National Review and Obama Agree on Nationalizing Financial Sector?
Writing at The American Spectator, John Berlau says that National Review and President Obama are peas in a pod when it comes to giving the government the power to seize financial holding companies.
What the NR editors might be expressing is a form of "buyers remorse" on the original Bush-Paulson financial bailout they forcefully supported last fall. And not only did they strongly back that bailout, they berated GOP members of Congress who dared oppose it. In a September 29 Corner entry entitled "I'm Stunned" posted immediately after GOP conservatives and populist Democrats combined to vote down the bailout in the House (before a second package was approved there four days later), NR editor Rich Lowry exclaimed, "House Republicans will get blamed, and the likes of Mike Pence [R-Ind.] indeed played an extremely irresponsible role."
Now, National Review tells us that Obama's resolution authority, "done right, would at least put us back on the road to a rule-based system." Its editorialists lecture sanctimoniously that "in post-bailout America, we have bad and less-bad options to choose from and we've seen the alternative: a series of ad hoc and largely lawless bailouts jerry-rigged by the Treasury and the Fed."
But there is every reason to believe that nationalization, or resolution, or whatever NR and the Obama administration wish to call this new authority, would be just as "ad hoc" and "lawless" as the previous bailouts and nationalizations.
Both NR and Obama justify the ability to seize firms based on the fact that the government already has similar powers regarding commercial banks. A government takeover "is essentially what the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation does when it determines that a depository bank is on the brink of failing," NR intones in its editorial. Similarly, Obama argued in his speech: "If a bank fails, we have a process through the FDIC that protects depositors and maintains confidence in the banking system. … And it works. Yet we don't have any effective system in place to contain the failure of an AIG [American International Group]."
It should be noted that contrary to Obama and NR's assertions, the FDIC process of seizing banks is far from perfect. FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair, whom Obama held over because of the liberal policies she pursued in the latter half of the Bush administration (such as strong backing of the Community Reinvestment Act, as Matt Vadum reported in TAS yesterday), disregarded taxpayer interests upon seizing the large thrift Indymac and other banks and created a "model" mortgage modifcation program for thousands of borrowers that wrote off principlal on the loans and reduced interest payments to well below market rates. Initial results show a redefault rate in programs like these of more than 50 percent, but Bair and Obama show no signs of stopping this flawed experiment with taxpayer dollars.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I hope Sheila Bair get syphillis
I hope Sheila Bair get syphillis
That implies she has had a lot more fun in life than what she is due. I hope she dies lonely after a life of never being touched, and her house full of cats eat her remains.
Damn those people eating houses!
"Initial results show a redefault rate in programs like these of more than 50 percent, but Bair and Obama show no signs of stopping this flawed experiment with taxpayer dollars"
The irresponsible dumbasses still missed payments? Are you serious?
NR reluctantly, rather than "forcefully," supported the financil bailout. (Corner posts by Rich Lowry are not the editorial position of the magazine.) Here's the actual October 20, 2008 editorial entitled "Taking on Water" (behind suscriber firewall):
Treasury secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion rescue plan is palatable to no one. The price tag is huge. The bill was originally presented to Congress as all but a fait accompli. Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke have been underwhelming in selling the plan on Capitol Hill. It is hated by a public suspicious of the country's elites, whether in Washington or on Wall Street. Various experts have raised questions about whether the plan would work.
No wonder the bill went down on the first attempt to get it through the House, a victim of a Right-Left coalition. Ordinarily we would join the opponents. The unseemly rush to pass the bill and the establishment's sometimes bullying advocacy of it bear a resemblance to the fight over the amnesty bill last year. But the financial crisis is real. In a space of a few weeks, large investment banks as we have known them for decades disappeared from Wall Street. With a crisis of confidence affecting the entire system, banks are not loaning to one another and businesses are already having trouble getting credit, the lifeblood of the economy.
In such circumstances, the financial system needs a government backstop. Panics must be stopped because it is their very nature to damage the economy out of all proportion to reason. If this panic led to a prolonged slump, as it could, the likely result would be a lurch toward statism that would make the $700 billion bill seem a bargain.
As Paulson and Bernanke have repeatedly argued, the reason to stop a financial meltdown is not to save the irresponsible players who created this mess, but to save the rest of us from the consequences of their mess. So far, the "real" economy has weathered the financial turmoil amazingly well. But its health will not last if no one can get a loan. At the very least, we will likely face a sharp economic downturn on par with 1981-82 or 1974-75, and perhaps a disruption that will take years to work through. The cost of such an event would be far larger than that of the Paulson plan.
We think conservatives should do three things. The first is reluctantly to support the Paulson plan while trying to do everything to limit its scope and keep it temporary. That means continuing to resist left-wing add-ons, from giving bankruptcy judges the authority to rewrite mortgages to funneling funds to advocacy groups like ACORN. It means doling out the money necessary for the programs in tranches and ensuring adequate oversight.
Second, they should push additional policies that will minimize the crisis. These are proposals like reforming the mark-to-market accounting rules that have worsened the crisis (and have at least been loosened by the SEC), suspending dividend payments by financial institutions, and allowing the Fed to pay interest on its reserves. Each step can help ease the crunch and increase capital in the system.
Finally, Republicans have to try to dig out of the hole in which this crisis - stoked by misbegotten government policies (see our next editorial) - has put us. Once the emergency has passed, Fannie and Freddie should be broken up and privatized. The government should end its stake in AIG, an otherwise profitable insurance firm caught up in the madness. And initiatives to cope with the recession that may be coming should be advanced. Cutting the capital-gains and corporate-tax rates - measures that some conservatives advocated in lieu of the Paulson plan - might not help in the immediate liquidity crisis, but they will put gas in the engine of economic growth over the long term.
American capitalism is endlessly adaptive, and has overcome much worse than either this credit crisis or the violence to our principles that the Paulson plan represents. It will overcome once again, provided that the invisible hand is not smothered by the overbearing hand of the Leviathan.
Oh jeebus, Richard.
Next time just provide a link, excerpt a relevant quote for your post and spare us all a wall of text in the comments section.
This method makes it appear you've been on the internetz for more than a fortnight.
I can't post a link. As I said, it's behind a subscriber firewall. The American Spectator doesn't quote NR's editorial position, it just attributes blog posts by NR's authors to the magazine as a whole. I report, you decide.
The entire financial regulation system is a mass of retards fighting for the same straw. The FDIC is just one of many retards in the pile. I'm waiting for the wind down of the 250K insurance on deposits. It's coming soon and I don't think the morons have a viable plan to do it and not piss everyone off.
Didn't Ayn Rand once call The National Review the most evil publication in the country?
I want to hear more about this CRA bank and it's 50% default rate.
National Review channelling Paul Krugman, cats chasing dogs... it's chaos!
Insurance companies crash test cars to find ways to reduce claims by improving cars. The FDIC experimented to try and find ways to reduce subprime foreclosure losses for all the banks that it insures. How is that different? FDIC funds come from fees charged to banks for the insurance, not taxpayers.
Damn. I hate the slippery slope.
Something happens and the people are warned about it. The pundits and politicians say that they will show some kind of restraint and stop where they say they will. Next thing you know you are looking at massive government take overs of major industries. Of course, the players say they will stop there, but they never do. I'm thinking full blown socialism by Christmas. Then Santa will be wearing red for two reasons.
National Review supported the bailouts? When did they become a pack of commie rat bastards?
-jcr
"Didn't Ayn Rand once call The National Review the most evil publication in the country?"
That would be the kind of hyperbole I would expect from her...
The National Review of today bears little resemblance to the publication Ayn Rand knew.
I'm guessing Rand didn't appreciate Whitaker Chambers famous "to the gas chamber--go! review of "Atlas Shrugged", which ran in National Review.
(Happy, J sub D?)