Congress Demands a Blank Check for Bailout

October 2, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (8)

When talk of the bailout first began last week, lawmakers insisted they wouldn't simply hand a "blank check" to the Treasury Department. But now that's what Congress wants from Treasury.

To win enough votes for passage, negotiators for the $700 billion bailout are now adding $120 billion more in "sweeteners." Some of these—like ensuring mental health problems receive better coverage from insurance companies—have absolutely nothing to do with market priming. Others are only tangentially related. Among the latter are hurricane tax relief, modest alternative minimum tax reform, more subsidies for renewable energies, and tax exemptions for businesses.

On their own, some of these sweeteners aren't half bad. I'm certainly not one to oppose tax breaks, for example. (Al Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator, once wrote that a tax cut is a lot like sex—even when it's not that good, it's still good.)

But if the goal is to make the legislation more palatable, shouldn't the enhancements at least have something to do with that legislation? The current sweeteners amount to little more than unrelated bribes for lawmakers to go along with what only a few days ago was deemed an unacceptable bill. As Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, noted, "The bill they are going to send back is the same bill that I voted against two days ago. Why would I turn around and vote for it?"

Regardless, the add-ons appear to be working, and it seems the bailout will pass in some form this time around. My only wish is that lawmakers who were so dead set on principle the first time wouldn't be distracted by these bauble bribes and instead demanded the full dismantlement of the vehicles that brought us here. Namely, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Incidentally, for those who are genuinely flummoxed as to how anyone could oppose the bailout, check out Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron's piece over at CNN. It's respectably and respectfully argued and raises a lot of good issues.

Tags:
government intervention,
Congress,
Treasury Department

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The government is essentially starting a business to buy securities and re-sell them later. The title of the article "Blank Check" is misleading because it implies we are giving money away.

This new business will buy securities and take ownership in banks.

shad sluiter 11:06AM October 03, 2008

Failed mortgages should be auctioned instead of bought by the government. Of course it will lower property values in the short term but will also supply th market with affordable housing and or investments. Why must the government buy these properties??? The bailout simply buys the properties at inflated values to keep investors happy while hurting the economy, homebuyers, and market equilibrium. Yes, the investors will be hurt by the losses but better the investors who gambled than the nation who didn't. That's why they call it investing because they bought a stake in something hoping it would pay off and when it didn't they lose. It's called RISK and it drives markets and without risk, markets die!!!

Ray Fisher of NM 12:20AM October 03, 2008

Lock 'em up - whoever votes for this is not an American. They are greedy morons who have it on easy street and are playing us for suckers. When do we draw the line and say: "Enough already its time for the "kiddies" to come in from their playing and take a nap while the grownups talk.

ken G of CA 9:45PM October 02, 2008

Sam Dealey

Sam Dealey

Sam Dealey, former editor of the Washington Times, is a principal at Monument Communications, a public-relations consultancy in Washington, D.C.

advertisement

advertisement