Geithner

Toxic Asset Rip-Off

by Hans Bader on March 23, 2009 · 3 comments

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

That’s how analysts describe the trillion-dollar toxic-asset buy-up program proposed this weekend by the Obama Administration: “the president is putting forth his idea to have the Treasury 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. It’s what Paul Krugman called ‘heads I win, tails the taxpayers lose.’ By the way, it may cost another $1 trillion.”

The Treasury Secretary 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 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 are right — in which case taxpayers will end up losing a trillion dollars — or they are wrong, amplifying financial panics — in which case the rules should be repealed, so that banks, not taxpayers, will be able to take the risk of holding the assets.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, which received billions of dollars from taxpayers that it did not even need, through the AIG bailout. As James Piereson notes,

“Goldman wound up receiving $12.9 billion in December from AIG in an initial payout from the TARP money. Thus, taxpayer funds were used not so much to bail out AIG, but rather its “counterparties,” including Goldman and a dozen or so other major banks. Now, in an interview with the press on Friday, Goldman’s chief financial officer has declared that the company was never in jeopardy from a collapse of AIG — that it held some $7.5 billion in collateral against its AIG account and that it had hedged the remaining $2.5 billion in its net exposure using credit-default swaps with other parties. . .David Viniar, Goldman’s chief financial officer, insisted that the company would not have been damaged if AIG had been allowed to collapse. Even so, the company profited handsomely from the payout from AIG, courtesy of the American taxpayer. Goldman could not turn down the payout without damaging its shareholders, Mr. Viniar said. In other words, if the U.S. government — via AIG — was going to offer a gift, Goldman was not in a position to turn it down. Which raises the question: What then was the point of the AIG rescue? The claim by Paulson et al that a collapse of AIG would bring down the international financial system was entirely unsubstantiated. Congress passed the bailout bill under pressure from the financial authorities that they had to act to ‘save the system.’ It turns out that this was far from being true. The lesson from this is that everyone — most especially members of Congress — should look skeptically upon claims that this or that institution is ‘too big to fail’ or that a catastrophe awaits of a major financial institution is not bailed out.”

Politicians frequently claim the sky will fall if their proposals are not implemented, even when they know that is not true. Obama claimed the $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “disaster” and “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office, controlled by his own Congressional allies, admitted that the stimulus package will shrink the economy over the long run, in reports released both before and after the bill’s passage.

While pushing through $8 trillion in bailouts, and trillions more in debt from massive budget increases, the Obama administration has ignored inexpensive possible remedies for the financial crisis like reform of “mark-to-market” accounting rules. Many commentators are now calling for relaxation of those rules in order 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

“Heads I win, Tails the Taxpayers Lose”: Toxic Asset Rip-Off

by Hans Bader on March 23, 2009

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

That’s how analysts describe the trillion-dollar toxic-asset buy-up program proposed this weekend by the Obama Administration: “the president is putting forth his idea to have the Treasury 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. It’s what Paul Krugman called ‘heads I win, tails the taxpayers lose.’ By the way, it may cost another $1 trillion.”

The Treasury Secretary 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 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 are right — in which case taxpayers will end up losing a trillion dollars — or they are 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, which received billions of dollars from taxpayers that it did not even need, through the AIG bailout. As James Piereson notes,

“Goldman wound up receiving $12.9 billion in December from AIG in an initial payout from the TARP money. Thus, taxpayer funds were used not so much to bail out AIG, but rather its “counterparties,” including Goldman and a dozen or so other major banks. Now, in an interview with the press on Friday, Goldman’s chief financial officer has declared that the company was never in jeopardy from a collapse of AIG — that it held some $7.5 billion in collateral against its AIG account and that it had hedged the remaining $2.5 billion in its net exposure using credit-default swaps with other parties. . .David Viniar, Goldman’s chief financial officer, insisted that the company would not have been damaged if AIG had been allowed to collapse. Even so, the company profited handsomely from the payout from AIG, courtesy of the American taxpayer. Goldman could not turn down the payout without damaging its shareholders, Mr. Viniar said. In other words, if the U.S. government — via AIG — was going to offer a gift, Goldman was not in a position to turn it down. Which raises the question: What then was the point of the AIG rescue? The claim by Paulson et al that a collapse of AIG would bring down the international financial system was entirely unsubstantiated. Congress passed the bailout bill under pressure from the financial authorities that they had to act to ‘save the system.’ It turns out that this was far from being true. The lesson from this is that everyone — most especially members of Congress — should look skeptically upon claims that this or that institution is ‘too big to fail’ or that a catastrophe awaits of a major financial institution is not bailed out.”

Politicians frequently claim the sky will fall if their proposals are not implemented, even when they know that is not true. Obama claimed the $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “disaster” and “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office, controlled by his own Congressional allies, admitted that the stimulus package will shrink the economy over the long run, in reports released both before and after the bill’s passage.

While pushing through $8 trillion in bailouts, and trillions more in debt from massive budget increases, the Obama administration has ignored inexpensive possible remedies for the financial crisis like reform of “mark-to-market” accounting rules. Many commentators are now calling for relaxation of those rules in order 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

Economists Give Obama Failing Grade; New Bailouts Demanded As Obama Breaks Promises

by Hans Bader on March 12, 2009 · 2 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Employment, Labor, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere

Obama gets a failing grade from economists. “U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.”

Not content with the $8 trillion the Obama Administration has already committed for bailouts, pork, and welfare, Treasury Secretary Geithner, who was confirmed by the Senate despite cheating on his taxes, wants to spend $100 billion on IMF loans to bail out struggling nations in Eastern Europe and elsewhere — even though many European “officials doubt the wisdom of falling deeply into debt to create jobs and halt the plunge in consumer demand, as the United States is doing.”

Wal-Mart’s stock rating has been downgraded due to the possible passage of card-check legislation supported by Obama, which could lead to “diminished workforce flexibility” and pay based on “seniority” rather than merit, as a result of compulsory arbitration provisions contained in the bill. (The bill could also lead to intimidation of workers). The stock market has also fallen this year as investors have become disenchanted with the Administration.

The Federal Government may face increasing calls to bail out state governments, which have run up trillions of dollars in unfunded, and incredibly generous, pension liabilities to state employees in contracts negotiated with their unions using deliberately-deceptive accounting.

Obama broke his campaign promise to curb earmarks by signing a bloated, $410 billion appropriations bill that contained 8,500 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion. It also broke his campaign promise of a “net spending cut.”

Obama broke seven campaign promises dealing with transparency and clean government in signing the economy-shrinking, $800 billion stimulus package, much of whose contents were secret until shortly before Congress voted on it, and whose 1400 pages went unread by most Congressmen who voted on it.

Earlier, Obama repeatedly broke his promises not to sign bills without first giving the public five days to comment. “Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them,” Obama’s campaign Web site stated. “As president, Obama will not sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.”

But Obama has repeatedly signed laws without providing such notice, such as the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, his very first law, which he signed less than 2 days after it was passed by the House, with no opportunity for comment. Moreover, in signing the Ledbetter law, Obama made false claims about both the facts of the Supreme Court case that the Ledbetter law overturned, and what the Supreme Court actually held in that case.

The Washington Post‘s David Ignatius, finally losing patience with Obama, criticizes the Administration’s focus on anything but fixing the economy’s underlying ills, calling its economic policies a “phony war” characterized by economic “mismanagement.” “Economist David Smick had it right in The Post this week when he said the administration had a three-pronged strategy: delay, delay and delay. The administration announces a rescue package but doesn’t deliver details; it promises budget discipline but saves the hard decisions for later,” while stacking the Obama “administration with politicians and former government officials,” who lack “experience managing large organizations in crisis.”

Like us, Michael Barone says that the Treasury Department and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, through their arbitrary, “ad hoc” approach to the financial crisis (such as their unpredictable and inconsistent decisions about which companies to bail out), have exacerbated the current financial crisis by leaving “players in the financial markets full of uncertainty and fear.”

Just How Much is $13 Trillion?

by Cord Blomquist on February 12, 2009 · 7 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Features, Stimulus to Nowhere, Zeitgeist

Regardless of your political party or ideological leanings, the notion of the federal government spending $2 trillion, adding to the national debt of nearly $11 trillion already, should make you stop and consider the staggering size of our national tab.

If the irony of using debt-based spending to solve a problem caused by debt-based spending has escaped you, perhaps these fun facts will put things into perspective:

  • If you spent $1 every second, you’d have to keep spending for 412,000 years to get to $13 trillion.  That means you’d have to start shortly after the time human beings first starting using stone tools and fire to get to $13 trillion today.
  • $13 trillion in one dollar bills weighs 28 million pounds.  That’s as much as 87 blue whales or 462 Statues of Liberty.
  • If you laid 13 trillion one-dollar bills end-to-end they’d reach from the earth to the sun and back…five times over.  That’s 946 million miles of greenbacks.

The amount we’re looking at now—roughly $2 trillion between the Secretary Geithner’s new bank bailout plan  and President Obama’s stimulus package—isn’t small potatoes either.  So what is $2 trillion?

  • $2 trillion is bigger than the entire Gross Domestic Product of our neighbor to the north, Canada.  In fact, according to the IMF, only Japan, Germany, China, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy have bigger total economies than the combined bailout/stimulus plan—all other countries on Earth have economies smaller than $2 trillion per year.

Then there’s the interest on this staggering debt, which isn’t exactly small.  Paying the interest on the current $10.7 trillion debt cost Americans $451.1 billion last year alone.  How big is that?

  • That’s $1478 dollars in interest for every man, woman, and child in the United States.
  • That’s bigger than the annual budgets of  New York ($121.1 billion), California ($111.1 billion) and Texas ($83.8 billion) combined.

If you’re scared, upset, or disgusted by this, you can do something.  Visit BeyondBailouts.org and tell your Congressman and the President what you think of the bank bailout and stimulus.

You can also click on the “ShareThis” button at the top of this post to forward these fun facts to your friends or share them on your favorite social network.

Correction: I originally listed the state budget of Texas as $167 billion, but that figure was not annual.  Texas budgets for two years at a time, so the figure has been cut in half.

LibertyWeek 27: Blago in Absentio

by Richard Morrison on January 28, 2009

in CEI Projects, Podcast

Your hosts Richard Morrison and Cord Blomquist welcome you back to another episode of LibertyWeek, wherein we start by highlighting CEI’s new Agenda for Congress. After all, they need adult supervision from somewhere, right? We then take on the new rules for bailout spending at Treasury, Gov. Blagojevich’s no-show status at his own impeachment trial, and an interview with Bureaucrash Crasher-in-Chief Pete Eyre. Finally, we round out the program with some appropriately strenuous Olympic News.

Listen here.

Next Entries →