wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

I agree with most of these comments, but a careful reading shows that in general, the bill covers almost all of the original objections posed by both coservative Repubs and liberal Dems. The oversight provisions are more than adequate, and includes both Congressional and Judicial oversight.
The compensation provision is a little vague, but covers both incentives and actual pay. (i.e., options and salary) as well as golden parachutes.
The payout although confusing as to the institutions it covers, is in stages and requires reporting and transparancy.
The Congresspeople who chickened out have a responsibility to carefully expain all this to their panicky constituents, and prevent the destruction of our economy. The country is more important than their re-election, but defeat could be avoided with some transparancy by the Congresspeople themselves when talking to voters. What could they be thinking when they voted against this bill?
Brian: thank you VERY much for the link to the EESA text!

I'm looking at the warrant section (113.d) on pp. 35-39, and I have concern about them.

If we purchase a whole bunch of junk from a company, and it sells for $X below what we paid, do we get $X worth of equity? No. TARP does not say that. All it says is that value will be "set by the Secretary, in the interest of the taxpayers."

But here's my question. Let's say that the government essentially buys a much of mortgages, and does some stuff to make it easier for the homeowners (so they don't go bankrupt or have their homes foreclosed on). Those actions (e.g. lowering the interest rate, lowering the balance to better reflect the home's current value) almost by definition will lower the vale of the mortgage, because they will lower the amount that the homeowner will have to pay. If the government decides to ease the conditions of the mortgage, will the warrants offset that? Or will the taxpayers have to swallow that?

If I were one of the companies, I would scream blood murder about having to pay for that. The feds might ease those mortgages for political purposes, not for true economic purposes. I would not want actions taken after I've sold the mortgages to be my responsibility.

So, I think that the easing of mortgage conditions renders the warrant kinda fictional. There is no way we will recover what the government

During the New Deal, one of the major components was creating new jobs, ie Post Office. The Sub Prime mortgage crisis started with homeowners losing their job or whatever other reason that causes them to not be able to make their monthly payment. What are we doing do address this part of the problem?

Here's the link to Johnston's memo:
http://www.poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=13611

Topic: Letters Sent to Romenesko
Date/Time: 9/23/2008 12:06:28 PM
Title: Ask tough questions about the bailout
Posted By: Jim Romenesko

From DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Journalists, start your skepticism.

In covering the proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street don't repeat the failed lapdog practices that so damaged our reputations in the rush to war in Iraq and the adoption of the Patriot Act. Don't assume that Congress must act instantly, as so many news stories state as if it was an immutable fact. Don't assume there is a case just because officials say there is.

The coverage of the Paulson plan focuses on the edges, on the details. The focus should be on the premise. And be skeptical of what gullible Congressional leaders, most of them up before the voters in a few weeks, say after being given a closed-door meeting on supposed horrors.

The Administration has scared the markets and some key legislative leaders, but it has not laid out a coherent, specific and compelling need for this enormous proposal, which is the equivalent of a one-time 55 percent income tax surcharge. (Instead the money will be borrowed, so ask from whom and how this much can be raised so quickly if the credit markets are nearly seized up with fear.)

Ask this question -- are the credit markets really about to seize up?

(more)

The ESSA08 defines in Sec.3 page 4 line 17 item 5 Financial Institutions as banks and investment banks insurance companies security dealers etc.

In previous communications Henry Paulsion et.al. referred to banks and financial institutions as entities to be included in the bailout

there was acritical distintion . banks were[depositor entities] and financial institutions[investor entities].

Although they did a good job to muddled the difference.

N>B> trhere is a constant reference to banks when I believe they mean financial institutions.

Nothing in the bill as I read it tells where the money is going.

I for one do not support bailing out investor entities.

No one bailed me out when my investments went bad.

thanxs

giovanni buscemi

I got in fine with firefox 2.0

Just a note for those trying to access these documents -- I had problems using Firefox browser, but worked ok with Internet Explorer.