I just finished reading the Treasury Department's version of the "Bailout" Plan. It's not Law & Order, but it is chilling in parts. Here's an example from Section 3:
Sec. 3. Considerations.
In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--
(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and
(2) protecting the taxpayer.
Wow, the disdain for the taxpayer's position in all of this comes out front and center! Oh, well, at least they're not keeping it a secret anymore, huh? It's funny how this administration lets its corporations-first-little-guy-second mentality seep into the public record like this. Maybe they figure not that many people will actually read it...even if it's only two pages long. Or, maybe they just don't care anymore. That's more than likely the case.
And, really, who's going to call them on it? In the scheme of things, this little passage isn't really that big of a deal. If we still slapped each other with gloves and had duels, this sort of slight might mean more to us, as voters. As it is, though, the majority of us have shown time and again that we're perfectly willing to give up some self-respect in exchange for a (usually false) sense of security.
But the real shock and awe here, aside from seeing eleven trillion, three hundred fifteen billion dollars written as a real number, is a blatant power grab of a passage that reads:
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
This is fairly straightforward for a legal document, but it wouldn't hurt to make it clearer:
This sentence means, essentially, that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson could take that $700 billion figure that's been flying around out there and do whatever he wants with it and not be accountable to anyone for his actions. No oversight, no other minds collaborating on the decision-making. This guy would be one of the most powerful people on the planet...if not THE most powerful person!
And who voted for Paulson? No one. He was appointed by Bush the Junior in 2006. He is a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, which will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of this new "Bailout" Plan. Looks like the Section 3 credo of "providing stability [to] the financial markets" before "protect[ing] the taxpayer" is springing into action!
But what else do we know about Henry Paulson?
Well, NOW we know all we need to know. They called him the Hammer? That's good enough for me! It's great that he gives millions to nature conservation...but I don't care. That doesn't tell me, as a voter, why I should fork over my part of (at least) $700 billion in tax money to spend however he sees fit! For once, Michelle Malkin and I agree on something (kind of, but it'll probably never happen again). Neither of us trust Henry Paulson.
And you know what? I could be Paulson's best friend and still not trust him. Not because of who he is, but because of who we all are. Putting that much power in anyone's hands is dangerous, especially in a volatile arena like the economy.
Let's call it right down the middle, nobody knows anything when it comes to finances. Not the economists. Not the bankers. Not the brokers. And not the Treasury Secretary. Sure, those people are a lot smarter on the subject than I am, but that's still not saying much. You could fill libraries with what I don't know. But, at its core, the financial system is...well...magic. The labyrinths these firms and institutions have set up contain multiple Minotaurs and not even the most savvy single econo-wizard can predict what's going to happen. That's why opposing viewpoints (and collaboration and oversight) are so important.
Since early 2007, Paulson has said over and over that the mortgage credit crisis would be "contained" and that it might be "fading" because the fundamentals of the economy are...well, you know that quote by now.
But now, his tune has changed. On Meet the Press this past Sunday, Paulson said that he wants to "have authority to move very quickly to purchase these assets, these illiquid assets from banks" in the interest of "preventing failure." Let's see here, the administration is going to choose to engage in this deal with a three-page plan as a blueprint, all under the supervision of one man. Does this sound like a song we've heard before?
Of course, the real shank in the taxpayers' ribs might be the fact that both Paulson and the lobbyist sharks lurking around this deal have said that Congress should not move to limit corporate executive compensation packages as part of this deal. According to Paulson, that would be a "poison pill" to agreeing on a deal. Gosh, when you out it that way, Mr. Secretary, it almost sounds like this "bailout" might not be so urgent, after all.
The lobbyists, though, are the real pros here. According to Elizabeth Williamson of the Wall Street Journal, their argument against limiting Golden Parachutes is that such a policy would "hurt their ability to find and retain top brass." Do they mean "top brass" as in...the executives who contributed to the mess we're in? Yeah, we really should try to find or, at least, keep those people on the payroll! They've done such a great job so far!
On the plus side, though, I've gained new (to me) insight about our country through this whole debacle. I realize now that our two-party system isn't about Republicans and Democrats. It's about the rich and the poor. The rules are not the same for the rich as they are for you and me. I've known that for a long time, but now I realize it. It's like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said: "Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich."
"Socializing" something isn't good...until it's the robber barons who need it.
Then it becomes necessary.
Color me enlightened.
Charles
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment