Geitner resists setting limits on bailouts

Discussion in 'Financial Cents' started by Tango3, Oct 29, 2009.

  1. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    The"bailout" is a special delegation of authority from congress to the executive.When asked (?)[beat]about capping the total figures before treasurey would have to comeback to congress for a fresh authorization, Geithner says "no.".

    On September 25th, I wrote:
    Paul Volcker and senior Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron both testified to Congress this week that the government is trying to make bailouts for the giant banks permanent.

    Writing Wednesday in The Hill, Congressman Brad Sherman pointed out that :
    In my opinion, Geithner’s proposal is “TARP on steroids.” Section 1204 of the proposal [the proposal being the "Resolution Authority for Large, Interconnected Financial Companies Act of 2009"] allows the executive branch to use taxpayer money to make loans to, or invest in, the largest financial institutions to avoid a systemic risk to the economy.

    Geithner’s proposal reminds me of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the $700 billion Wall Street bailout adopted last year, but the TARP was limited to two years, and to a maximum of $700 billion. Section 1204 is unlimited in dollar amount and is a permanent grant of power to the executive branch. TARP contained some limits on executive compensation and an array of special oversight authorities. Section 1204 contains absolutely no limits on executive compensation and no special oversight.

    When I asked Geithner whether he would accept a $1 trillion limit on the new bailout authority (if the executive branch wanted to spend more, it would have to come back to Congress), he rejected a $1 trillion limit, insisting that the executive branch be able to respond without coming back to Congress.

    Both TARP and the Treasury proposal have vague provisions under which taxpayers might possibly recover any money lost through a special tax on the financial services industry. Under the Treasury proposal, only the very largest institutions could benefit from a bailout, but the special tax, if ever collected, would fall chiefly on medium-sized institutions.
    Thus, the medium-sized institutions will be at a competitive disadvantage for two reasons. First, the largest institutions will be able to borrow money more cheaply because their creditors will believe that if the institution is unable to pay, the taxpayers will. Second, if there ever is a bailout benefitting a very large financial institution, the tax will be imposed on the medium-sized institutions.
    Sherman is a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee and a certified public accountant, so he has a good nose for analyzing proposed financial regulations.
  2. Al Bundy

    Al Bundy Monkey++

    You expected anything different from the Goldman Sach's boys? I believe I saw somewhere that TARP was a revolving credit and in reality was never expected to be payed back.
  3. guntotinguy

    guntotinguy Monkey++

    Not to mention that a trace needs to be made in 'money lost' in the market,so question is where 'did the money go'?
  4. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Power usurped is rarely returned...
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary