Congressional Reaction to Geithner's Bank Plan: The Good, the Bad, & the 'Maybe'
We know that Wall Street is warming to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's new plan to encourage private sector purchases of toxic assets -- but what does Congress think?
Only a few senior lawmakers have emerged today to weigh in on Geithner's proposal, suggesting that Congress knows it can inspire market fluctuations using nothing but candid commentary on the financial crisis. But here's how the measured reaction from the Hill shook out.
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT), who struggled through several days of finger-pointing at Treasury last week, gave a measured endorsement of Geithner's plan:
In order to turn this economy around and help families in Connecticut and across the nation get back on their feet, we must end the rising number of foreclosures, unfreeze our credit markets and stabilize the banking sector. The Obama Administration has already recognized that the root cause of our problem is the housing crisis, and is working with Congress to help American families keep their homes. The initiative announced today, designed to relieve banks of troubled assets to renew the flow of credit to families and small businesses, is an important step forward. I look forward to working with the President on this effort to get the economy back on track.
Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), who made many GOPers gleeful with his criticism of Geithner's handling of the AIG bonuses fiasco, sounded more optimistic:
I am optimistic that Secretary Geithner's Public-Private Investment program will work to unfreeze our credit markets. President Obama and his team face an unprecedented challenge in restoring our economy to prosperity, and I am pleased that they are reaching out to the private sector. Especially in pricing the value of assets for which there is currently no ready market, the private sector has greater expertise than the government.
Among Republicans, centrist Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME) warned that the positive response from investors didn't mean Congress would automatically embrace Geithner's asset-purchasing idea:
I am sorely disappointed that this has taken so long, having been dragged out since the previous administration, so I hope that this plan eases some of the uncertainty over the value of these assets, which is preventing financial institutions from raising capital to increase lending.Requiring private investors to put their own money at stake is vital to ensure that taxpayers do not overpay for the assets to be purchased from banks. That said, I will be watching closely to ensure that this plan requires private-sector investors to make contributions that are commensurate with the potential gains they could realize. While investors seem pleased with Treasury's plan given today's 497 point rise in the stock market, this cannot turn into another sweetheart deal for Wall Street.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) passed up a chance to weigh in on Geithner's plan, though he praised the Treasury chief for "turning to the real issue" by addressing the questionable value of toxic mortgage-backed securities. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), however, was ready with a favorable response:
My reaction is it's a genuine and sincere effort to try to free up the credit markets and especially to balance the -- and get balance into the real estate markets, which is at the core of the financial problems.
Gregg followed by warning that the House's plan to tax executive bonuses at bailed-out companies could sink today's effort by swaying private investment firms away from participating in the Geithner asset-purchase initiative.


















Here's what an industry analyst thinks of it- namely, not much. But I suppose he's just a left-wing whiner, right?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ay0Xgdn2tUK8&refer=home
March 23, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question: I see this article here gives five positive or optimistic quotes about the new plan and nothing else. The only specifically negative thing said here is the comment by Olympia Snowe that this should have come sooner, a reaction which may be negative on the Obama administration but is if anything positive on the plan. But your front page link describes Congressional reaction as "mixed". Do the quotes offered here support the idea that Congressional reaction is "mixed"?
March 23, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Front page headline:
"Wall Street Votes Yes On Obama's New Bank Plan"
Of course Wall Steet loves it. Trillions of government dollars to make all those asset losses go bye-bye. As if they haven't looted enough over the past 8 years, here's more. :(
John
March 23, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a zero sum game?
March 23, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Atrios points out, here's the next things that we'll need to bail the Banksters out of:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aR72TKlxCQ7A&refer=home
A few hundred billion of Defaulting Commercial Properties. I guess those are also "legacy loans" rather than toxic.
This is the problem with the Paulson-Summers-Geithner Plans: the Banks will keep coming back for a handout once we set examples that they're failures mean nothing. This is all about keeping the Banks Alive, the Banks know it and they are playing us.
John
March 23, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess Atrios has "skin in the game" too.
Betting short with his keyboard?
March 23, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't pretend to any expertise on the subject yet I have to agree with Andrew Sullivan that as far as the Geithner plan is concerned, Paul Krugman is "too emotional to be reliable"
I don't believe that the stock market is any less emotional or more reliable but I couldn't help but laugh at the Hardball lede, aimed specifically at Krugman's noggin
Geither: Kiss my toxic assets
Krugman can bellyache, sometimes it seems that is all he ever does, but he has yet to answer 3 fatal objections to his constant carping and his endorsement of some vague "Swedish plan"
1. Obama doesn't have the statutory authority to do it
2. He doesn't have nearly enough money left in TARP (2-300 billion v. >1 Trillion) to guarantee the banks' bad debts as Krugman calls for
3. He hasn't got a snowball's chance ih hell of getting either number 1 or number 2.
He may or may not be too emotional to be reliable, but Paul Krugman, without more, is quite academic as it were
March 23, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the problem of the Swedish plan is that we would still pay for it. But instead, we'd be 100% on the hook for these toxic assets as well as all the FDIC insured assets. Maybe we should tally up prices and offer people the choice of how many trillions they want to pay?
I think what we have here is the sense of unhappiness with ANY PLAN that is actually offered by the govt. If we took Krugman's ideas verbatim and implemented them, we'd have dozens of experts panning it as "not solving the real problem" which is always a shifting goal post -- toxic assets, or liquidity, or insolvent banks, or pushing on a string.
And then there is the usual American need for instant gratification and painless free-lunch solutions. Solving the bank crisis will be expensive and painful, but necessary if we want to have an economic future.
One irony here is that Japan's taxpayers used their outrage to prevent their government from doing anything drastic to fix their zombie banks. For their stinginess and resentment, they got endless economic stagnation. Pennywise, poundfoolish.
March 23, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing, about 314 banks took TARP money.
There's no way in hell the US govt can manage 314 banks, some of which are enormous.
We'd basically have to sell them off in pieces to -- you guessed it -- private investors. And then hear endless whining about fat cats making money....
Oh the whining of Americans never ends. All the greed and house flipping and easy money circa 2005, and now everyone is enraged, not because we've trashed our own economy due to our own greed and ignorance (and ignorant support of deregulation for decades), but because somebody else might make out.
March 23, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cosign!
March 23, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
WASHINGTON (CNN) --A key Republican congressional leader blasted Geithner's plan within hours of its release Monday, saying it amounted to a flawed "shell game" that hides its true cost from taxpayers.
The plan is deceptive and "fundamentally flawed," House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, said in a written statement.
"The plan seems to offer little incentive for private investors to participate unless the subsidy is made so rich that it comes at the expense of the taxpayer. In its current form, Secretary Geithner's plan is a shell game that hides the true cost of the program from the taxpayers that will be asked to pay for it."
Atrios and Cantor.
Strange bedfellows indeed (not that there's anything wrong with that!)
Not that there's anything surprising either. Both are after Geithner's ass
March 23, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add the New York Times editorial board to that list- their editorial this morning is not exactly enthusiastic.
March 24, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink