Gov't Studies Say Progressives Were Right, Beltway Was Wrong

by: David Sirota

Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 11:21


My newspaper column this week takes a look at three recent government reports that prove when it comes to righting our economy, progressives were right, and Beltway insiders were wrong.  
David Sirota :: Gov't Studies Say Progressives Were Right, Beltway Was Wrong
Remember when progressives protested the 2005 bankruptcy bill? Remember when we said it would wreak economic havoc? And remember when Congress overwhelmingly passed it anyway? Well now a new report from the New York Federal Reserve Bank - not exactly communists - says that bill is playing a decisive role in the foreclosure surge that undermined our entire economy. Specifically, the bill effectively forces debtors to pay off their credit cards before making mortgage payments, thus throwing them into foreclosure. The Fed estimates that since 2005, the bankruptcy bill is directly responsible for causing 400,000 more foreclosures (32,000 per quarter) than the economy would have generated otherwise.

Remember when progressives opposed the bailout and said that while there was certainly a real economic problem at hand, Wall Street had not made the case that there was an apocalyptic credit crisis warranting a $700 billion bailout? Remember how bloviators like Doris Kearns Goodwin took to PBS to call bailout opponents "irresponsible?" Remember how almost every Establishment media voice and politician berated bailout opponents as unacceptable ideologues who didn't care about the economy? Well now a new report from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank says exactly what we were saying all along: That the government lied to us, and that the hard data proved that the claims about a lending crisis were fabricated.  

Finally, remember when progressives said there weren't adequate oversight controls included in the bailout legislation? And remember when politicians - especially Democrats - insisted that they had "fixed" the bailout and made sure it included strong safeguards? Well now a new report from the General Accountability Office agrees with progressives, saying that there's almost no oversight at all, and that huge truckloads of taxpayer cash is at risk of being stolen, bilked, or otherwise wasted.

You'll notice that other than a few scant stories about that latter report, the media has almost completely ignored these damning studies. In our country, it doesn't matter what the chattering class says and how wrong these fools are - people like Goodwin and the like retain their media credentials and teevee platforms as supposed "experts."

But the fact remains that what we now have is crystal clear proof that the real pragmatists were progressives sounding the alarm, and the real fringe ideologues were the Beltway insiders who sneered at us for raising objections.

Maybe now, having been so utterly humiliated, these people will start listening to us.

Read the whole column here.

The column relies on grassroots support, so if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.

UPDATE: For those interested, I forgot to include this in the original post. See here for the raw data on inter-bank lending that the Minneapolis study was based on. Pretty incredible how consistent it has been since they said there was a "crisis."


Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Remember when... (4.00 / 1)
Then-Presidential candidate Obama was so "outraged" at the bailout that he decided to follow Establishment 'wisdom' and support it?

http://www.reuters.com/article...

Did it help get him elected by not making waves?  Perhaps.  Was it the right thing to do?  Perhaps not.


Where ideology come in handy... (4.00 / 1)
These types of big decisions, I might add, like wars and trillion dollar bailouts, are where post-ideological thinking fails and ideology comes in handy.  It was interesting that centrists in both parties didn't really know what to think about the bailout, and instead waited for their "constituents" to help them decide.  Both McCain and Obama essentially waited to see which would help their campaigns the most (and ironically, McCain really missed an opportunity by not opposing the bailout because of this).  This is where a well-developed system of ethics, whether it includes tenets like "protect free markets" or "don't hand out corporate welfare at the taxpayers expense" help decision-makers form decisions.  Obama leaned on his ethics in his decision on the war (initially at least, and hopefully he will return to it), but he passed the buck to conventional wisdom here, and missed.

[ Parent ]
This Is So True (4.00 / 2)
And, yet, there's a deeper level that yields a strikely different take: namely that outsourcing your decisionmaking process to the intellectual Halliburtons of the world is itself an ideological decision, which is bound to come back with whatever answer is right for the corporate elite at the moment.

True, it has the benefit of not being ideologically rigid.  Quite the contrary, blindly giving out supertankers full of cash with no oversight is the right thing to do, if it's October, and the recipients are on Wall Street.  But if it's December, and the recipients hail from Detroit and its environs, then, not so much.

But what could be better than a rigid ideology that always inflexibly flexibly yields precisely the results you wanted anyway, whatever they may be?  It's like having a strict conscience that always demands you to ignore everything that stands in the way of doing what exactly what you want.

"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


[ Parent ]
They won't let reality alter what they want to believe (0.00 / 0)


Um David... (0.00 / 0)
Did you not read Working Paper 666, or do you not remember the theories of the nature of the credit trap from September? This is from the abstract of the paper, summarizing the authors arguments:

"Here we examine three claims about the way the financial crisis is affecting the economy as a whole and argue that all three claims are myths. We also present three underappreciated facts about how the financial system intermediates funds between households and corporate businesses. Conventional analyses of the financial crisis focus on interest rate spreads. We argue that such analyses may lead to mistaken inferences about the real costs of borrowing and argue that, during financial crises, variations in the levels of nominal interest rates might lead to better inferences about variations in the real costs of borrowing. Moreover, we argue that even if current increase in spreads indicate increases in the riskiness of the underlying projects, by itself, this increase does not necessarily indicate the need for massive government intervention."

Which is all well and good, and maybe even right, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the assumption driving the bailout at the time, which was that the credit crunch was caused by a bottleneck in the system brought on by the toxic assets we were then going to buy. It didn't turn out to be true, and instead it looks like we're in a liquidity preference situation, but it's sort of like hearing a rattling in your car; it may be that you need to buy a new car, but who the hell does that first, without trying things like topping off your fluids, replacing belts, and so on?


great column (0.00 / 0)
Finance and banking allow so much room for misinformation -- because they're not well understood, and understanding depends on access to data. One of the nice things about putting stories like this on the Internet is that you can link directly to the government reports and read them.

You would think that members of the Congressional Banking Committees (Dodd, Frank, etc.) and other Congressmen would be aware of these reports too. I'd be curious to know which Congressman voted for these pieces of legislation, and what were their public statements at the time.

It seemed like there was such a huge rush to get that bailout package passed -- it was such a crisis McCain "suspended" his campaign. Was that possibly so that a fact-based argument couldn't be mounted against it in time?

It's also curious that this happened during the closing days of a national election. Was there pressure put on the candidates to get this passed or else suffer the wrath of the financial services industry?  


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search