Lobbyists Surround the Hill - Demand Their Bail Out

Submitted by on

While faxes, emails and outrage clog Congress's communication system, lobbyists are swarming the hill with unfettered access.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce threatens Congress with retribution if they do not pass their bail out.

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched 30-second radio ads in the Washington area aimed directly at lawmakers

Peter DeFazio describes one Lobbyist from Morgan Stanley just threw out a funding solution used in the past by claiming Wall Street Wouldn't Like It.

Look at the headlines A Crushing Failure For Lobbyists. It is not viewed that this bill is plain bad for the country, against the national interest or even about what really will work to address the financial crisis. No, it's all about getting their way.

Financial-services groups did have a few successes — convincing Treasury to allow foreign banks with significant U.S. operations to participate in the government auction to buy their bad debt, for example

So, in response, we now are being inundated with lobbyist generated media. They do not care about enacting something in the national interest or would even work, nope, they are working on selling it to the public or shall we say trying to find the right lipstick for this pig.

There is more evidence on how lobbyists are making their demands instead of any focus for the American people by Treasury Secretary Paulson's Conference Call.

Meta: 

Comments

Sadden Lobbyists

"That wasn't even a transparent fig leaf"

Looks like things are heating up on the hill. Tension flaring, and whining and pouting. Let's just send them all to daycare and be done with it. I'm interested to know why no one is commenting on the new SEC guidance that's in play.

"This new SEC guidance, which apparently is going to be addressed today by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, undoubtedly will have a positive effect on the balance sheets and income statements of the banks and other lending institutions from what they would be under ‘mark-to-market’ rules. This is because company managements will have more latitude when deciding whether or not to write down." Source

we are

Submitted by on

and we're arguing about it. Clearly it will enable much less transparency but others are arguing it will enable a loosening of the credit crunch. I think they should compromise, temporarily do a lift and re-evaluate...but don't make it permanent.

I see both sides but my concern is stopping Paulson yet not causing a stock market panic in response.

clause that is the issue

Submitted by on

Fox Business.

(e) PREVENTING UNJUST ENRICHMENT. In making purchases under the authority of this Act, the Secretary shall take such steps as may be necessary to prevent unjust enrichment of financial institutions participating in a program established under this section, including by preventing the sale of a troubled asset to the Secretary at a higher price than what the seller paid to purchase the asset. This subsection does not apply to troubled assets acquired in a merger or acquisition, or a purchase of assets from a financial institution in Conservatorship or receivership, or that has initiated bankruptcy proceedings under title 11, United States Code.

This section “probably indicates that JPMorgan Chase can sell the troubled assets of WaMu to the US government and make windfall profits,” notes market analyst Richard Suttmeier. “Same for Citigroup with regard to Wachovia’s troubled assets. Other future deals as well. That is a direct bailout of Wall Street on the back of taxpayers.”

Even another one pointing to some sort of RTC/RFC/HOLC mechanism.

Michael Moore Gets into the Act

Submitted by on

with a series of recommendations. Frankly he has a point and Bernie Sanders said to pay for the bail out with the ill gotten gains of CEOs.