Sorry, But We Have To Step Up
Though it is hard for Democrats to swallow, we have to step up to the bailout. And if the bill is written well, it won't be as bad as you think.
This crisis does confirm that Bush is the Worst President Ever, and it might not be a bad name for the legislation. But Democrats do have to show they can govern in a crisis. Taxpayers won't be much hurt, and fatcat bankers won't be much enriched, as long as the legislation is written so that the government buys mortgage bonds for value.
Let's say a car dealer is in financial trouble and needs to get rid of his inventory. It's your job to go there and make an offer. He has a few current models in pretty good shape, so you offer 85 cents on the dollar for the wholesale price. He has a Hummer that has been on the lot for a year and a half, so you offer 35 cents on the dollar. You give him $200 each for two 10-year-old Toyotas, and you don't buy the cars that don't run or don't have good title.
The car dealer is neither enriched or empoverished by accepting your offer. He is more liquid. He can take the money and pay one of his bills. You are not enriched or empoverished by the deal. If you bought right, you can sell your carss for a little profit.
In a similar way, we have to make sure the bailout legislation buys mortgage bonds for value. That way, it won't enrich the banker, or empoverish the taxpayers.
First, let's look at what the taxpayers will be buying. Let's say that within a brief period about two years ago, 1,000 people closed on new houses, taking out $200 million in mortgages. Someone bundled the mortgages and sold the interest payments to one group of buyers and the principal payments to another.
Let's say Goldman has bought $10 million of the principal bonds. Since then, things haven't been good for this group of homeowners. A few have been transferred, repaid their loans, and Goldman already received its share of that principal. Another 20% of the houses are in foreclosure. Prices have dropped, and some homes are not worth what is owed on the mortgage. Goldman would like to sell its bonds at a steep discount, but nobody wants to buy.
So the federal government steps in and says it will buy $10 billion of mortgage bonds on Friday, and asks for offers. Goldman offers its bonds in this series at 32 cents on the dollar. Merrill, which originally bought $25 million, offers its bonds at 39 cents on the dollar. Citibank, which bought $5 million, offers its bonds at 53 cents on the dollar.
The government decides to accept all offers on this bond below 35 cents. For other bonds, the government might not know enough yet to accept any offers.
The government sets up another auction and goes through the process again, as long as bonds are offered at a price at which the government wants to buy. When there are no more good offers, the government stops the auctions.
Just like the car dealer, the bankers are not financially enriched or empoverished by the transactions. They are more liquid. If they have enough money to pay their bills, they can operate. If not, they can close.
As long as the government has not overpaid, it won't lose much money. The key is to make sure the government gets value for what it pays. An auction format would help to do that.
This could be sweetened by offering stimulus cash to Americans, and offering incentives for fuel efficient cars built in America.
Though the Republicans are totally discredited, the Democrats will have to demonstrate they are ready to govern. It should be clear to everyone that Bush/McCain made this mess and the Democrats are cleaning up after the worst president ever.
Please don't be mad at Obama and the other Democrats when they step up to lead the country through this Republican-made crisis.





Agree!! As best I understand this part of the world (hardly at all), this 'meltdown' could have happedned Jan. 17 instead of Sept. 17, and if it did hopefully the Dems WOULD have been in charge then --- and would get full credit (or blame) for the response. So they should do now what they would have done then when there would be no election around the corner. ----
And I DO hope that supporters will not let whatever happens affect their actions and determination re: the election now. As close as things have become with the wildcard of Palin thrown in, I can't help but regret (even more than I did then) the savage attack-you-own reaction so many had to the telecom vote. It isn't over until it's OVER - no relaxing or eye off the ball until Nov. 5th. The stakes are even higher than we could have imagined (thanks to Sarah P who should NEVER be allowed close to the White House)
September 20, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stopped reading here.
As per a recent post here, the average US family makes something to the tune of $50,000 per year before taxes. This bailout amounts to a one-time tax on that same family of about $10,000.
You're asking the average American family to forfeit 20% of its yearly income to rescue a handful of companies that make money using abstract and complicated financial mechanisms that they sometimes don't even understand.
If there was ever a situation that warranted a few companies to go under, now is that time. If there was ever a situation that warranted no bailouts, now is that time.
Not 'commended.
September 20, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish you would have read a little further. It would make it easier to discuss. Taxpayers won't be writing checks.
If the mortgage bonds are purchased for their actual current value, the government won't make or lose much money.
It's not being done for the bankers, but to save the economy. If Hoover would have had a chance to avoid the Great Depression by issuing bonds, I think historians would fault him for failing to do so.
We might feel we got some justice by having the bankers of 1929 lose their shirts, but the pain suffered by working people was so much greater.
September 20, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah ericAZ, but if we were only going to pay fair value, it wouldn't be a bailout.
It's guaranteed that we will overpay. And owning mortgages for the least credit worthy people in America will only lead to more unintended consequences down the road. Think the government is going to foreclose on anyone? Not a chance.
Nope, we'll overpay, probably double or triple the fair market value. This is a $400 billion gift to Wall St. and nothing else. I'm going to my congresswoman's office on Monday if this proposal isn't dead by then.
No way, no how, no bailout.
September 21, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
This too.
I'm not reading this until you realize that taxpayers, good people that work hard for their money, are going to be robbed.
September 21, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the government pays beyond fair value, then it would be enriching the owners of the securities.
The point is to pay fair value so these illiquid securities are not choking the credit markets.
I know we really want to grab a banker and hold his feet to the fire, but our constituency is really the carpenters and others who are out of work, and their families, as the gridlock in the credit markets stalls the economy.
If we could replay 1929, would we really want more revenge on the bankers, or would we want to avoid the billion-plus years of human suffering for ordinary people that came with the Great Depression? We are not there yet, but we are getting closer to the abyss every day.
September 21, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, stop the bailout as currently proposed. It fails to meet your requirements on almost every level.
Once that abyss is avoided, then we can talk about a sensible bailout. But the one on the table now is so bad, I might vote Republican in November in hopes that the Dems won't be blamed for the ensuing economic crapfest.
September 21, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink