- NTSB hearing on San Francisco airliner crash postponed
- Toronto Mayor Rob Ford insists he has dried out, vows sobriety test
- Greenpeace video warns that climate change is wrecking Santa’s home
- Herman Cain profiled in ‘Political Power’ comic book
- Hagel renews Qatar defense pact despite differences over Iran, Syria
- Fire departments fear Obamacare will gut volunteer ranks
- Rep. Alan Grayson loses $18M in stock scheme
- Christmas secularists get 6-foot beer-can Festivus pole at Florida Statehouse
- George Zimmerman’s girlfriend flips on assault: Let ‘my boyfriend’ go
- Lululemon Athletica chairman quits after firestorm over his fat-thighs comment
LAMBRO: Will investors buy in?
This week’s $1 trillion question is whether Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner’s public-private bank bailout plan will lure enough investors into buying up bad assets to end the nation’s lending paralysis.
Wall Street cheered the plan - as well as a welcome increase in home sales - by sending the Dow up nearly 500 points. Yet economists and cautious leaders in the financial community had their doubts.
The plan calls for using the fast-dwindling remainder of the $350 million share of the bank rescue money when economists say a great deal more will be needed to finance the government’s share of the buyout deal. Financial experts told me Monday that private investment funds were going to be very hesitant about buying up assets “when no one knows how much they are really worth.”
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, the scourge of American capitalism, said Mr. Geithner had talked President Obama into “recycling” the Bush administration’s “cash for trash” plan that then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. tried last year - only this time with a few more bells and whistles.
But Mr. Geithner’s scheme is a one-way bet that is doomed to fail, Mr. Krugman argues. If the government’s incentives to buy the bad assets drive up their value, investors and banks profit - but if they don’t, taxpayers will be left holding the bag. Mr. Krugman, a bleeding-heart socialist, thinks the feds should take control of the insolvent banks, as Sweden did in the 1990s.
University of Maryland economist Peter Morici levels similar complaints. The plan Mr. Geithner “is cooking up could unnecessarily stick the taxpayers with big losses on those toxic assets and give the banks big, unearned profits. It could save many bank executives’ careers while running up the federal deficit even further and undermining international confidence in the dollar,” Mr. Morici said.
Other economists maintain there are not enough funds left in resources of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (even with government loans and guarantees) to bankroll a plan aimed at potentially trillions of dollars in bad assets.
Treasury will need at least another $400 billion to make a noticeable dent in the toxic assets clogging up the financial industry’s books, said Wall Street economist Mark Zandi at Moody’s financial rating company.
”The plan could fail to remove enough toxic assets from the balance sheets of the banks to unlock private credit markets. Ultimately, the resulting federal deficits and domestic economic paralysis could make financing federal budget deficits, through domestic and foreign borrowing, extraordinarily difficult,” Mr. Morici said.
The Obama administration’s latest attempt to bring some stability to the financial system comes at a time when it is getting poor to failing grades for its handling of the economy thus far.
Economists and private investment fund analysts tell me they think Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has been doing the heavy lifting in policy initiatives up to this point.
A survey I conducted last week of several government and economic analysts turned up surprisingly blunt assessments of Mr. Obama’s performance - even from some very liberal quarters.
”His success thus far is the stimulus bill, which is a necessary though not sufficient condition for keeping the recession from leading to deflation and global depression,” said Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.
”The financial rescue efforts have been shaky. What little public support for the effort that existed under Bush has diminished further under Obama. He has been behind the curve of populist anger, which leads to the kind of harmful legislation that the House passed Thursday” to slap a draconian 90 percent tax on American International Group Inc. executive bonuses, Mr. Mann told me.
About the Author
By Tom Fitton
New photos confirm the attack's coordination and its cover-up
- American bourbon now better than Scottish whiskey: U.K.-born expert
- FITTON: A closer look at the Benghazi lie
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend's shopping jumps to his death
- Obama shakes hands with Cuba's Raul Castro at Nelson Mandela's funeral
- Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu backs out of Nelson Mandela funeral
- Troops forced to rely on welfare, holiday charity
- Oregon fails to sign up single person on health care website as states struggle
- Obama lied about Syrian chemical attack, 'cherry-picked' intelligence: report
- George Zimmermans girlfriend flips on assault: Let my boyfriend go
- Obama takes 'selfie' at Mandela's funeral service
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Notes from a running nerd: musings and more on all things running.
NFL junkie Eric Golub reports on his favorite obsession. There is no football offseason. Every February he pretends to care about other sports while sobbing uncontrollably each Sunday until September.
The cold hard truth about politics in America today and the state of this once great nation.
The world impacts us. What happens in our towns, cities, states, country and on this planet makes a difference to us.
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow