson wants to give them free money in a plan that I don’t see any evidence will work for more than a month or two, and at the same time, the Republicans intend to run against their own plan and pin the responsibility on the Democrats.
You cannot negotiate responsibly with bad actors acting in bad faith. The R’s have just demonstrated they are willing to destroy the financial system to win the election. So I say no; no to the Paulson plan, no to the Dodd, plan just no. They want the financial system to blip, well, t’were done, best done quickly.
max
[’So long economy, we knew ye well.’]
I don’t know. Republicans have a history of putting forth execrable first-draft proposals just so Democrats can feel like heroes when they dial the provisions down to merely abominable.
That was the case with the 2002 Iraq AUMF. And it was the case with Graham-Leach-Bliley, which Democrats originally opposed on straight party lines, then exacted a few concessions that led to their near-unanimous support, and nauseatingly ringing endorsements.
Schumer, Dodd, and others crowed about their hard-won modifications. But their tweaks did nothing to prevent the law (as applied malevolently, but evidently legally, by Bush allies) from decimating our economy.
I’m not prepared to kiss Dodd’s, or any Democrat’s, ring on this one just yet.
And belated thanks to the few who voted against the final version of Graham-Leach-Bliley: Russ Feingold, Paul Wellstone (sniff), Tom Harkin, Byron Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Richard Bryan, and one Republican, Richard Shelby.
Holy Crap!!!
Screwed up my blockquoting there. Sorry. The blockquote ends with the sentence starting, ‘A bailout may be inevitable…’.
max
[’Oops.’]
There has to be a way to allocate mortgage payments.
The renegotiations could be done by originators and payments allocated the way they currently are. Don’t know about the legality of that, though.
Interesting.
Yeah, I’ve been wondering all day if Paulson played the Ds.
I think that the attitude that was openly expressed by Fiorini last week is a shared attitude by a lot of these yahoos. It is just like the clowns that worked at Enron gloating about ripping off the grandmas and thinking that their shit doesn’t stink.
Yes it is
Can I ask why the rush to do something now? (maybe this has already been asked and answered) I mean what would happen if no plan was done until thhis administration is out the door?
Excellent post.
Can some of the issues you raised (share price, asset value) get “fixed,” by later legislation?
I haven’t read Dodd’s bill, but it sounds a lot less draconian than Paulson’s.
Great article and great news! I’m about to dive into the comments, but you don’t mention it and I don’t know - who is Marshall Dodd?
Thanks.
Stephanopoulos on ABC News one of the Republicans’ media outlets reporting that there will no mortgage reform. If there isn’t, this deal isn’t even worth the pixels let alone the paper.
See my 56
duh! Marshall Chris Dodd. Never mind!!
that’s how I write contracts and settlement proposals. Load a few total red-herring pieces of crap into them, which i will eventually “grudgingly” give up, and what is left is more or less what I wanted all along.
After the corporate welfare bailout, one of the first things we liberals imho have to hammer on (after we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan) is the Defense budget. We can’t afford it.
Chris Dodd is the Marshal
boy, i hope it gets better. because i just started reading and i’m not liking what i’m seeing so far. here some bits:
my bolds.
i’m just to the start of page 3.
Only if you want to risk a veto or wait until next year (assuming an Obama win).
actually, in the case of CMOs, legally they’re required to track the underlying mortgages.. if they can’t, there’s a potential title issue. That being said, many of them have lost track of them (I know that for a fact).. and somebay homeowners will figure that out and contest title. An’ if the bankers/bondholders/investors can’t find them at the end of the day, who knows what a court will say. Foreclosure? You can’t even prove you’re owed money? All I can say is two words: fiduciary chain.
. . . or at least a patch that would give us time to elect a responsible government to fix the problem.
yeah they lobbied that crap in along with bailing out foreign banks over the weekend. greed
From what I’ve read, it allows way too much leeway in a number of places. Dodd seems to be making the usual Dem mistake - assuming good intent on the part of the administration.
that was in response to Selise at 122
I don’t get it. Bush threatening a veto is irrelevant. If the situation is as dire as he and Paulson want us to believe (so dire that they think it requires a co-dictator who has something Bush doesn’t: the power of the purse with NO oversight or control) then a veto would be terroristic.
They have no ammo. The Dems can (and should) hold out. No surrender, no retreat. Dodd’s way or the highway…plus Glass-Steagall re-enactment.
No one can be allowed to get rich off this bailout and no CEO can be allowed a golden parachute.
The problem is the track record of the Dems. They ALWAYS fold up even when all the pressure is off and it only exists in their heads (see FISA).
I don’t trust the folks asking for the money and would like to see as well thought out a plan as possible given that we will be left holding the bill
Why do they need the Army domestically, starting in October, for crowd control????
They are not planning to leave quietly….or..something else upsetting to the people…
???????
This is terrifying.
Thinkprogress.org is saying that bush does not want any limiting of CEO’s pay. There is Dodd’s ammo to televise to the world that bush wants to let them have millions and you get nothing. THE DEMS MUST HOLD THEIR GROUND, THE PUBLIC ARE BEHIND THEM 100% IF THEY CAN GET THE AIR TIME TO LET THEM KNOW THAT IT IS THE DEMS WHO WANT TO HELP JOE SIX-PACK. OBAMA NEEDS TO LEAD THE ACTION - HE CAN GET AIR TIME.
more Ian
Oil Jumps 25 dollars in one day, up $40 from last week
Most significantly UBS surprise surprise
I’m sure they’re just being considerate. Shrub just wants to make sure successor has the tools he will need to continue Compassionate Conservative ;P.
Conservatism even
Leahy called them out on it recalling the RUSH to Patriot act and Iraq after a declared emergency
Actually, the threat of passing the bailout crashed the stock market, drove down the dollar, and (correspondingly) drove up oil. Perhaps a non-pass on this would hold things steady for a bit.
If/when it passes, the dollar is toast. That is certainty. Not passing it means a lot of banks and whatnot are toast. I vote for letting the banks and whatnot getting toasted.
Can’t leave Gramm’s people out in the cold, can we?
That’s a pretty good idea. I would actually break it up over the next twelve months, with the next month’s money being approved after you get the report on what was done with last month’s money. If the report is incomplete or inaccurate or you hear ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I’ll have to get back to you on that’, you don’t give them any money. If it works out, we could extend it to other areas of the executive, like the Defense Department, Homeland Security, State Department, and Justice Department. Maybe we can get them trained over the next eight years.
more ian upstairs http://firedoglake.com/2008/09.....-last-week
I think reducing troubled home mortgages by 15% is too little. This industry has caused countless headaches, not least from its usurious and incomprehensible even to experts mortgage documents, bounty hunter sales tactics, and their planned magical revenues from refinance-because-it’s-too-expensive-and-onerous-to-pay-the-original loan business model.
That business model relies on fee revenue, not interest, because the fees avoid state usury law limits on interest and go right to the bottom line without discounting for time value. A model that relegates the timely and full repayment of principal and interest through the life of the loan to the historical and the quaint.
Bankruptcy courts are suitable venues to hash this out. Better yet would be a WPA-type administration set up to deal with precisely these kinds of transactions on a national scale. The base discount could be 15%, but that could be dropped lower along a scale based on the egregious of the mortgage and the sales and administrative practices that sold and managed it. That would give “the markets” a modicum of certainty, to re-establish “market value”, and thereby shore up balance sheets and persuade creditors to lend. It would also penalize those lenders with the most egregious practices, which is where the pain belongs.
Of course, the main loan terms would have to be adjusted too, according to a uniform standard that would eliminate repayment penalties and other sources of outrageous fees. Developing such standard terms would be easy; adopting it would have to be by legislative fiat because it runs counter to the penalty fee-based business model that is used for most consumer lending, such as credit cards and mortgages.
courtesy of Steve Clemons at The Washington Note. Please take a look at sec. 8
The following is the legislative proposal from Treasury Department for authority to buy mortgage-related assets:
Section 1. Short Title.
This Act may be cited as ____________________.
Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.
(a) Authority to Purchase.–The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.
(b) Necessary Actions.–The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:
(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;
(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;
(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;
(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and
(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.
Sec. 3. Considerations.
In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for–
(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and
(2) protecting the taxpayer.
Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.
Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.
Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.
(a) Exercise of Rights.–The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.
(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.–The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.
(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.–The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.
(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.–The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.
Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.
The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time
Sec. 7. Funding.
For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.
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.
Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.
The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.
Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.
Sec. 11. Credit Reform.
The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.
Sec. 12. Definitions.
For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.–The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.
(2) Secretary.–The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.
(3) United States.–The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics.....trackback/
Go read rgemonitor. Go read calculated risk.com
The problem is that banks bought the shitpile as well as the Chinese.
If Roubini is correct, (and he has been so far as far as I can tell) literally there are hundreds of banks that are like a dead bank walking. They are actually insolvent. Not illiquid, insolvent.
Roubini maintains this is an insolvency problem and I have every reason to believe he is correct. Many banks have the majority of their assets in real estate in some fashion. Real estate is in the tank therefore they are insolvent.
That is why I think this bailout is too early. We don’t know how much further real estate has to fall. The price to be paid today could make it so the govt doesn’t lose any money or it could lose it all. Also noted before the limit of 700 billion outstanding at one time means that taxpayers could be on the hook for 700 billion several times over. So think of this as maybe the 2.1 Trillion dollar bailout!!!!!
That is why oil and gold are up today, INFLATION will eat us all alive. Personally I am pissed because I save money. I have cash. I did not over extend myself and I have no credit card debt.
Not only do I have to bailout wall street but all of the homeowners that bought houses they couldn’t afford, oh and my money will be worth a fraction of what it was before the bailout. Oh and my taxes will have to go up as well to pay for this fiasco.
Makes me angry. Very angry!
i think that’s paulson’s proposal. dodd’s is not nearly so bad, but still unacceptable… although i’ve been distracted and am not only at page 27. don’t know if i should leave my notes here, or in a current thread….
I so agree. This is the political football that will allow McSame to steal the election from Obama.
They will beat the Dems over the head with this. They have already started on Hardball just now with Steve (I think Clyburn) and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. He was railing against the bailout and Schultz saying she is for it as long as it also bails out Main Street.
If the post I read by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com…all the wingers are against this so this lines up perfectly for McCain to be the “Maverick” against big government.
REPUBLICANS have lied, obfuscated, and exaggerated about everything that has happened in the last 8 years. Why oh why should anyone believe them now?
I sure don’t.
Sorry! Reading blogs all over the place and just got back here. LOL
Well, believe it or not, most of them aren’t really talking about it (Wall Street collapse). Edie, one customer, is an Obama supporter and her husband likes McCain. She said her husband is worried about Obama taking the reins in January, so I have to keep telling her about McCain’s ties to what is happening now and how we will definitely get more of the same if this asshole gets in. She’s interested in politics, but most don’t really say too much. If they are hurting I doubt they would tell me. I don’t get the feeling any of them are. One customer, Marybeth, opened up an interior design store last year and made almost $500,000 in profit last year! This year, her husband tells me the business has more than doubled. CONCLUSION: They won’t be hurting anytime soon.
I do know that quite a few of my customers are sick of the last 8 years. Some are republicans and some are Democrats. That’s a good sign. ;-)
Here’s a couple of other quotes; more are out there:
http://www.torringtontelegram......ry_id=2311
http://www.marketwatch.com/new.....aspx?guid={2E98DC49-EA62-4E89-AB3B-3138273C3A65}
John McCain is soooo old he remembers having one car with 13 horses to pull.
These all look like good provisions, but not THE MAIN thing.
Incredibly ironic, isn’t it?
I really like that it’s one of those crazy Massachussetts Liberal Gays and a Progressive/Liberal (Frank & Dodd) who are gonna save their asses. It’s pretty hilarious — like a rich guy who turns all progressive to get us out of a depression. Heh.
The administration had/has the power to play their hand. Nobody can stop that. But, it doesn’t mean Dems or Congress as a whole have to go along. It’s going to be the result of that Congressional response which will tell us who’s playing who and where this will take the markets and the country and perhaps even the world economy.
So, are ya gonna vote for Bush again?
Sorry, it’s the punch line of a joke which just fits your post perfectly.
a few (mostly trivial) things to look at and consider in the draft:
Note: My meaning of ”==>” is that you might consider the following.
The title and subsequent mention should match.
ln 6 Does ”any financial institution” include foreign institutions?
ln 7 ”determined by the Secretary” is a lot of leeway!
ln 21 ”shall acquire a senior contingent debt” might be right, but consider
”shall receive …” to eliminate the argument it has to be bought.
(B)
ln 14 ”14 business days” ==> ”20 business days”
(3)
ln 13 ”the average share price” ==> ”the median share price”
ln 15 ”14 business” ==> ”20 business”
Question: Do oversight board members have to be in place before the Secretary of Treasury can utilize the authority?
(2) Weekly Public Reports
Should there be an exemption for times when there are no held assets and buying & selling activity?
ln 23 ”such determination is found to be” ==>
”such determination is found by the oversight board to be”
Is it known how to officially determine ownership of mortgages?
I’ve read there have been problems with that.
The undiluted power is kind of scary. It makes me think there should be a broader Economic Security Council where some economic agency actors might be checked by a board composed of SEC, FDIC, FSLIC, Treas. Sec. and the like.
Sec. 11
ln 23-24 ”reasonable premium” is very vague and easily abused.
ln 21 Does ”the plan need not” really cover all the needed bases?
On Termination of the program: What if an asset is still on hand at the program’s end? We don’t want to be rushed to sell assets.
Executive Compensation
ln 22 ”appropriate standards” is very vague.
ln 4 ”(2) a clawback provision for” ==>
”(2) a clawback provision to retrieve” or something like that
p. 31
Several places from here where ”the Board” and ”Federal reserve bank” are used. Correctness of usage should be checked.
p. 32
ln 3 ”and what process” ==> ”and an analysis of what process”
ln 4 ”or not use” ==> ”or not to use” or maybe ”or to not use”
ln 23 pur ”chasing, pricing, and disposing of” ==>
”chasing, pricing, managing, adjusting, and disposing of”
IG
ln 21 ”Troubled Assets Program” needs to be defined or reworded to
”the program(s) authorized by this Law”
This phrase ”Troubled Assets Program” is used many times.
p. 34
ln 18 ”March 1, 2008” should be checked for correctness.
p. 42 Sec 21 Definitions
ln 11 ”(1) Board” —> should maybe be Secretary of Treasury?
ln 16 ”(3) Corporation” —> refers to?
=============================================================
There is a lot of reporting required from various sources.
There’s a sunset provision!
There’s use of the HOPE Housing law.
There’s authorization for Treasury to set it up & fund it & oversee it.
There’s limits on Executive Compensation!
I’d say there are some other good ideas in Congress which should be added.
But, this is a very good start.
OK, maybe this is an incredibly naive question - but if the government is spending $700 billion dollars, why doesn’t the government just make direct loans to get the credit flowing again and eliminate the banks from the equation entirely? I understand that there is likely no infrastructure in place for this, but it seems if all options are on the table, eliminating middleman could be a more effective use of the dollars for the people who need it and are ultimately paying for the bailout?