Hell No

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:51


Obviously conservatives and Republicans in Congress are throwing tantrums about how any additional provisions to the $700 billion blank check are partisan maneuvers to take advantage of a crisis.  They say this as if Hank Paulson isn't a conservative Republican asking for $700 billion for his conservative friends on Wall Street.  This is an ideological war and they are assaulting America.  I'd call it treason but it's legal.

On the flip side, this crisis is our chance to thrash the conservative movement and it's one Democrats should jump on.  I've had anti-corruption fighter David Donnolly note that this is a good moment to get public financing through, since it's obvious that our political system is totally corrupt and needs systemic reform.  This is a good moment to reform the Bankruptcy code.  And it's also a good moment to really shift the rules and help labor (where the hell is labor, by the way); here's a note from Joshua Zeitz, candidate for Congress in NJ-04.

No one is even broaching the topic of unions.  Ironicaly, given my trouble with labor, this is the point I'm going to hammer home this week.  Thanks to the Bush visit, I'll have a microphone.

During WWII, the U.S. government offered industry a deal: cost-plus war production contracts and expansion capital in return for closed shops.  Ford, GM, &c. refused to switch to war production until they were offered these cost-plus contracts, and ultimately, Congress and the Roosevelt administration were able to use both the carrot (massive investment of pulic funds in the construction of privately held plants) and stick (the threat of nationalization) to force the unionization of heretofore non-union shops.

The $700 billion bailout plan is comparable insomuch as it will create a massive infusion of public funds into private firms. Unions are dying, and this is a chance to extend them a life saver. There should be a mandate that any firm accepting the federal funds/buyout of securities unionize its support and clerical staff, sign agreements to use only unionized workers when building new facilities, use unionized (domestic) call centers , &c.  This is a once-in-a-generation chance to use government leverage to open the door for unions. Democrats need to hammer that point home.  It's how we began raising the prevailing wage and benefits in service industries.  This is important.

But all of this starts with a total rejection of Hank Paulson as a bad faith actor.  This deal is bullshit.  Progressives should pick a new number at random to start negotiations, say, $400 billion or $1.2 trillion, and start there with an entirely different framework.  It doesn't matter.  This is a political game of chicken, and the administration is acting like this is 9/11 and they have another opportunity to rob everyone blind and then run an election on law and order.

Fuck them.  Hell no.

Matt Stoller :: Hell No

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Hell No | 28 comments
Never more eloquent (4.00 / 1)
I can't think of a time when "Hell No" could be more eloquent.

Hell no for sure (4.00 / 5)
Now you policy people (call your friends at EPI!) get together today and come up with 5-10 demands for the bailout. Give it a name and get one sponsor in Congress so we can pressure our (Democratic) representatives and senators to support that version.

We can't just say hell no. We have to propose the alternative (like you say) but we need to coalesce around one plan so we can be focused in our pressure and give our reps. that want to support our ideas something to latch onto.  


Jack Reed (0.00 / 0)
has proposed something similar to the Mallaby plan, where the U.S. government buys shares of the troubled companies who need bailouts. That way taxpayers could see the upside to any recovery.

Personally, I think we should stay away from these toxic mortgages. The opportunity costs on that $700 billion is just too much to throw away on crap paper. Let the banks tumble until we only have Bank of America, Wells Fargo and CitiBank left. I don't care. The U.S government can start becoming the investment bank of choice, I'd prefer that to this giveaway to fat cats and foreign banks.


[ Parent ]
Lets start at a plate of sushi for everyone (4.00 / 2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...

spot on that Paulson is bad faith actor. there is nothing reasonable in this plan. In fact it is exactly what one would expect from a crony state - Paulson has tried to frame himself as above the political fray, he lost that argument with this horrible plan that fleeces tax payers.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


Total agreement (0.00 / 0)
Although honestly, I'm still not convinced that ANY bailout is really needed. I think last week's talk of a second Great Depression is equal to Colin Powell's UN presentation about Iraq's nuclear weapons.

It's bullshit. Wall Street is in trouble, but it's not in this kind of trouble. I'm more than happy to see more banks fail from bad decisions before we throw more billions into the pot.

I'm not sure if the union stuff could get in there, I wish we could do the Bernie Sanders thing and raise taxes on the rich, but raising taxes right before a critical election might not be the best optics.

My best plan would be to push this thing past the election. No rush, no need to toss a trillion dollars out the window because Paulson is an idiot and a crook.


Wanna See Sumpin' A Bit 'Eye-Opening?' (4.00 / 2)
Compare Obama's 'plan

with Ralph Nader's.

Now ask yourselves why one --Nader's -- is chock-full of specific remedies, which allocate the blame and responsibility where it belongs, and assures at least a little accountability, while the other our Great Mocha Hope'sis overflowing with rhetorical flourishes and boiler-plate generalities?

Any guesses?


Well, Obama didn't pretend (0.00 / 0)
he was offering a plan, it was a list of principles, so of course Nader's is more specific.

That said, it is really a surprise that Nader has better policies. He has better positions on everything--why would this be any different?


[ Parent ]
Someone Front Page This! (4.00 / 1)
I said nearly as much in my reaction to Obama's vague response. Nice start, but where are the specifics. There are none yet. He could own this, so what's going on?

Nader (as much as he's hated by the left-bloggerarti) yet again proves himself to be ahead of everyone. (Michael Moore and Kerrycrats please go stuff yourselves.)

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


[ Parent ]
Because Nader has more integrity than Obama? (0.00 / 0)
Because Nader cares less about fitting in or reaching across the aisle to work with Republican criminals (or even staying in the Democratic aisle and working with Democratic criminals).?

Because Obama is dancing with the devil, in the form of Robert Rubin, and Nader is not?

All of the above?

I give up, what's the answer?

(Actually, I did see Obama offer a list of 5 principles, but even so, it's hard for me to take him seriously, compared to Nader. Obama is going to look out for his Wall Street buddies, period, end of story. I hope when Sirota gets on TV, again, he calls both McCain out on Graham, and Obama out on Rubin.

For that matter, I'd pay cash money to see him call out both the Democrat and Republic parties. It's real convenient to blame things on "the corporate wing" of the Democratic party, now, but where were the non-corporate Democrats these past 10+ years? Busy dancing with the devil, themselves?

In fairness, I note that it's probably much easier to offer up a specific plan when you're not in power, like Nader, and thus don't have to worry about hammering out an agreement with a bunch of compromises, the very next day. Even so, as a possible president, it would have been a welcome demonstration of leadership. Instead, he's still acting the part of a Senator who needs to reach consensus, and perhaps also satisfying a psychological need to bridge a bi-racial chasm, by projecting it onto his dealings with polarized lawmakers.

Pardon my psycho-analysis, but sometimes I can't help myself.
)

Come to think of it, perhaps the best way for Obama to put McCain away is to adopt Nader's, appearing publicly with Nader to explain the why's and wherefore's. Everybody knows who Nader is, and anybody with a brain knows that he's more of a populist than either the typical D or R.

Probably Nader would not be eager to let himself be used by Obama, if he caught even a whiff of insincerity on Obama's part. Maybe, though, in the interest of doing what's best for the country, Obama could sign on to Nader's plan, even if his heart isn't in it, and Nader could sign on to helping Obama push it, even if his heart isn't in that.

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org


[ Parent ]
And why would Nader's prescriptions disqualify Obama if he uttered them? (4.00 / 2)

Surely, they wouldn't bother the "People,"  wouldn't disturb them or anger them or drive them away, would they? Which among Nader's remedies is anti-People? None of them impacts "the People" in the slightest.

If this and a lot of other fora are any indication, the "people" are pissed, and would (or at least should) applaud those stringent remediesm applied to the bankers.

I bet 90% of "the People" would endorse Nader's ideas, even if they were uttered by Obama...

No, there's one reason why you'll never hear such specifics dfrom St. Barry, the Tan: he's the property of CorpoRat Murka, and they'd be the ones to suffer.

It'd be okay with me even if those "Nader points" were NOT writ in concrete, were, in fact, negotiable...

Just to hear the critique, out loud, from even ONE "major party candidate--even one already unelectable--would be a huge step--albeit perhaps only a rhetorical one...


[ Parent ]
It's Time To Contact Congress (0.00 / 0)
Blogs.  Letters.  Petitions.  E-mails.  Calls.

This is what the Internet was invented for.  Let them know what we want and don't want.  Keep it simple.  Leave your self-interests at the door.

BTW Cokie Roberts said something interesting, yesterday on ABC, maybe this thing is trumped up (like Iraq?).  Anyone catch it?  


Three things (0.00 / 0)
I don't know about the labor stuff, but all the below really should be non-negotiable.  

1. Congressional oversight.  This is such a no brainer its just unbelievable.

2. Equity not assets.  What the fuck?  Why would we want these crap assets at above market prices when we could own pieces of these companies at market prices?  Even my Wall Street friends think this is a joke.

3. Executive pay limitations.  This is a good opportunity to make this happen (finally) and its good politics.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."


Yeah (0.00 / 0)
I totally agree especially on item 2 - at this point if we are taking on the debt we should be taking the equity too.  

[ Parent ]
have already written my congresscritter re: pts 1 & 2 n/t (0.00 / 0)


War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; McCain/Palin 2008

[ Parent ]
Arsonists for Fire Commissioner (0.00 / 0)
Rather than negotiating the bailout, Paulson, as head of Goldman, should probably be in jail.  So should Gramm and his wife Wendy, former Enron board member.

But the other side of the aisle has equally odious corporate criminals.  Rubin was the previous head of Goldman, and Summers was the main cheerleader for Glass-Steagel repeal.

By putting these people at the top of his list of economic advisors Obama sacrifices what should be probably the single most powerful issue he can use in the campaign.

Can we agree that he is making a mistake and that this should be pointed out to him by those who want him elected?



Would it be negative of me (0.00 / 0)
to say that the future of the United States is very grim, if there is a future at all?

The conservative ideology and rampant greed have possibly done more damage than we could even possibly overcome.

Makes me really think about moving elsewhere so that my daughter does not have to live with the burden that these people have left for her when she is older.


i'm a little bit scared (0.00 / 0)
that the scare tactics they're using, and the obvious "this was your fault for not passing my bailout package" response if things go south, will result in a mccain win.


I disagree (0.00 / 0)
I think his hands are so obviously all over this, and his party is the one bearing much of the blame (rightfully so) that if Obama does a better job of connecting the dots in ads he can't lose.

[ Parent ]
They will certainly try. Let's make them own their failures. (0.00 / 0)
From what I hear the Repugs will be voting against anything other than an outright giveaway.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; McCain/Palin 2008

[ Parent ]
We've already won the debate (0.00 / 0)
Now we need to claim out prize: progressive reform.

I don't see a lot of people backing Bush's approach. William Kristol, for f-sake's, can't bring himself to support it. McCain is distancing himself from it.

First step: scrap Bush's plan and come up with a new framework.

Dodd seems to be a problem: he seems to be way too willing to work within Bush's framework.

Pressure needs to be put on Dodd.


As often, the Democrats are the problem (0.00 / 0)

  The right hates this bailout.

  The center hates this bailout.

  The left hates this bailout.

  Most sensible economists hate this bailout.

  The fact that the Democrats in Congress are even considering merrily enabling this bailout that everyone hates is an appalling testament to the party leadership's tone-deafness and utter lack of political instincts.

  Can someone explain to me why we have a Congress?  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Fannie and Freddie (0.00 / 0)
Screw Wall Street.

Since Bush managed to engineer an economic boom while wages dropped, the objective now should be to prop up the economy without giving a damn thing to Wall Street and the rich.

Use government control of Fannie and Freddie to rewrite the mortgage terms for every low- and middle-income family in danger of foreclosure.

Use targeted government investment to foster union-friendly businesses.

Expand Medicare for all.

But not a dime to Wall Street.


I'm coming around to the "Hell No" point of view (4.00 / 4)
especially after reading a post over at the Agonist last night, which I excerpted here:
http://www.openleft.com/showQu...

This guy (an experienced industry insider) argues that a bailout is a massive waste of money and should NOT be undertaken, even if other provisions we like are added to the package.

He's basically saying:
1) most large banks are already insolvent; the issue is not liquidity, but solvency;
2) there's a good way to test this before putting up any bailout money;
3) the money would be better used to shore up FDIC (which will need it in any event) to protect individuals' savings, and also also to help those facing foreclosure.

He says the house of cards is not supportable--even with $700 bil--and has to fall, and that bankruptcy for large banks is an appropriate way to go.  He says a good number of community banks will survive and some larger ones can make it through the bankruptcy proceeding just like companies in other industries.

That means we can use ALL the money taxpayers pony up to actually help citizens in need.  That sounds like a good foundational argument for a progressive alternative that can focus ALL of its resources on rebuilding a financial system and economy that serves the people.

The reality's kinda scary in any event.  But I'd rather see us suffer through tough times while rebuilding a new and healthy economy than experience roughly the same suffering while pissing away $700 billion to calm the nerves of elites that belong in bankruptcy, jail or rehab for gambling addition.

That makes the reality both scary and exhilarating.


Hear hear! (0.00 / 0)
If these people are so beholden to the ideology of a free market, they should let the failing businesses fail. That is the nature of the beast.

I can't stand this concept that the free market is free - but only as far as taxes and regulations are concerned.

You can't fucking have your cake and eat mine too.


[ Parent ]
I'll have my cake and eat yours (4.00 / 1)
LOL- what a true bumper sticker slogan of this corrupt criminal disaster.

[ Parent ]
Stop using 700 billion figure (4.00 / 1)
Because that is the "old" figure.

The number is more likely $1.8 TRILLION:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26808715

Part of the reason it keeps going up is that UBS (yes, Phil Gramm's UBS) successfully lobbied Paulson over the weekend to allow foreign banks to dip in for a piece of bailout pie.

Fuck these people. Fuck all of them.


thats not quite accurate (0.00 / 0)
If you use 1.8T you have to say "expand the bailout to 1.8 Trillion".

which I think is a good frame, as it reminds people that these jokers have been trying to solve this for more than a year, and also gets the bigger figure - which you rightly point out.

-

if you don't allow foreign banks to participate then how you do you prevent them from selling assets to in country banks and then they shuttling them into the govt program? I believe the foreign bank provision in part is to cover this loop hole. I'll give Obama credit for pointing out that a plan should be backed by a collective of countries.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


[ Parent ]
Barry Ritholz has an alternative plan... (0.00 / 0)
...or should I say, has a plan and not just a price tag, based on letting house prices deflate in an orderly manner.

Hell No | 28 comments
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