Geithner

Timothy Geithner, Political Strategist

by Ryan Young on October 6, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Economy

The TARP bank bailout program polls poorly. Fifty-eight percent of Americans think the bailouts were unnecessary. Timothy Geithner, in recent remarks, subtly reminded voters that the hated bailouts were originally a Republican proposal. It began with George W. Bush, remember.

This is a clever bit of strategy from Geithner. President Obama and congressional Democrats get most of the blame for TARP. And they deserve plenty of blame for not repealing the program. But Geithner is right. TARP began with Republicans.

The midterm elections will probably be very kind to Republicans. Geithner is saying, in effect, “be careful what you wish for.”

He’s right. If the GOP does regain control of Congress, little good is likely to come of it. They will probably do a decent job opposing the White House’s proposals. That could slow spending growth.

But what the country needs are spending cuts. And Republicans have serially proven they can’t be trusted with the public purse.

When Republicans last held power they passed the largest new entitlement program since the Great Society, nearly doubled federal spending in eight years, gave billions of dollars in subsidies to businesses and farmers, and generally made a mess of things. The TARP bailouts and the largest spending stimulus in U.S. history were their closing flourishes.

Republicans  did all the things they ran against in 1994. Many GOP candidates are saying similar things in 2010. But remember Geithner’s counsel about TARP. Only a fool would believe that Republicans will actually cut spending. Beltway fever catches quickly. And it’s contagious.

Of course, Democrats are just as bad. As I say with every election involving Democrats and Republicans, whoever wins, we lose. The best that independents can do is nudge the intellectual climate in a better direction. Geithner has kindly reminded us that we need to redouble our efforts on conservatives and progressives alike.

Fannie-Freddie White House Sham Summit Produces Short-Sighted Solutions

by John Berlau on August 17, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Nanny State, Odds & Ends, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

After ramming through a “financial reform” bill that increases government controls on such ”ants” (hat tip to House Minority Leader John Boehner’s comments–distorted by the press–in full context) as orthodontists with installment plans and retail stores with layaway plans, but leaving the elephants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to roam free with unlimited taxpayer backing, the Obama administration is today holding a promised summit to at least discuss putting some kind of fence around the government-sponsored enterprises.

But given the controlled atmosphere of the summit–which President Obama is not even attending, preferring instead to campaign on the West Coast–any fence this Obama administration will build will be very easy for the housing elephants to trample over.  Geithner set the tone of the summit this morning with what Fortune calls his “spilled milk” opening remarks attempting deflect criticism of Fannie and Freddie’s losses. “There is nothing we can do to decrease the significant losses Fannie and Freddie incurred ahead of this crisis,” he said.

So far, the firms have taken $15o billion in taxpayer aid.  The Treasury Department’s “Christmas bailout” of the GSE’s–the December 24 order removing the caps of $200 billion dollars that Treasury was authorized to spend on each of the two mortgage underwriters–exposes the American taxpayer to unlimited liability for the entities and their potential new missteps.

Competitive Enterprise Institute President Fred Smith had long warned about the systemic risk Fannie and Freddie posed to the financial system, warning as early as 2000 that their implosion could cause a taxpayer bailout of as much as $200 billion.  Members of Congress expressed shock and outrage, but Smith turned out to have underestimated the ultimate costs.

And new research shows that rather than being “late to the subprime party,” as some press narratives had describe it, Fannie and Freddie created and drove the subprime market as early as the ’90s. Indeed, according to housing expert Edward Pinto, Fannie’s former chief credit officer who has presented his findings before Congress and should himself be asked to testify before the commission, millions of mortgages to borrowers with credit scores of less than 660–considered by prominent researchers to be the dividing line for subprime loans–had been labeled by Fannie and Freddie as prime going back as early as 1993.

In his writings for the American Enterprise Institute, Peter Wallison, now also a commissioner on the Congress-created Financial Crisis Inquire Commission,  noted that this misrepresentation by the government-backed mortgage giants could have itself been a major factor in inflating the housing bubble. “Market observers, rating agencies and investors were unaware of the number of subprime and Alt-A mortgages infecting the financial system in late 2006 and early 2007,” he wrote.

Simply making the government support of Fannie and Freddie direct–an idea conference attendee Bill Gross of PIMCO proposed and Geithner implied support for–may produce slightly more honest accounting. But it would continue the distortion of government support for housing that is hurting both short-term growth by channeling private funds to government-guaranteed housing instead of more innovative economic  sectors, and long-term prosperity by adding possibly $1 trillion to U.S. national debt.

CEI has long advocated that the government both break up Fannie and Freddie and withdraw government support. More and more of the American public is coming to agree. A CNBC poll of its viewers this morning found that 68 percent believe that the GSEs are no longer necessary. While the poll is not scientific, it is significant, because CNBC’s viewer are not as conservative as those of FOX News or FOX Business.

Winding down Fannie and Freddie will not be easy, but it will not be the horrendous disaster many are claiming. Interest rates would likely go up, but housing prices will almost certainly go down, meaning that housing would likely hit equilibrium for credit-worthy borrowers with modest incomes. As CEI’s Smith has noted, there are “many American dreams,” and the claim of politicians of both parties that housing is intertwined with our economy is a circular argument. This intertwining is itself due to the government’s backing of housing.

General Motors Repays Tiny Portion of Taxpayers’ $50 Billion Bailout; Obama Backers Bash Critics of Bailout

by Hans Bader on April 22, 2010 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Energy, Labor, Legal, Mobility, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

President Obama’s tax-cheat treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, is trumpeting the fact that General Motors has paid back a small fraction of what taxpayers gave the company, noting that “GM had repaid in full the $4.7 billion balance it owed under the government’s Trouble Asset Relief Program.” But this so-called “repayment” was just an accounting trick.  GM used government bailout money to make the “repayment,” as the New York Times has noted.

More importantly, this “repayment” is a drop in the bucket compared to what GM has received from taxpayers.  The federal government has yet to recover the lion’s share of the more than $50 billion it loaned the company.  Why?  Because that $50 billion was mostly “converted into stock held by the Treasury Department.”  That’s billions of dollars for stock in a company that, for all intents and purposes, was bankrupt. (GM just lost another $4.3 billion.)

The only reason GM had enough money left to pay back any of what it owes taxpayers is because of Toyota’s recent safety issues and recalls, which drove car buyers away from Toyota to GM and Ford.  Only that kept GM from burning through most of the taxpayers’ money.

Even though GM still hasn’t paid back the $50 billion, and received billions in additional handouts through programs like the incredibly wasteful Cash for Clunkers (which cost taxpayers and used-car and car-parts businesses billions), Obama backers now claim that critics of the bailout owe Obama, GM, and the UAW “an apology.”

Ironically, GM would never have needed a bailout if it had just received relief from costly regulations such as CAFE rules (which wiped out at least 50,000 jobs) and dealer-franchise laws.  That’s so despite GM’s massive burdens from excessive union wages and benefits (worth up to $70 an hour), and rigid union work rules.

The Obama Administration left those wasteful work rules and excessive benefits largely intact, and gave the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) a big chunk of General Motors‘ stock, even though the UAW helped bankrupt the company, and the company has value today only because the federal government pumped billions of taxpayer dollars into the company (and engineered the wiping out of General Motors’ bondholders, some of whom were non-union employees who had invested their life savings in the company).

Veteran political commentator Michael Barone called the Obama administration’s treatment of Chrysler and GM bondholders “gangster government.” Law professor and bankruptcy expert Todd Zywicki called it an attack on “the rule of law.”

Back in 2008, Zywicki prophetically warned that a bailout would prove worse for the auto industry than for automakers to just quickly file for bankruptcy.   Zywicki noted that by enabling automakers to get rid of expensive union contracts and red tape, a “Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing will likely result in a stronger domestic industry.”   It would provide  “a mechanism for forcing UAW workers to take further pay cuts, reduce their gold-plated health and retirement benefits, and overcome their cumbersome union work rules.”  It would also help automakers get rid of redundant auto dealerships that should be terminated but aren’t because of state dealer franchise laws.  Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker also argued that bankruptcy would have been better than a bailout in achieving “needed reforms.”

But the federal government ignored their wise advice, and chose to embark an incredibly costly bailout instead.   The bailout of GM and Chrysler is similar in many ways to the British government’s unsuccessful auto bailout in the 1970s, which ultimately failed despite a cost in the billions.

The federal government used money from the $700 billion bank bailout for the auto industry bailout. Legal scholars at the Heritage Foundation, Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich and many other commentators have argued that using the bank-bailout money for auto bailouts was illegal.

LibertyWeek 54: Read My Lips

by Richard Morrison on August 3, 2009

in CEI Projects, Podcast

Your host Richard Morrison welcomes back returning guest co-hosts Michelle Minton and Jeremy Lott for Episode 54 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We start with ominous hints of new taxes, California state employees making strike threats and the possible antitrust implications of the Microhoo partnership. We continue with a double-dipping pay scandal, the suppression of dissent in Venezuela and some fully transparent Olympic News.

Hans Bader on Government Ownership of U.S. Banks

by Richard Morrison on April 21, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Video, Zeitgeist

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exTXY__Il6g 285 234]

GASPing at the Geithner-Summers Plan

by Fran Smith on April 7, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Economy

Like the acronym for the Geithner and Summers Plan — GASP — in the article by Laurence J Kotlikoff and Jeffrey Sachs. And “gasp” is indeed the reaction to the $1 trillion plan to deal with financial institutions’ toxic assets.  As Kotlifkoff and Sachs note, the plan can easily be gamed by participants:

The situation is even worse that it looks, however, since the GASP can be gamed by the banks that own the toxic assets to boost the purchase prices for their bad assets even higher than has been suggested to date.

Markets Rally on Hopes of Regulatory Relief

by Hans Bader on April 2, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

The stock market has gone up by 280 points so far today, fueled by FASB’s vote to relax rigid mark-to-market accounting rules, which require financial institutions to value assets at their current fire-sale prices, and magnify boom-bust economic cycles.

The market may also be getting a boost from the Senate’s earlier vote undercutting the Obama Administration’s proposed $2 trillion cap-and-trade carbon tax, which would impose burdens on the economy akin to Herbert Hoover‘s disastrous 1932 Revenue Act at the beginning of the Great Depression.

The market’s rise contrasts with its fall in the weeks after passage of Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package, which Obama falsely claimed was needed to avert “disaster” and “irreversible decline.” Obama made that claim even though the Congressional Budget Office, controlled by his own Congressional allies, admitted that the stimulus package would shrink the economy over “the long run.”

Many commentators have called for relaxation or repeal of mark-to-market accounting rules to stem the financial crisis, including former FDIC Chairman William Isaac, Congressmen Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) and Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), the Wall Street Journal, John Berlau, Jeff Miller, Holman Jenkins, Newt Gingrich, and the Republican Study Committee.

While pushing through $8 trillion in bailouts, and trillions more in debt from massive budget increases, the Obama administration has until recently ignored inexpensive possible ways of mitigating the financial crisis like reform of “mark-to-market” accounting rules.

The Obama administration’s footdragging on accounting-regulation reform is inconsistent with the rationale for its trillion-dollar toxic-asset buy-up program, which defies mark-to-market concepts in a much more extreme way than a mere relaxation of mark-to-market accounting rules. The Treasury Secretary claims taxpayers won’t lose a full trillion under Obama’s toxic-asset program, because the assets aren’t as worthless as their current market prices suggest. But if that’s true, why did he continue to insist on federal accounting rules that force banks to value their assets at the current depressed market prices? Either the accounting rules were right — in which case taxpayers will end up losing a trillion dollars — or they were wrong, amplifying financial panics — in which case the rules should be repealed, so that banks, not taxpayers, will be able to take the risk of holding the assets. (If these accounting rules, known as “mark-to-market” accounting, had been in place in the late 1980s, “every major commercial bank would have collapsed,” wiping out the economy).

It’s not even clear that all these bailouts are needed. As William Seidman, the banking official who helped clean up the S&L Crisis as head of the RTC, notes, the government’s $170 billion AIG bailout was absurdly expensive and wasteful. “We paid off huge debts that AIG had in the swaps market, which we probably did not have to do. We bought a number of assets from AIG at high prices, which we probably did not have to do.”

That includes a huge unneeded windfall for the investment bank formerly headed by Treasury Secretary Paulson, Goldman Sachs, a major donor to liberal politicians, which received billions of dollars from taxpayers that it did not even need, through the AIG bailout.

Obama’s record-breaking tax and spending increases violate his campaign promises to enact a “net spending cut” and not to raise taxes “in any form” on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Ironically, Obama’s “cap-and-trade” carbon tax might have the perverse effect of increasing, rather than reducing, greenhouse gas emissions. Cap-and-trade is a pernicious “form of tax farming.”

Feds Make Freddie Mac Even Worse, Ripping Off Taxpayers

by Hans Bader on March 27, 2009 · 3 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

After federal regulators took over failing mortgage giant Freddie Mac, they didn’t stop its risky lending practices. Instead, they ramped up its risk-taking, making it run up even bigger debts at taxpayer expense to try to artificially pump up the economy. They made Freddie buy countless risky mortgage loans. Recently, the Obama Administration forced it to incur $30 billion in losses as part of the administration’s bailout for irresponsible mortgage borrowers, which caps mortgage payments for even high-income borrowers at a ridiculously low level. The Obama Administration tried to prevent Freddie Mac from even disclosing these losses in the financial disclosures it must make to investors under the securities laws.

Given the government’s ability to take even a badly-managed company and run it even worse, why should anyone support Treasury Secretary Geithner’s demand yesterday for vast new powers to take over companies that he thinks pose risks to the economy, or risks of failing? Especially given Geithner’s history of bungling responses to past economic crises, such as his role in the destruction of Indonesia’s economy in the Asian Financial Crisis of the 1990s.

I was a huge critic of GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their practices. CEI President Fred Smith has been publicly criticizing their ability to gamble at the taxpayers’ expense for years. Congress ignored his prophetic warnings about the risk they posed to taxpayers.

But federal regulators have been so reckless that they have managed to make matters even worse.

Geithner Seeks More Power to Ruin Our Economy

by Hans Bader on March 26, 2009 · 6 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner wants a “vast expansion” of his power over the financial system. This is the same guy whose bungled $170 billion AIG bailout gave billions of dollars to wealthy AIG clients like Goldman Sachs, which admits it neither needed nor expected the money it got from taxpayers.

Back in the 1990′s, Geithner, working with the IMF, destroyed Indonesia’s economy, by prescribing disastrous economic policies. The result was massive increases in child malnutrition, riots, and mushrooming poverty, in a major country that once boasted annual economic growth rates of 7 percent. Australia’s long-time Prime Minister Paul Keating has chronicled Geithner’s central role in this disaster repeatedly, but to no avail (Keating was the leader of his country’s Labor Party, so he’s not exactly a doctrinaire conservative. And his rule was marked by economic growth.).

Now, Geithner wants more regulatory power in his own hands, even though unregulated financial institutions (like hedge funds) are doing better than regulated ones, so much so that unregulated financial institutions are being relied upon to bail out regulated financial institutions in Geithner’s toxic-asset buy-up program!

Geithner sent the dollar tumbling yesterday by foolishly suggesting that the dollar might be losing its role as the world’s reserve currency. The head of the European Union yesterday called the Obama Administration’s policy of unprecedentedly massive deficit spending the “road to hell.” The prominent liberal economist Jeffrey Sachs says that the Administration’s toxic-asset buy-up program will “rob the taxpayer” by “buying up toxic assets from the banks at far above their market value.”

Historian and engineer Clayton Cramer has a fascinating analysis of how the mortgage crisis was spawned by regulations adopted under the Community Reinvestment Act, and special interest groups that learned how to game those regulations, like ACORN (a group Obama long worked with). ACORN, a beneficiary of the stimulus package, helped spawn the mortgage crisis by promoting “liar loans.” It has also engaged in extensive financial fraud and vote fraud. The Obama Administration has chosen ACORN to help conduct the 2010 census, which will be used to reallocate seats in Congress.

Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel received $320,000 while asleep at the switch as a director of the mortgage giant Freddie Mac, a fraud-ridden GSE that helped spawn the mortgage crisis and ended up being bailed out by taxpayers at a cost of over $100 billion.

James Piereson has insightful comments about Geithner’s demand for new regulatory powers (and unnecessary bailouts) here. He also notes that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has been essentially refighting the last war, applying remedies that might have been helpful in the Great Depression but are positively harmful now.

Perhaps Bernanke’s most controversial policy has been to print vast sums of money to buy up government bonds, under the rubric of “quantitative easing.” Congressman Ron Paul says this policy, and the massive bailouts, are an inflationary disaster, and that it would have been better for the government to do what it did in response to the sharp 1921 recession — nothing. “He cites the mini-depression of 1921, which lasted just a year largely because insolvent companies were allowed to fail. ‘No one remembers that one. They’ll remember this one, because it will last’” much longer, because the “government just won’t allow the correction the economy needs.”

The 1921 recession speedily ended, without any bailouts or government intervention, although it started out as a very nasty recession, with suffering much worse than in the early days of the Great Depression. The 1921 recession was followed by an economic boom, including 6 percent annual growth rates in the 1920s.

The Obama administration has never explained why such vast powers should be bestowed on Geithner, who cheated on his taxes, lacks expertise in economics, and receives a failing grade from economists. Yet it has relied on him to sell its economic policies, such as its proposed budget (which will add $4.8 trillion in additional debt), $8 trillion in bailouts, a trillion dollar toxic-asset buy-up program, and an $800 billion, economy-shrinking “stimulus” package, all of which contradict Obama’s campaign pledge of a “net spending cut.”

Toxic-Asset Buy-Up: “Pure Plunder”?

by Hans Bader on March 24, 2009 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

People who have actually read the fine print of the Administration’s trillion-dollar toxic asset buy-up program don’t like it. One calls it “pure plunder.”

Both liberals like Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, and conservatives like Chris Stirewalt, sum up the program as “Heads I win, Tails the Taxpayers Lose.”

Others argue it provides “public subsidies” for hedge funds that don’t need them, and for “zombie banks” that ought to be shut down to cut the taxpayers’ losses.

Even Harvard business law professor Lucian Bebchuk, who once advocated buying up toxic assets, now says that taxpayers may end up being fleeced by the toxic asset program, and that it would have been better and cheaper to let AIG go bankrupt rather than spending $170 billion bailing it out.

In essence, the U.S. Treasury will “become the new AIG. In order to get hedge funds to buy up toxic debt, Obama is proposing that the Treasury provide loans up front and insurance against potential losses on the back end.”

The Administration claims taxpayers won’t lose a full trillion, because the assets aren’t as worthless as their current market prices suggest. But if that’s true, why does it continue to enforce accounting rules that force banks to value their assets at the current depressed market prices? Either the accounting rules rightly value assets — in which case taxpayers may end up losing a trillion dollars — or they are wrong — in which case the rules should be repealed, so that banks, not taxpayers, can take on the risk of holding the assets. (If these rules, known as “mark-to-market” accounting, had been in place in the 1980s, “every major commercial bank would have collapsed.” As we noted earlier, many banking officials, economists, and lawmakers support junking those accounting rules).

Many bailouts, like the $170 billion AIG bailout, have been grossly wasteful, as former banking regulator William Seidman notes. For example, “We paid off huge debts that AIG had in the swaps market, which we probably did not have to do.” That includes paying billions to AIG customer Goldman Sachs, which Goldman readily admits it did not need to survive.

Don’t trust politicians who say their spending programs are needed to avert disaster. Obama claimed the $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “disaster” and “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office admitted that the stimulus package would actually shrink the economy in the long run.

In the Asia Times, Martin Hutchinson notes Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s role in spawning asset bubbles and the current financial crisis, his refusal to face his mistakes, and his inflationary policies, which now threaten to erode the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency (impoverishing America in the process).

← Previous Entries