Suggested Alternatives to Bailout

By: Teddy
Published On: 9/25/2008 12:39:06 PM

We are all in this together, imagine that. And Americans are coming up with suggested solutions to the almost universally despised bailout plan of Paulson-Bush. Jim Pappin in Salon.com, along with a comment from "Dan" came up with not one but four alternative ideas. Instead of tamely and hastily turning over America's wealth to the executive branch of our government to disperse as it sees fit, without any controls or accountability, why not consider the following:  
Mortgage stamps Like food stamps, dispensed through existing bureaucracy, or the  Social Security System. $100 monthly vouchers would be given to qualified persons unable to pay their entire mortgage; they would mail in their mortgage stamp(s) with their mortgage payment. Qualification requirements To Be Determined.

Start slow with the proposed bailout ---- for example, with just $100 billion, subject to review. The Treasury buys up bad debt with that money, and after seeing how that works, they can come up with a valuation model and criteria. "Then, the next amount to be authorized would at least have some intelligence behind it."

"Follow Warren Buffet's lead."If a bank needs additional capital, let the Treasury buy permanent preferred stock, just like Buffet, which would provide an opportunity for taxpayers to make a lot of money out of the deal, just like Buffet, and probably for a lot less cost than $750 billion. (Somewhat like Alaskans getting a regular oil profit check?)

Just give the $2,300 stimulus per capita to the citizens as an economic stimulus

A comment from another reader added to the last suggestion that it be combined with freezing foreclosures and new housing permits, but I am not sure that would add to the stimulus idea per se.

In any case, as Jim Pappin says,

In nearly 8 years, this administration has done almost nothing right. It's a mystery to me why, in their dying days, someone would turn over the wealth of our nation to them with no review, no controls, no governance, and no accountability.

Then, there is the alternative of doing very little, even nothing at all. This financial panic will, like financial panics in the past, burn itself out. Sure, it will hurt, and hurt badly, and other people and countries will suffer from the excesses of the free market philosophy applied in the real world. Maybe then we will be done with this foolish theory and move on to a more realistic philosophy, just as equally unrealistic Communism burned itself out.  That might in the long run be better than turning our future over to tainted hands, hands which are, frankly, seeing this mess as an opportunity to create an authoritarian executive and impose even worse de-regulation and greed on us, changing not only our life style but our Constitution forever.
Go to http://open.salon.com/content....


Comments



Sadly, the fix appears to be in (Ron1 - 9/25/2008 3:50:36 PM)
I really wish we'd listen to people like James Galbraith or Nouriel Roubini -- you know, the people that DIDN'T help cause this crisis -- instead of bastards like Hank Paulson (who did).

I am pretty enraged by this whole deal. It really sucks. Our elites need to be all uprooted and thrown out of office for allowing this debacle to be appended to the list of the last eight years' worth of insults to our people and republic.

The Democratic Party shoots itself in the foot with this bill, and just reinforces the idea that there are two parties for the moneyed, and zero for the rest.  



I don't think so (Ingrid - 9/25/2008 5:07:53 PM)
The Dems don't appear to have the votes to pass this.


I hope you're right (Ron1 - 9/25/2008 5:15:11 PM)
Again, I am not against action for the greater good, per se. But I am against these false deadlines and scare tactics and kabuki theater that we've seen in this horror show of an administration time after time after time. I want some time for serious contemplation and a public weighing of the pros versus cons, assets versus liabilities, of this whole deal. If it needs to be done (in some manner) to prevent greater damage, then that can be rationally explained to the citizenry. But it had better come with consequences for the financial elites that have been paying themselves hand over fist for their shenanigans as the housing bubble was nearing its peak.

I wish I could grab Chris Dodd (whom I generally like and admire) and tell him, "Senator! Take a breath! Talk to Galbraith and the folks that have been predicting these crises for years. Ask yourself how this bailout exactly is supposed to solve the underlying issue of a collapsing real estate bubble. And if it doesn't, are we just throwing good money to the financial elites that brought this mess upon us?"

It's very sad that, to this day, Pelosi and Hoyer can't seem to hear the people on these types of issues. Why they would trust anything Bush has to say at this point is beyond me, it suggests a sickness on their parts.  



Cut the leadership some slack (tx2vadem - 9/25/2008 9:38:50 PM)
They are trying to do what they think is best for the country.  Paulson's plan uses existing infrastructure.  Galbraith's idea creates an entirely new bureaucracy which does not happen overnight.  We are talking a year or more to hire qualified people and setup all these boards.  Even if we want FDIC to manage this, we need to throw a lot of money at them and they need to hire a boat load of bank auditors.  

Do you know that corporations that don't hold the highest credit rating have trouble selling or cannot sell commercial paper?  Commercial Paper is what corps use to fund their regular operations.  Your receipts from customers rarely perfectly match the timing of your payment to vendors or employees.  You need financing to bridge that gap.  If you can't issue commercial paper, you have to rely on a revolver.  And if rising costs (especially energy) mean your existing credit facilities can't cover you, then you are SOL because your bank doesn't want to give you money.

We'll see what Pelosi puts on the floor.  But goodness gracious these people are under a lot of stress, cut them some slack.



I don't doubt (Ron1 - 9/25/2008 11:27:13 PM)
that Nancy Pelosi, at least, is trying to do the right thing; I won't afford Steny Hoyer that same courtesy.

The whole problem, however, is that her idea of doing the right thing consists of mostly listening to the financial, economic, and political elites that are mostly responsible for this mess, and taking their arguments as good faith.

That has been the story of this Congress, and of the Democratic way of "fighting" the past eight years. They are insulated from the common sense wisdom and skepticism of the general populace, instead choosing to always listen to the "Serious" commenters and blowhards and establishment thinkers. It's crazy-making. It's how we got into Iraq, it's how we ended up shredding the 4th Amendment, and it's how we'll end up forking over $700 billion (or whatever) into a potential sinkhole, without ever truly debating the consequences of this action or even preferable alternatives. It's happened every time for almost every major decision.

I'll say again, this is the freaking government of the United States. If absolutely no commercial paper, especially credit-worthy paper, is moving because of this mess, then let the Fed act as a broker. There are ways to ensure that the credit-worthy can get the requisite liquidity to survive this mess. But we have a constant failure of imagination in this damned Congress (notice the 17% approval rating, or whatever in the hell it is), and they are working with bad faith actors. This is a huge, momentous decision.

Our government is dysfunctional and in the hands of poor stewards -- and that's the most polite way I can muster of saying some things that really deserve much harder sentiments. The second Pelosi, et al, for once prove me wrong, I'll cut 'em some slack. $700 freaking billion dollars?!?



1, 2 and 3 are also bailouts (tx2vadem - 9/25/2008 9:50:19 PM)
You want to give taxpayers a check, I guess we would call that an economic stimulus plan.  But you shouldn't just give people money.  Consumers are poised to top $2.6 trillion in debt this year.  So, best not to give them a check that they could spend as they choose.

Your second suggestion sounds the best to me.  Start slow, give us a small bridge to a new administration.  Then work on something comprehensive to address the systemic risk that occurred.



Not my ideas, actually (Teddy - 9/25/2008 10:13:08 PM)
They belong to Jim Pappin, writing in Salon.com. I was struck by the fact that ordinary citizens are thinking about this whole cesspool of a mess, and coming up with ideas that sound, frankly, every bit as sensible as those propounded by the self-important, bustling elite. You comments are welcome. No one seems to be able to get through the bubble of Inside-the-Beltway.