#RickPerry: I was for TARP b4 I was against it

Ohhhhh, this ought to be a fun one. A conservative Iowa radio news/talk show host sent a reporter to ask Perry about why he apparently supported TARP in 2008 . And he denied it, and she pressed him.

And now, the fun gets funner. West Virginia's pseudo-Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin, the governor of the Mountaintop Removal State in 2008, claims the letter he and Perry co-sent to Congress then was only urging that Congress do something and wasn't designed to support TARP . Considering Manchin is almost as big a general liar and snake-like politician in particular as Tricky Ricky, this of course carries no water. If Perry somehow gets the GOP nod, I have no doubt Manchin will officially endorse him.

Here is the original AP story on the letter. Given that TARP was coming up for a second vote that night, that GOP partisanship had sunk the original version, and both Bush and biz leaders were specifically urging passage of TARP, it's clear Perry and Manchin are lying like hell.

And, tea partiers hate TARP even mre than illegal immigration, so this could be a problem. Unless Perry recovers fast, this helps Bachmann a LOT. Romney, not much. He's not insane enough to attack TARP. Pizza Man Cain, Ron Paul and "I'm So Sexy for My Name" Santorum may pick up tea partier bits and pieces, depending on how they push this issue AND try to find any leverage with Bachmann.

Palin? She's out, due to Joe McGinness' book; per my review, many tea partiers won't accept her having a fling with a black man (sorry, Pizza Man Cain). That's even worse than snorting coke or cheating on your hubby.

So, we're kind of back at the place where it might be Romney's election to lose. Or, where there's still a hankering for somebody new to enter the race, as late as it is in terms of how today's political world operates.

Timothy Egan's man crush on Obama

Dude, Obama did NOT reform capitalism, despite your claims.

Egan's specifics of his man crush:

The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority

.
The health care law won't provide universal coverage, or that near it, does nothing to regulate health insurance companies and will probably lead to more companies dropping coverage of children rather than extending it to age 26, among other things. Many of its provisions, just like the GOP did in the days of Newt Gingrich's House majority, were written by industry insiders; its implementation is now being overseen by an industry insider.

Financial "reform" isn't. Not really. It was largely gutted by Democrats as well as Republicans - Democrats like Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer who are in thrall to Wall Street. Elizabeth Warnen could have been appointed to oversee the regulatory board, but instead, was just appointed to oversee its being set up.

The stimulus was a blunder. Beyond being too small, as Krugman and many others note, Rahm Emanuel compromised down its size before the time for compromise had come.

And, don't get me started on GM, a fourth point of Egan's. Corporate claims for how high stock will price at IPO time are inflated, and that's just "new GM." Old GM is still bankrupt and theoretically still on the government dime, if push comes to shove.

TARPoholic neolib Obamiacs get the vapors

The neolibs and Obamiacs are singing in praise of TARP with its second anniversary approachoing. And, of course, they're singing the praises of George Barack Obama as a large part of that.

First, Kevin Drum:

And the cost of TARP? CBO estimates the government will make a profit of $7 billion from the bank bailouts (though it may still lose money on GM and Chrysler, which were also rescued with TARP funds) and it now looks like AIG will pay back all its bailout money too. Bottom line: the ongoing recession caused by Wall Street's reckless behavior has cost us a bundle. But TARP itself? Its net direct cost is zero, and when you include the fact that it almost certainly saved the banking system and softened the recession, it may boast the biggest bang for the buck of any bill ever passed by Congress.

Drum ignores the debit side, including a financial "reform" bill that does little of the sort, and was probably enabled by TARP, and may encourage further recklessness. He also offers no proof that TARP seriously ameliorated the recession. As for AIG paying back all the bailout, the devil is in the details of stock conversions, etc.

Yglesias unsurprisingly weighs in with more on the profit motive.

Is $7 billion any more than chump change, not a real profit? Of course not, on the size of Big Banking. And, like Drummie-poo, Yggy doesn't even try to calculate potential losses.

Karl Smith ignores the idea we had a better alternative - bank nationalization - even when it's raised by a commenter.

Meanwhile, Ezra Klein decides if he's going to bury his head up Obama's ass on this, he'll go whole hog.

Reality? Bank nationalization would have given Obama easy leverage to do real financial reforms. But, with his Goldman Sachs/Robert Rubin based financial team, and outraising McCain for campaign funds on Wall Street, he never really wanted to do that. Too bad none of the above will admit that.

Meanwhile, Obama again mocked the "professional left," this time while sucking up to the rich in Greenwich, Conn., many of whom he protected from real financial regulation with his pseudo-reform bill.

It's clear that he's a flat-out liar about wanting to be "pushed" by the left. It's clear he's both a worse, and more unskilled, liar about it than Bill Clinton was on the same subject.

‘Responsible stakeholder’ vs. ‘responsible stock issuer’?

The New York Times is right, surely; gone forever are the days in which China would be a “responsible,” i.e. quiescent “stakeholder” in the U.S. economy. Now, the shoe is on the other foot:

The demands that the Chinese let their currency appreciate, clean up their banks or get rid of the subsidies for state-owned enterprises have been toned down.

You do not talk to your biggest creditor that way — especially when you have a record-sized loan application pending.

The rest of the story makes me wonder how much of TARP, etc., is even for domestic consumption. Did Henry Paulson and Tim Geithner bail out their old employer, Goldman Sachs, not so much for Wall Street as for Beijing?

TARP – Wall Street vs. China

The New York Times story on how China is no longer willing to be a “responsible,” i.e. quiescent “stakeholder” in the U.S. economy got me to wondering.

How much of TARP, etc., is even for domestic consumption? Did Henry Paulson and Tim Geithner bail out their old employer, Goldman Sachs, not so much for Wall Street as for Beijing?

But, the Chinese, like the Saudis 15-20 years ago, at the end of the Reagan-Bush deficits run, are stuck.

Obama looks to throw a TARP over small biz

Whether or not it is wholly warranted as an economic decision, making small business eligible for Troubled Assets Relief Program assistance has to be seen as a political no brainer.

But, how do you target small businesses, who general have a higher failure rate, loan default rate, etc. than big companies, especially when the small businesses most in need of help fall most under those concerns?

In any case, on the political side, I’ll venture a guess that some sort of small-biz TARP gets rolled out before Michael Moore’s new movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” in October.

Just because I haven’t Geithner-bashed in a while …

I probably have been remiss, so I point you to Salon and Andy Kroll’s six-point laundry list on why TARP, etc. sucks.

Let’s not forget the dynamic duo of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have done their level, and non-level, best, or worst, to keep not just the general public, but even Congress, in the dark as to just what all this bailout money is doing.

Nationalized banks wouldn’t be fraud cesspools

Something for Treasury Secretary Kenny G., I mean Timmy Geithner, to think about, with more than 20 criminal probes already launched by special investigator general Neil Barofsky into possible securities fraud, tax violations, insider trading and other crimes.

But no, the Geithner-Summers-Obama troika will “torture” taxpayers at the expense of Goldman Sachs, et al.

Goldman Sachs can’t stand the heat

So, it’s getting legal heavy muscle to try to shut down critical blogger Mike Morgan.

So, Messrs Obama, Summers and Geithner, is G. Sachs blowing TARP money on this

Geithner on the ‘pull the trigger on CEOs’ hot seat

After President Barack Obama canned GM CEO Rick Waggoner a week ago, everybody wondered why Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner wasn’t doing the same in the financial sector, with Bank of America CEO Kim Lewis, the focus of shareholder lawsuits, mentioned as Target No. 1. Well, Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional committee overseeing TARP and TARP 2.0 is calling for exactly that, except her ire is focused on Edward Liddy at AIG and Vikram Pandit at Citigroup.

Now let us see how Timmy G responds.

TARP bailout cost to taxpayers raised

What was going to cost you and I “just” $189 billion is now estimated to have a government cost of $356 billion.

How many more things will Tim Geithner be repricing the in future? And, will it be covering up for Goldman Sachs-type buds or will it be tax-return type stupidity?

Government bailout approaching annual GDP total?

Maybe, maybe not.

When the federal government has loaned, given or guaranteed nearly $13 billion or, in other terms, nearly one year’s Gross Domestic Product for the entire country, it might be easy to say you blame other industrialized and developing countries for saying, “We’ll give it a second thought” rather than immediately signing up for something similar?

On the other hand, the Bloomberg total includes a lot, a lot, in stuff that’s “guaranteed” but hasn’t been disbursed. If you only include what’s been disbursed, whether through loans, payments or guarantees invoked, we’re still below $2 trillion.

That said, who knows how much of the remaining $11 trillion will be needed or not? Since Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke like being opaque, they’re not going to say.

Goldman Sachs exploiting TARP?

If Sachs actually does give back its various TARP monies, whether directly or indirectly paid to it, you know it’s not for its health that its doing that.

There’s a clear ulterior motive, and that’s to swat down other “investment” banks, even though none such officially exist any longer.

Don’t forget the Sachs-Summers-Geithner-Obama connections.

I guess the idea of “recusal” isn’t part of the Obama Administration vocabulary.

Maybe some banks aren’t so bad off

New Iberia Bank, in New Iberia, La., is paying back TARP money it’s received, by the end of this month, with interest. Minnesota’s TCF Financial is doing the same.

Per the Newsweek story linked first, I smell more and more of a rat at the banks much bigger than TCF or New Iberia. Per that story, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s refusal to give out disbursement details on TARP funds.

Some of the big banks, especially AIG customers, appear to be worse off than anybody will admit, and Big Ben, Treasury Secretary Tim Geither and economic czar Larry Summers are playing a shell game.

Where’s that famous Obama openness?

Team Obama still fighting CEO pay limits

Why? Why would the Obama Administration continue to oppose the executive pay limits for TARP-receiving financial companies, the limits put in the economic stimulus bill? Why would Team Obama members oppose them to a degree that sounds Bush-like, saying that Obama will find a way to get the limits out, as though he were going to have his first presidential signing statement?

After the tax-related gaffes over Daschle, etc., and what should have been one over Geithner, you’d think Team Obama would have a better ear for public opinion on this issue.

James Galbreath – declare bad banks insolvent, get Bair involved

A great idea from the Texas professor, but Summers-Geither will never go for it.

Short of that, Galbraith is worried about how much due diligence on bank assets the Dynamic Duo and their minions will or will not conduct.

He also asks why, since we’re talking about banks, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation head Shelia Bair isn’t calling more of the bailout shots.

Finally, bitch-slapping New Deal potency-deniers, Galbraith notes that people in government programs such as the CCC weren’t counted as being employed, so the New Deal was actually better than even some liberals recognize.

TARP 2.0 – the ‘Geithner plan’

As I’ve blogged before, I’m skeptical of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s idea that the private sector will buy up toxic bank assets.

I’m also skeptical of his “stress test” to deal with bad, or baddish, banks.

But, Geithner’s “stress” test is sure to be kind and gentle enough to avoid a Sweden situation, since he and puppetmaster Larry Summers are adamantly opposed to this.

And, speaking of that, why does everybody keep talking about the “Geithner plan”? There's no way this is primarily his plan.

Also, if Geithner really was the “indispensable man,” vis-à-vis his Senate confirmation and his tax problems, he sure doesn’t have a high level of certainty about his plans.

Nor does Summers, who’s been around longer.

Here’s a “tough love” plan that combines certain aspects of nationalization and a “bad bank” idea, an idea which Summers and Geithner also have rejected so far.

Geithner kisses banks’ asse(t)s

By the day, almost, more proof that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is in the tank for the Wall Street BFFs of him and Larry Summers continues to accumulate.

For TARP 2.0, and elements leading up to that in the last few days Geithner has continually opposed more serious regulation — and won.

Those “wins” (for his BFFs, not for We The People) include:
• Fighting tighter executive pay limits;
• Fighting more federal limits on how TARP-covered banks could disburse money;
• Opposing replacing bank executives.

Beyond that, his idea that the private sector is going to jump to get involved with buying up troubled assets is ridiculous, I say.

Anyway, read the full story for who’s calling the economic shots inside Team Obama — and how.

It does kind of make one wish, vis-à-vis tax problems, Geithner’s nomination had been after Daschle’s not before.

New TARP has same tattered holes

When Tim Geithner still has no details – and won’t for the near future – on his bank assistance/bailout proposal scheduled to be released tomorrow, you have to saw:

Wait – didn’t Paulson pull this same “trust us” shit?

Other questions.

Yes, getting private sector entities to invest more in banks now is a nice idea; BUT:

1. Since credit’s been tight for months as is, what about TARP 2.0 is changing that scenario?

2. Why would banks sell bad assets to other private agencies at pennies on the dollar if they think they can still get a better price from the government?

3. Will this be more transparent, on both government and private sides, than TARP 1.0?

Answers? Nothing for now, nothing for now, and don’t count on it.

TARP 2.0 to avoid ‘bad bank’ idea

Reportedly at the insistence of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, he of protecting his NYC hedge fund buddies’ backs, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s bank aid plan scheduled to be unveiled Monday will only have a scaled-back “bad bank” provision. So, it’s probably going to keep skirting the issue of just how bad off some fiscal institutions are.

And, if a bad bank is off the table, certainly, anything close to bank nationalization is out of bounds.

The good part is that, under one program targeted for more Troubled Assets Relief Program funds, the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility, assets from banks in the toilet will reportedly only be bought at a discount, not at their banks’ face value.

That said, how serious of a haircut these banks are forced to take will be another issue.

And, other potentially good news is the FDIC will reportedly have its credit line tripled. To me, that says that the government is not only ready to backstop more banks, but ready to move in, even with full takeovers, in more cases as needed. Perhaps not “nationalization,” but something.