Get these FREE newsletters in your email!

Joe Conason

See more great free newsletters
on the subscribe page.

Type your email address:

Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.

Religion:
Enjoy religious news and spiritual inspiration on the religion page
The Funnies:
Get free jokes, comics, and more! See them all on
our funnies page
Author Bio:
Before starting his popular political column for the New York Observer, Joe Conason worked as editor-at-large for Conde Nast's Details magazine. ...

Read more about Joe Conason.
Books:
Read the classics online or by email. More details on the books page
Games:
Fun online games, quizzes, hangman and more on the games page
Joe Conason

Making the Bailout Less Toxic

Joe Conason
The initial failure to pass bailout legislation reflected a political system as bereft of confidence as the financial markets. President George W. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had no credibility to match the arrogance of their initial demand for absolute power in distributing $700 billion of public assistance (the old synonym for welfare). Many Republicans in Congress lacked the intellectual fortitude to cope with the spectacular collapse of their ideology.

So the rescue of capitalism once more becomes the sole responsibility of the Democrats.

Much can be said about the Democratic Congressional leadership's fumbling and fearfulness, which have hobbled them ever since they recaptured the majority. Well meaning as they may be, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bear no comparison with the likes of Tip O'Neill or Lyndon Johnson. But just weeks before a national election, their reluctance to back the unpopular bailout proposed by the Bush White House without substantial support from Congressional Republicans was perfectly understandable.

Facing a crisis that Secretary Paulson had outlined in the starkest terms, with his warnings echoed by the Federal Reserve's chairman, Ben Bernanke, the Democrats tried in good faith to negotiate bipartisan legislation as quickly and prudently as possible. They had no more certainty than their critics that following regular order would not plunge the world economy into profound recession or worse.

When that effort failed by a dozen votes, the Republicans strained credulity by blaming Pelosi, who had uttered a few hard and truthful (if politically unhelpful) words on the House floor. (Will the members who voted no because the speaker hurt their feelings step forward to prove that their leaders are right? Didn't think so.) More likely, the dissident members of the minority were simply unable to abandon the dogma that brought them into public life, no matter how compelling the evidence of its hollowness. And like everyone on Capitol Hill, the Republicans feared the rage of their constituents -- who no longer care to subsidize incompetent government and corporate misconduct.

As the Democratic leaders returned to the drawing board over the next few days, they ought to have realized that broad bipartisanship cannot be the guiding purpose of their choices from now on. They would have done better by bringing back the dissenters on their side of the aisle, who could not tolerate the paper-thin protections for the ordinary taxpayer and working family in the bill they voted to reject. Unlike the Republicans who joined them to vote it down, most of the Democrats understand that the financial system desperately needs fresh liquidity -- and that only the federal government can make those funds available in time.

What might have brought back enough of the Democratic dissidents to ensure passage of a new bill? Certainly the Republican proposals for new forms of government financial insurance and lower capital gains taxes are beside the point. Placating the confused, dispirited conservatives will only alienate the progressives who have resisted the Paulson plan so far.

Instead the Congressional leaders should have restored and strengthen the provisions stripped from the original bill, providing new protections for homeowners and new protections against speculators and predatory executives. Rescuing the families who face foreclosure is just as urgent in economic terms as saving the financial institutions -- in fact, they are obviously complementary -- and is also preferable both morally and politically. A publicly financed homeowners-loan corporation, like the agency that helped millions of families during the Great Depression, would be one means to accomplish that purpose.

Then, as New York University economist Nouriel Roubini and many of his colleagues have suggested, Congress should consider smarter ways to inject money into the banks, including the Scandinavian solution of direct government acquisition of preferred equity. Perhaps the Treasury will have to buy some of the toxic bundled mortgages right away, but a combination of measures designed to benefit taxpayers on the upside of the cycle is essential.

Such measures can only prevent the worst consequences of the recession that is already here. If the Republicans would reject them, so be it; the Democratic majority should instead pass a new and improved bill and send it to the president. He would sign it rather than leave office with the world in economic shambles.

Should the Democrats need encouragement, they needed only to look at the latest polls. Voters distrust both the White House and Wall Street, but want action in the public interest. As the Chinese say, while they review our mounting debt, a crisis is also an opportunity.

========

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com). To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.

This news arrived on: 10/02/2008
Share this Story
Digg   del.icio.us   Yahoo   Facebook   Google   

Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment


Rate This Story:

Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad




Posted Comments:

10-04-2008 13:18
Joe Conason wrote:

Making the Bailout Less Toxic

It appears that Mr. Conason is as bad as Ms. Huffington. They both fail to remember that this problem arose from the Carter administration and Democratic Congress in passing the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, exacerbated by Sarbannes-Oxley in 2002. Lenders were forced by Fannie Mae to relax sound lending practices to benefit minorities and the poor under penalty of law suits for discrimination (i.e., 'political correctness). Even Clinton tried to change these practices but was challenged by Barney Frank, then head of the House Banking Committee. More Democrat interference with the nations financial systems.
Coeho148
Mesa, AZ



10-04-2008 01:13
Sunshine49 wrote:

To IrishDave3

You are so right! Now that the government has their hands on all the financial sector, it's only a matter of time until they declare Martial Law and declare themselves our "RULERS"



10-03-2008 04:29
IrishDave3 wrote:

Rescuing Capitalism

About time... 1st put amoritorium on forecloseure 2nd Set up aFederal Bank(see North Dakota State) to refinace all stressed mortgages(at a steep discount-stretch payments reduce rates)3rd offer Private lenders the amount of their original principal loan amount(injecting liquidity) in exchange for Equity... RE-INSTITUTE Glass-Steagle ...Nahw Create a "slush fund, turn up the Political heat and eureka LIQUIDITY! ...




Comment archive | Comment FAQ's

Post Comment::

Author:
Subject:



Recent archives Featured news

View Joe Conason ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive

Featured Channel: Politics

The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ...