Truthout Original

Facebook DIGG

The Bailout: Congress Endorses Conservative Nanny State

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Traders at the New York Stock Exchange look on as stocks plunge. (Photo: Richard Drew / AP)

    Most authors of books on politics or economics are happy when they get one or two prominent members of Congress to endorse their work. It looks like I'm about to get majorities of both chambers to endorse my book, "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer" (free download available). There is no other way to describe Henry Paulson's $700 billion bailout deal.

    The point of my book is that the battle between progressives and conservatives is not about a policy of government intervention as opposed to free market policies. Rather, it is a battle between those who want to use the government to benefit the middle and bottom of the income distribution and those who want to use the power of government to redistribute income upwards.

    Congressional support for the bailout was a big victory for those who want to redistribute income upward. The bailout is about taking money from the schoolteachers and cab drivers and giving it to incredibly rich Wall Street bankers, who are so incompetent that they drove their banks into the ground.

    This upward redistribution was done under the cover of crisis, just like the war in Iraq. But there is no serious crisis story. Yes, the economy is in a recession that is getting worse, but the bailout will not get us out of the recession, or even be much help in alleviating it.

    The best argument that the bailout proponents had was that the failure to do the bailout could lead to a collapse of the financial system, leaving us unable to use credit cards or ATMs, or otherwise conduct normal financial transactions. This would indeed be scary, since it would imply a complete economic collapse. (I had actually accepted this line.)

    However, on more careful thought, this is an idle threat. In the event the banking system really did freeze up, then the Fed would step in and take over the major banks. (It had contingency plans for such a takeover in the 80s, when the money center banks were saddled with billions of dollars of bad developing country debt.)

    The banks would not be happy about a Fed takeover. The top executives would be out of a job, and the shareholders would likely lose their full investment. However, the rest of us would be able to carry on with our lives as we did before. After maybe a few hours of disruption, we would be able to cash checks and use credit cards and ATMs just as we did before the crisis.

    In effect, the big banks had a gun pointed at their heads. The banks told Congress that if they didn't get $700 billion, then they would pull the trigger. Given this choice, Congress coughed up the cash.

    While the final version is an improvement over the original request, there is little by way of hard commitments on the key points. Which executives will see their pay limited and by how much? How much equity does the government get for buying the banks' bad debts? How many mortgages will be renegotiated? If this were a serious bill, there would be specific wording on these points.

    Henry Paulson did not sign a contract when he was CEO with Goldman Sachs that gave him "fair compensation." He signed a contract that specified that he would get tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses. Similarly, when Warren Buffet invested $5 billion in Goldman, he got a 10 percent stake in the bank, not a generic promise of "equity." That is the way business is usually done when people are serious.

    The bill also does not change the bankruptcy rules to allow people to stay in their home. Nor does it provide for any real stimulus. Undoubtedly, the spending on the bailout will be used in future month as an argument against real stimulus.

    Wall Street may have won this one, but this is the battle not the war. The whole country now knows that these millionaire and billionaire high-flyers are the biggest bunch of welfare cheats around. The folks with the yachts, private jets and personal servants lack the skills and diligence to make it on their own. They need the tax dollars from the rest of us to make ends meet.

    Every progressive in the country should be working to ensure that this bailout is incredibly costly for the Wall Street crew. They should wish they never took our money.

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Maybe the failure of this

Maybe the failure of this bill is a sign that people get it. Our financial system has been allowed to fail by government leadership that does not believe in government. Or maybe people just think one party or another is out to get them. We will know the value of people one way or another.

fabulous, thank you!

fabulous, thank you!

We have been HEARD! There is

We have been HEARD! There is finally a recognition of "consequence"(ie;vote for the bailout-loose my job/benefits-become one of the "little people") which clearly impacted Congress enough to shut down this insane plan to financially ruin the working class of this country in order to "bail out" the banks. I have no sympathy for the "top executives"that will negatively effected by the bailout turndown...sucks for the shareholders-maybe next time they'll be a bit more proactive about "policing" the criminals they let handle their funds... why the American public should be responsible for saving the world is beyond my reasoning..IF there is any assistance forthcoming from the American taxpayers, we should push for the same deal Buffet got-he has set the standard for our so-called leadership- if they have any interest in resolving the matter with any consideration of the public they "represent"

I'm not sure I agree, as a

I'm not sure I agree, as a progressive I agree with the comments about government being used by both progressives and conservatives as a method of distributing wealth to their representation, but I think what this article missed is the impact to the credit markets and consequently the economy as a whole. Here are the points I agree with: -Execs compensation should be limited with correct and transparent incentives, and they should not be incented to create complex financial engineering. -Taxpayers should get a good equity deal if they invest money. Here is what the article is missing: The failure of the bill and the collapse of banks threatens more than just the "deposit" side of banking (i.e. atms/checks/etc), more importantly is threatens what I think we can all agree on, the creation of jobs. How? Well if the banks capital is tied up in poor loans, the ability for banks to loan to small businesses, the home owner, the student becomes impaired. I'm not saying we should return to an easy credit period, but lack of credit ='s the lack of creation of growth and jobs. The massive failures of banks also creates a oligopoly of banks, who then can raise the cost of credit (which isn't a good thing for the consumer).

Today's estimated stock

Today's estimated stock losses: 1.3 trillion. Wow, that means the 700 billion bailout if passed would have kept them up for a whole extra hour or two! No wonder the repigs rejected it, it wasn't enough, but worse still, they would have to become accountable for it. Oh Heaven forbid! Please tell your congressman/woman to come on home, and don't waste their time (and ours) on this dead issue. It is too scary to imagine that they might falter and let this filthy bill pass somehow.

What a mess the last 8 years

What a mess the last 8 years of Republican leadership has left us in,,,,If the American people despise the Bailout Bill, then they certainly must realize that they CAN NOT VOTE FOR ANOTHER REPUBLICAN NOW. I am an American citizen living in Spain for 34 years. My husband & I have watched America from a distance but still feel American...In the last 8 years we have felt the respect for America dwindle and erode to the point where we have actually been ashamed to be known as Americans. We have watched the stupidities of Bush & his cronies, have been appalled by the wars & killing & obscene greed and wealth of the few. WE are watching the Fall of the American Empire but somehow can´t quite believe that it is happening! We vote from here....Can we. EVERYONE, SAVE AMERICA FROM FALLING ?

It would seem to me that

It would seem to me that this opinion piece was written before the House vote today, with the expectation that the Bill would be passed. Curious that it would be submitted without being revised. Perhaps it was just too good.

What is truly sad is that

What is truly sad is that many die hard Republicans will vote for McCain as the fiscally responsible candidate ignoring all the deficit spending under Reagan and Bush II, the junk bond debacle, the S&L implosion, the Enron energy scams, and now the sub-prime crisis. I really cannot understand their delusion which has lasted for decades.

Now if we can just stop this

Now if we can just stop this VietNam II [IRAQ] War that has driven our country TEN TRILLION IN DEBT. Bush stated if Iraq requested that the USA leaves he'd do so, well they have requested we get out; Bush be a man of your solemn word. (again, Liar!) Why are OPEC countries going to the EURO and bringing American War Machine down their throat? Because our leaders are driving OUR country down the toilet to get us into a North American Union on the way to One World Government. canusay AMERO. Republicans & Democrats please stop voting for evil: voting for lessor of evils is voting for evil. Voting for a winner makes us all loosers! The intelligent people that have found this site need to vote any viable 3rd party to start making them viable... Hopefully this can be done before it's made illegal by our next dictator. Does everyone know the Presidential Directives are thanks to the USA being in a State of Emergency? Emergency Powers offer the Dictatorial Presidential Directive. Will any president choose to stop the continuation of our countries State of Emergency? And how about Halliburton moving 750 Billion $'s to Dubai? Normal citizens attempting to move money like that out of the country are declared Terrorists. Given the majority of that money was made from Lie Derived war, and now they flee with the money from our thus wrecked economy, I say it applies to them.

Interesting (and so sad)

Interesting (and so sad) that the very industry that wrote the new bankruptcy law that went into effect in 2005, premised on the supposed "fact" that the typical person who files bankruptcy is just irresponsible and could pay their debts if they really wanted to, now wants its irresponsibility and greed forgiven on the backs of millions of lower and middle class working, tax paying citizens who, unlike the high rollers on the Eastern "Strip" of casinos: Wall Street, haven't been making (note I did not say "earning") millions or tens of millions of dollars a year for doing little more than lining their own pockets. Tellyawhat - let's suspend the new bankruptcy laws for as long as the "lower" classes are bailing out all of the greedy SOB fat cats...oh, you know, guys like Henry Paulson and his cronies.

Your position rests on the

Your position rests on the assumption that "there is no serious crisis story." There are, however, strong contraindications--credit seizing up being a big one (imagine no car loans, new mortgages, no student loans, credit card limits of $500). Another big one is the global markets' perception of greater risk. And let's pause to meditate the perfect storm: China dumps dollars, the internet goes down. Yes, I support a fairer, more progressive income distribution, ending the Iraq boondoggle-nightmare, capping executive salaries, etc. But the way to accomplish those things is NOT to hitch them on the coattails of emergency legislation but to elect progressives to the legislative and executive offices. When a tornado is on the way is not the time for the city council to debate teachers' salaries and library funding. Board up the windows and get us to emergency shelters. This indeed may be a serious crisis story.

boomers is right 'we should

boomers is right 'we should NOT hitch on the coattails of emergency legislation..' problem is the 2000+ republican way of conducting the country. review the record. no partisanship unless for their wants. they would not address issues. IT TOOK CRISES FOR THEM TO DO SO. they do not want 1. homes-as other contracts-to be renegotiated because bank/finance/lender ALL BENEFIT GREATLY FROM RESELLING THE PROPERTIES +OVER AGAIN. 2. CONTRACT RENEGOTIATIONS='LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH [contrary to rep ideology] is not tolerated because it is a reduction of their power to the benefit of the people. the judiciary is the PEOPLE'S LAST RECOURSE OF ACTION FOR INJUSTICE--THIS IS WHY THE INCREASE OF MEDIATION CLAUSES TO AVOID JUSTICE. of course all this not presented on the premise of 'what is best for the country' but on WHAT MAKES MONEY [NOW]. this is predatory capitalism enabled by government. it is time it should fall.

I think the pay scales of

I think the pay scales of the entire financial industry are worthy of scrutiny, not just the executives. The amount of money that flows through the industry's salaries is just astonishing to me--very regular people are able to extract a tremendous amounts of income without an organized work force. Is it the system of licensure/accreditation among accountants/stock brokers/actuaries that creates the salaries? Is it just the commissions/bonuses? I perceive that the industry's salaries are inflated overall, not just for the executives. And I think their salaries are part of the housing inflation, esp in NY/SF/DC. Good work if you can get it.

Well, at least we have two

Well, at least we have two more days of freedom, as congress is taking a holiday for Rosh Hassanah.

Now if the cons had been

Now if the cons had been this way over the BS war in Iraq our financial situation wouldn't be as dire. It's laughable they cried boo hoo blaming it on Pelosi that the measure didn't pass. While McCain't proclaiming it would because of his presence which amounted to squat. I don't want to give 700 billion to Wall Street yet I also understand this is more than about Wall Street . Most don't. All they see is the amount. Ignorance is bliss. Just say no. Hopefully something can be done before this credit crunch turns into a depression and payrolls can't be met or materials can't be bought. want someone to blame ? well it does rest with the republicans and for far longer than just under Bush - On 11/19/93, McCain took to the Senate floor to support an early financial deregulation bill and decry what he called "the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institutions." The guy who now claims to be the trustbusting Teddy Roosevelt back then lamented "the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community." Ten years later, McCain was bragging to the Associated Press that "I have a long voting record in support of deregulation," and to CNN that "I am a deregulator. I believe in deregulation." And, during this year's presidential campaign taking place in the shadow of financial meltdown, McCain was only months ago insisting on PBS that "we need less government [and] less regulation" and that "I'm always for less regulation." Supposedly McCain argued for regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005 , but .....( I also find that hard to believe)... McCains 2005 effort never got out of committee...A Democratic committee? No, a REPUBLICAN Committee! http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190 Here's another FACT: When the bill came up again in 2007, McCain wasn't even a sponsor! http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1100 Last FACT: Both bills included these deregulatory gems that probably would have crashed the whole system had either been passed: Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements. Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.