I thought it was interesting, per today's WSJ, that Holder has backed down on prior statement's about the Bush administration and wiretapping.

He told Congress last week that he agress that "certain things that a President has the constitutional right, authority to do, that the legislative branch cannot impinge upon"

This seems to contradict his prior statements about Bush's "disrespect for the law".  So maybe FISA doesn't trump Article II?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123240914892295861.html

 

 

Josh's recent post says that the TARP is designed "on the idea that the US taxpayer buys these securities for far more than they're worth".  I disagree.

I don't understand why people think that the TARP would have to be administered this way.

The TARP does not have to, as Josh says, "buy these things at what the banks insist they're worth."  (Per Josh's Antique Roadshow example, the TARP can certainly buy the asset for $850.)

Goldman, for example, could have a CDO it wishes to sell which has $100mm (face value) of mortgages that they've marked at 50 cents on the dollar.  The TARP would need to do its own independent analysis to come up with a valuation.  The TARP would bid whatever it thinks fair value would be.  It doesn't have to buy them for what Goldman says they're worth.  And whether the TARP pays 40, 50, or 60 cents on the dollar, it's still a massive loss for Goldman because Goldman probably paid close to 100 cents on the dollar if they were the one originally structuring the CDO.