Federal Reserve Bank Circumvents Congressional Approval for More Bailouts

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 16:25


Who needs congressional approval for more bailouts when you have the Federal Reserve Bank? The Federal Reserve is going to take another $750 billion in toxic assets off the hands of banks, and there isn't a damn thing anyone in Congress can do about it:

The Federal Reserve said today that it will deploy an additional $1.2 trillion to try to lower interest rates and stimulate the economy, an aggressive move aimed at containing the recession.

The central bank will increase its purchases of mortgage-backed securities by $750 billion, on top of a previously announced $500 billion. It also will double its purchases of debt in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to $200 billion. Those steps are intended to lower mortgage rates. The announcement of the previous purchases pushed mortgage rates down a full percentage point.

The Fed also said it will buy $300 billion in long-term Treasury bonds, a step it had previously considered but had been reluctant to act on.

I have no problem with the bond purchases, and I don't mind more money for Fannie Mae and Freddie Max now that they are publicly owned. However, I do have a problem with a $750 billion investment in toxic assets that more than doubles the size of TARP, and which took place without congressional approval.

Keep in mind that the Obama administration has included $250 billion in projected losses on the purchase of $750 billion in toxic assets in the budget:

The $250 billion in funds, should the administration seek it out, would support $750 billion in asset purchases as part of a public-private partnership fund the administration has yet to roll out, according to a budget blueprint document.

I always thought it was strange that they were only budgeting in the losses without asking Congress for more money. Kind of makes me wonder if they coordinated this move with the Federal Reserve, so that they could sink another $750 billion into toxic assets without actually having to ask Congress for they money. The numbers match up strikingly well.

Or, the situation could be even worse, and the $750 billion from the Fed is on top of the $750 billion in the public-private partnership plan. So, that is now $1.5 trillion in bad assets, or more than 10% of our GDP. Awesome.

Chris Bowers :: Federal Reserve Bank Circumvents Congressional Approval for More Bailouts

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I'm not sure these are 'toxic assets' (0.00 / 0)
Sadly, I am also not sure they aren't.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

It was for (0.00 / 0)
Mortgage securities. To keep interest rates low. idk if that is considered toxic assets.

[ Parent ]
I'd have to assume there's a lot in there (0.00 / 0)
A housing bubble collapsed. A lot of mortgages aren't worth what they were, so the securities contingent upon them are also a lot more dubious than they ought to be.

Since this is to some degree a crisis of confidence, there are probably good assets in there, but since nobody can even work out who owns what or how much has been lost, we can assume that a lot of that package is very toxic.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
So I take it you are in favor of Constitutional government? (4.00 / 4)
How quaint.

If They Can Do That, Then Why Not Bail Out Homeowers? (4.00 / 2)
After all, those are the underlying assets in question, rights?

Write down all the mortgages on a progressive sliding scale, so the underlying assets are no longer toxic: problem solved!

Will there still be equity issues left over?  Without a doubt.  But no more "collapse of the entire economic system" issues, which should give us much better atmospherics for dealing with equity issues going forward.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


That has been happening (0.00 / 0)
Although, as expected, the govt is allowing the same folks who got us into this mess to still profit at the same time:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...

After reading that article, it's pretty clear that a more robust government agency to renegotiate the mortgages bought up with these bailout plans could actually make a decent return, as long as we don't outsource the profits.


[ Parent ]
it's just another gigantic payday for Goldman and the others -- (0.00 / 0)
"Goldman & others buying up billions of "distressed debt" -- "ability to achieve private equity-like returns"" -- http://www.openleft.com/showQu...

The Fed printed this money (0.00 / 0)
So does that mean it doesn't go onto our national debt?

And, will this lead to inflation?


it doesn't count as deficit -- it leads to the dollar dropping in value (0.00 / 0)
and to whoever holds dollars losing money.

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox