creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Deb Saunders
Debra J. Saunders
18 Mar 2010
Conyers Is the Wrong Guy To Chair Judiciary Committee

Another funny thing happened in what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised would be "the most ethical … Read More.

16 Mar 2010
Obama Evokes Fear, Calls for Courage

As a candidate for president, Sen. Barack Obama rejected "the politics of fear." Well, he won. So … Read More.

11 Mar 2010
Meg Whitman Can Run a Company, but Can She Govern?

It took me five months to get my first interview with former eBay CEO and California GOP gubernatorial … Read More.

Trillion Dollar Baby

I understood the Bush administration's decision to promise up to $30 billion to facilitate the fire sale of Bear Stearns. I got the administration's decision to spend as much as $200 billion to stabilize mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are worth about $5 trillion. Ditto the $85 billion federal bailout of AIG.

As for this Bush administration "troubled asset relief plan" to authorize Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to spend another $700 billion bailing out investment firms, I am not sold.

Yes, I've talked to experts who believe the package is necessary to thaw an international credit freeze and the run on money markets. But it is difficult to assume that they really understand how to fix the credit mess when most experts didn't see this coming.

As it is, it also doesn't make much sense for the federal government to spend (which means borrow) as much as $700 billion — or a total of $1 trillion, when you add in the other bailouts — in order to stave off a credit crunch.

Alas, I do not see President Bush pushing a fiscally conservative bailout plan. At the very least, Bush should have opened with a smaller price tag, say, $100 billion.

Exhibit A: According to the Washington Post, Paulson has opposed House Democrats' proposal to force companies that sell their flailing assets to the government to "meet appropriate standards for executive compensation." Why? Also, Paulson fears that financial institutions won't participate if there is a compensation cap. As if that's a bad thing. Economist Chad Stone, of the nonpartisan but left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the big question on the plan is price. If Paulson thinks that the underlying value of bad mortgages is 30 cents to the dollar, and the federal government has the spine to pay 30 cents on the dollar rather than 70 cents in order to close the deal, then "it's a viable solution."

But if Paulson wants to convince Washington he won't overpay, why has he let it be known that he is concerned about underpaying the feckless managers of failing funds? The Bush plan would give Paulson czar-like powers — and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

(Yeah, I know, it's because Paulson has to act quickly — but quickly and dumbly? No.)

Former Comptroller-General David Walker, now president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, told me that the Bush package must come with "oversight, transparency and accountability."

Oversight, transparency and accountability — these three words likely will replace the old trifecta of "waste, fraud and abuse." Of course, Washington should regulate Wall Street, but the fact is that Group Think will not go away, and whatever tight regulations might percolate in the next year will become watered down over time — because they always have a persuasive argument to do so. That's what Washington does, and both parties have participated.

For his part, GOP nominee John McCain has stood against that tide of facilitating corporate misbehavior. The Washington Post editorialized last week against Barack Obama's campaign's charge that McCain is anti-regulation. Au contraire, if found on reviewing McCain' record, the Arizona senator was "a leader" in cleaning up shoddy accounting practices after the Enron scandal.

"In 2006," the Post editorialized, McCain "pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — while Mr. Obama was notably silent. 'If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole,' McCain warned at the time."

At a Chronicle editorial board meeting Jan. 21, Obama had the foresight to call for an investigation of rating agencies (that overrated murky investment deals) and tougher conflict-of-interest regulation. Investors, he said, "think that they're investing in stuff that doesn't have a lot of risk, and they're wrong."

This Bush package could cost more than $2,000 per American. Bush should do what fiscally responsible American families do every day — they find the cheapest, smartest way to fix the roof. They patch the hole. They don't construct a super-deluxe roof with borrowed funds.

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com. To find out more about Debra J. Saunders, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.



Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment

You say it's difficult to believe the expert's when they didn't see this coming. I wonder about that. Didn't they see it coming? Or was it politically correct to wear blinders? Brilliant, but disillusioned people, maybe they did see things coming. The politically correct thing to do was give a positive spin or optimistic outlook. They learned alarmists are not appreciated. Maybe they routinely sent out alarms and warnings. Maybe they were ignored, chided, demoted, downplayed, or spun to the degree they no longer gave alarms. Bided their time and watched a country collapse in on itself. Just a thought. Either way, why is the taxpayer having to subsidize those who gambled our funds and lost? Americans would be wise to take a hard nosed approach and demand. as business does, collateral and repayment with interest to every American taxpayer burdened with the consequences of their folly. As Alaskan citizens get profits from oil, as Indian's get profit's from casino's, we should get profits for bailing out these reckless, dangerous, embezzelers of the public trust.

Comment: #1
Posted by: liz
Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:03 PM

Bush has been flushing flushing flushing your and my money down the toilet for eight long years, Saunders. I guess even you couldn't miss this one, the Geat Flush of All Time.

Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:51 PM

Ma'am; I have to wonder if this article doesn't make you a populist. The fact is, that if the government does not lay its head on the block for the banking industry it might fulfill that same role for the nation. 700 Billion would go a long way for a bank of last resort, as the government could be. Or it could resort to going down with the financial ship like so many governments in history have, and in the process, inflating the currancy to paper, and robbing every person on a fixed income -which has always been the republican alternative to raising taxes. I don't think the Government should give the money. I don't see anything in the constitution saying these institutions which have pursued their own foreign policy apart from the government deserve government support. How many wars have these people dragged us into, and how many wars have they profited from? How much interest and high profits have they already sweated out of this people and people in foreign lands? Was there a miscalculation? Did they underestimate what it would take for them to capitalize an empire while we became the third world? International capitalism has been a curse to us, and now we are to rob ourselves of all our wealth and all our power to keep them in millions. NO! I don't think so... If the U.S. has to be the banker to the bankers; cut out the middle men and be the banker. Where are all the reagans now who say that the acariest words in the language are: I am from the government and I am here to help you! They want our help? When did they invite me to parasitze the country, to live of our sweat, to drive people to the extremes of poverty for profit, and then export our jobs and factories?... These people are criminals, and if their doings were legal it was a failing of government because it was neither wise nor moral; and we do not owe them any thing. I paid for my house at least three times just to have the money to live in it once. For their interest the government denied itself taxes. I owe them nothing, and we owe them nothing, and if there are any decent jobs left in America paying fair wages for productive employment they should all find one. The only question will be whether the U.S. will disappear down the same rat hole as all our money. These guys are like the rich man in hell asking poor Lazarus for a drink. Some people never get it. They set for themselves a pattern of risky and crazy behavior that has bled us white and then they want our help? They don't need help. They need a re-education camp...Thanks...Sweeney

Comment: #3
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:50 AM

Re: liz; Ma'am, I'd like to see the moral argument for demanding interest. Islam has never built up her industry because it never has resorted to the device of making people pay back the same dollar twice, -which master must extract from slave and labor. Capitalism did not begin to bloom in Europe until the impediment to usery was removed. Surely, a little credit cannot be a bad thing, so cast that net far and wide until every small business and individual and even the government is caught in its snares.... Only one small problem. We can't all survive doing each others washing. Some where there has to be some one actually creating a value with productive work, and we have reached the point where so much of what we buy is imported, and so much of what we do is service, that the productive people are few and far between. Capitalism does not work in a closed system. Henry VII in England showed how it is supposed to work... Feed your own workers and industry, import raw materials, and export finished goods to other countries, and stay out of pointless, expensive wars. You cannot deny your own workers fair wages and still have them as a market for your goods. The more you increase profits the more you need foreign markets, but that is drying up. The Muslims do not want to support our society for we have lost their good will. The sovereign wealth funds loaded with dollars do not want to see them all turn to paper, but the more they put into the financials the more they actually own of America, and, the more we are working for them. If America has ruined itself as a market, and liquidated all its wealth paying credit, the solution is not to do the same internationally. The world is as much of a closed system as America. Capitalism does not work in a closed system. People need to be able to buy what they produce; and profits, and high profit especially prevents that. We have only survived to this time liquidating the capital of many generation to pay interest. Whether they are willing to admit the fact or not, the game is over....Thanks...Sweeney

Comment: #4
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:17 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:
Creators.com comments policy
More
Debra J. Saunders
Mar. `10
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 19 Mar 2010
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 19 Mar 2010
Roger Simon
Roger SimonUpdated 19 Mar 2010

14 Sep 2008 Old Enough To Fight, Old Enough To Drink

20 Apr 2008 Soak the Very, Very, Very Rich

10 Aug 2008 Diary of a Mad Columnist