Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Josh Marshall says : Not So Fast
Andrew Ross Sorkin reports today that Goldman Sachs is going to pay all its TARP money quickly. The idea being that they're tired of federal interference and oversight. And paying it off will mean they're back on their own. But of course Goldman Sachs got substantially more money, roughly $13 billion from the AIG bailout, and there are numerous others programs, including but not limited to, loan guarantees that Goldman has used to stay afloat over the last six months. So the idea that simply paying back the TARP money means they're back on their own is really a crock.
We'll be bringing you more on this shortly. But over recent days I've seen several good write-ups detailing the lengthy list of federal aid Goldman has received. If you can think of good write-ups like that, please send them in asap and we'll add them to the mix.
publius: All of the Above?
A big part of the intra-liberal debate over the Geithner plan is whether or not to nationalize the banks. But is it really an either/or question? Could we do both the Geithner plan AND nationalization simultaneously? Nouriel Roubini seems to think so:
“I see the option of nationalization” and the one presented by the Obama administration “as being complementary,” Mr. Roubini said. He believes that the stress tests the government plans on conducting on the banks will reveal which are solvent and which are insolvent.
In his view, those banks that are deemed insolvent will not participate in the toxic-asset plan and will be taken over by the government. Banks deemed solvent will be the ones that get to participate.
Nationalization “is fully on the table for banks that are insolvent,” Mr. Roubini said.
I'll confess I'm on entirely clear on whether he thinks this will happen, or simply that it should happen (his subsequent blog post sounds more like the latter). For what it's worth (which is very little), I haven't seen anything confirming, or even suggesting, that stress tests will be used in this manner. But I'm happy to be corrected.
But this strategy does mesh nicely with the administration's efforts to obtain wider authority to take over financial firms.
Occasionally Matthews is great; he is here (I imagine that tingle going up his leg). Matthews: Obama has 'coherent' plan March 24: MSNBC's Chris Matthews explains to Countdown's Keith Olbermann that President Barack Obama will stop at nothing to get his budget passed because the country "can't wait."
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Benen: BAYH AND THE BLUE DOGS EXPLAIN THEMSELVES....
I've been critical of efforts from Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and other "centrist" Democrats to organize a new working group to water down President Obama's domestic agenda. I tried to keep an open mind, though, while reading an op-ed from the group's leadership -- Sens. Bayh, Tom Carper, and Blanche Lincoln -- in the Washington Post today.
The three said they "feel compelled to set the record straight," because their goals, they say, have been misconstrued.
As moderate leaders, it is not our intent to water down the president's agenda. We intend to strengthen and sustain it. Moderation is not a mathematical process of finding the center for its own sake. Practical solutions are practical because they offer our best chance to make a difference in people's lives today without forcing our children to pick up the tab tomorrow.
The stakes are too high for Democrats to fear a policy debate. Such debates produce better legislation. On nearly all important votes, a supermajority of 60 senators will be needed to pass legislation. Without Democratic moderates working to find common ground with reasonable Republicans, the president's agenda could well be filibustered into oblivion.
So, Bayh & Co. will water down make legislation less progressive so Republicans will be less inclined to oppose key bills. Is this a recipe for success? We saw this play out during the stimulus debate, and the result was a weaker and insufficient bill. (Indeed, the same Democrats want to make it easier for Republicans to filibuster health care and energy bills. I wonder why that is?)
This is built on a faulty premise of negotiating from weakness. Democrats start off with a popular president, a popular agenda, and a 58-vote majority. Instead of wondering how to make good legislation worse to make Collins, Snowe, and Specter happy, perhaps the majority party should consider a) reforming the filibuster rules; or b) pressuring Republican "centrists" to vote for good bills that will make them more popular back home.
In 1993, the three of us, as much younger politicians, stood with great expectations as the last Democratic president was sworn in with big plans, a head of steam and a Democratic Congress ready to begin a new progressive era. In less than two years, it all came crashing down, with disillusioned moderate voters handing the GOP broad congressional victories in 1994.
Um, guys? 2009 is not 1993. The party would be wise to start realizing this. Obama has more support than Clinton did 16 years ago, Democrats have more seats than they did 16 years ago, and the broader political dynamic has flipped -- Republicans were in ascension then, and are in decline now. Bayh and the Blue Dogs are acting shell-shocked, and it's clouding their judgment.
Tim Fernholz noted, "It's a good sign, at least, that Bayh et. al. have faced enough political pressure that they felt it necessary come forward and reiterate their support for the president." It's a good point. Perhaps those pressuring the Blue Dogs should keep doing what they're doing.
Fernholz: MODERATES ON PARADE.
The Senate moderates have come together -- in the pages of the Washington Post, natch -- to reassure the world of their support of President Obama's agenda. Senators Evan Bayh, Tom Carper and Blanche Lincoln are only forming a new moderate caucus in the Senate because:
1) The Republican leadership isn't doing a good job and they feel they can whip GOP votes. (Seriously, that's what they say.)
2) They have no idea what they're talking about. I've lamented in the past the fact that these senators rarely deign to explain why the make the choices they do, leading people to infer that it has more to do with their campaign contributions than their principles. Read this paragraph and you'll understand their whole gambit:
As moderate leaders, it is not our intent to water down the president's agenda. We intend to strengthen and sustain it. Moderation is not a mathematical process of finding the center for its own sake. Practical solutions are practical because they offer our best chance to make a difference in people's lives today without forcing our children to pick up the tab tomorrow.This is truly beautiful nonsense. Being practical is good because ... being practical is good. Let me offer a few other riffs on this passage:
- "Communist solutions are communist because they offer our best chance to make a difference..."
- "Republican solutions are Republican because they offer our best chance to make a difference..."
- "Fascist solutions are are Fascist because they offer our best chance to make a difference ..."
You get the idea.
3) They worry that the president's agenda is going to alienate moderates and cost him his his political support, just as it did Bill Clinton in 1993. Except, you know, that Obama won a lot more votes than Clinton -- moderate votes! -- and that he continues to have the approval of moderates, all while saying the same things. Meanwhile, Bayh has the political experience of winning state-wide elections in Indiana -- Obama won Indiana -- and losing national presidential campaigns -- didn't Obama win one of those, too? Bayh continues to misunderstand the current political dynamic, or he's stuck in the past.
It's a good sign, at least, that Bayh et. al. have faced enough political pressure that they felt it necessary come forward and reiterate their support for the president. To be sure, the work they've done in the Senate to persuade moderate Republicans to back the president's agenda has been important and necessary, even as their cheerful willingness to say nonsensical things and take stands against their constituents' interests has been a drag. But if there's a middle ground between helping build consensus for important legislation and completely ignoring consequences of the policies they support, these moderates can find it. After all, tea-weakening incrementalism is tea-weakening incrementalism because it offers our best chance to make a difference in people's lives today without forcing our children to pick up the tab tomorrow. Right?
No comments:
Post a Comment