« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Alternate Rescue Plans
Rep Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland has been one of the few persistent congressional voices warning us about energy depletion. He voted against the "and for other purposes" bailout, but has introduced two alternate plans:
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett said that he voted against H.R. 3997, the financial markets bill, because, “rushing to bail out Wall Street won’t protect Main Street. This bill failed the basic tests I outlined last week.” The bill was defeated 228 to 205. Congressman Bartlett was among 133 no votes by Republicans and 95 by Democrats. 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans voted for the bill. He released the following statement after the vote.
“As I said last week, you can’t privatize profits and socialize losses. You can’t reward bad behavior. Protecting the assets of individuals and businesses and our community banks who played by the rules are fundamental requirements to restore confidence in our financial system.
“The original proposal failed these tests. This revised proposal made improvements. However, it still amounted to trading private debts of unknown value for a $700 billion loan from taxpayers in the hopes that the taxpayers’ money would eventually be paid back.
“Instead, I have introduced the Main Street Protection Act (H.R. 7228) to provide real protection to the taxpayers. It provides an unlimited amount of insurance for accounts insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to protect the principal in money market accounts through the Treasury’s exchange stabilization fund. This bill is based upon recommendations by Dr. Lawrence Lindsey, an economist and tax policy expert who served as a Governor of the Federal Reserve System from 1991 to 1997. It will protect assets and restore faith in our core savings institutions on Main Street.
“I have also cosponsored an Alternative Economic Rescue Plan (H.R. 7223) to provide Wall Street a mechanism to use private capital to restore faith in financial markets. It would create mandatory insurance for Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) by the Treasury Department paid for with risk-based premiums by the institutions that hold them. That will stabilize markets and establish a floor of value to these assets. Providing temporary tax relief for private capital invested in these assets will make them more attractive and provide time for our financial system to recover.”
Advertisement







Comments (3)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood it to be the case that the Mortgage backed securities, and collatoralized debt obligations etc etc etc... were already 'insured' through credit default swaps.
As I understand it - there is just too much (but unknown amounts in each institution) 'toxic' MBS in the financial system that no one wants to buy - and so no financial actors want to lend money to any financial institution (the credit freeze up everyone is worried about) because of the lack of transparency regarding the amount of 'toxic waste' any one bank has relative to their good assets and existing debt obligations.
How would 'insurance' fix this?
September 30, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If credit default swaps constituted reliable insurance, we probably wouldn't have the crisis of confidence that we face now. We'd still be very overleveraged, but perhaps not quite as much. But with no insurance regulation around CDS, we can't really view it as effective insurance.
September 30, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard Rep. Roscoe Bartlett this morning on The Right Balance (www.therightbalance.org). He was addressing HB 7228. Encouraging saving, which this bill does, is a good way to get on the road to a healthier economy.
October 1, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment