- The Washington Times - Saturday, September 27, 2008




I understood the Bush administration’s decision to promise up to $30 billion to facilitate the fire sale of Bear Stearns. I got the administration’s decision to spend as much as $200 billion to stabilize mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are worth about $5 trillion. Ditto the $85 billion federal bailout of AIG.

As for this Bush administration “troubled asset relief plan” to authorize Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to spend another $700 billion bailing out investment firms, I am not sold.

Yes, I’ve talked to experts who believe the package is necessary to thaw an international credit freeze and the run on money markets. But it is difficult to assume that they really understand how to fix the credit mess when most experts didn’t see this coming.

As it is, it also doesn’t make much sense for the federal government to spend (which means borrow) as much as $700 billion — or a total of $1 trillion, when you add in the other bailouts — in order to stave off a credit crunch.

Alas, I do not see President Bush pushing a fiscally conservative bailout plan. At the very least, Mr. Bush should have opened with a smaller price tag, say, $100 billion.

The Bush plan would give Mr. Paulson czar-like powers — and I can’t for the life of me figure out why. (Yeah, I know, it’s because Mr. Paulson has to act quickly — but quickly and dumbly? No.)

Former Comptroller-General David Walker, now president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, told me the Bush package must come with “oversight, transparency and accountability.”

Oversight, transparency and accountability — these three words likely will replace the old trifecta of “waste, fraud and abuse.” Of course, Washington should regulate Wall Street, but the fact is that Group Think will not go away, and whatever tight regulations might percolate in the next year will become watered down over time — because they always have a persuasive argument to do so. That’s what Washington does, and both parties have participated.

For his part, Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has stood against that tide of facilitating corporate misbehavior. The Washington Post editorialized last week against Barack Obama’s campaign’s charge that Mr. McCain is anti-regulation. Au contraire, if found on reviewing Mr. McCain’ record, the Arizona senator was “a leader” in cleaning up shoddy accounting practices after the Enron scandal.

“In 2006,” The Post editorialized, Mr. McCain “pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — while Mr. Obama was notably silent. ‘If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole,’ McCain warned at the time.”

At a Chronicle editorial board meeting Jan. 21, Mr. Obama had the foresight to call for an investigation of rating agencies (that overrated murky investment deals) and tougher conflict-of-interest regulation. Investors, he said, “think that they’re investing in stuff that doesn’t have a lot of risk, and they’re wrong.”

This Bush package could cost more than $2,000 per American. Mr. Bush should do what fiscally responsible American families do every day — they find the cheapest, smartest way to fix the roof. They patch the hole. They don’t construct a super-deluxe roof with borrowed funds.

Debra J. Saunders is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide