Geithner rejects $1 trillion limit on bailout power
http://thehill.com/special-reports/finance-sept-2009/60067-geithner...
by Rep. Brad Sherman(D-Calif.)
In my questioning of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner before the Financial Services Committee on Wednesday, I focused on the new bailout authority included in the 618-page legislative proposal submitted by the Treasury Department.
In my opinion, Geithner’s proposal is “TARP on steroids.” Section 1204 of the proposal allows the executive branch to use taxpayer money to make loans to, or invest in, the largest financial institutions to avoid a systemic risk to the economy.
Geithner’s proposal reminds me of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the $700 billion Wall Street bailout adopted last year, but the TARP was limited to two years, and to a maximum of $700 billion. Section 1204 is unlimited in dollar amount and is a permanent grant of power to the executive branch. TARP contained some limits on executive compensation and an array of special oversight authorities. Section 1204 contains absolutely no limits on executive compensation and no special oversight.
When I asked Geithner whether he would accept a $1 trillion limit on the new bailout authority (if the executive branch wanted to spend more, it would have to come back to Congress), he rejected a $1 trillion limit, insisting that the executive branch be able to respond without coming back to Congress.
Both TARP and the Treasury proposal have vague provisions under which taxpayers might possibly recover any money lost through a special tax on the financial services industry. Under the Treasury proposal, only the very largest institutions could benefit from a bailout, but the special tax, if ever collected, would fall chiefly on medium-sized institutions.
Thus, the medium-sized institutions will be at a competitive disadvantage for two reasons. First, the largest institutions will be able to borrow money more cheaply because their creditors will believe that if the institution is unable to pay, the taxpayers will. Second, if there ever is a bailout benefitting a very large financial institution, the tax will be imposed on the medium-sized institutions.
by Rep. Brad Sherman(D-Calif.)
In my questioning of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner before the Financial Services Committee on Wednesday, I focused on the new bailout authority included in the 618-page legislative proposal submitted by the Treasury Department.
In my opinion, Geithner’s proposal is “TARP on steroids.” Section 1204 of the proposal allows the executive branch to use taxpayer money to make loans to, or invest in, the largest financial institutions to avoid a systemic risk to the economy.
Geithner’s proposal reminds me of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the $700 billion Wall Street bailout adopted last year, but the TARP was limited to two years, and to a maximum of $700 billion. Section 1204 is unlimited in dollar amount and is a permanent grant of power to the executive branch. TARP contained some limits on executive compensation and an array of special oversight authorities. Section 1204 contains absolutely no limits on executive compensation and no special oversight.
When I asked Geithner whether he would accept a $1 trillion limit on the new bailout authority (if the executive branch wanted to spend more, it would have to come back to Congress), he rejected a $1 trillion limit, insisting that the executive branch be able to respond without coming back to Congress.
Both TARP and the Treasury proposal have vague provisions under which taxpayers might possibly recover any money lost through a special tax on the financial services industry. Under the Treasury proposal, only the very largest institutions could benefit from a bailout, but the special tax, if ever collected, would fall chiefly on medium-sized institutions.
Thus, the medium-sized institutions will be at a competitive disadvantage for two reasons. First, the largest institutions will be able to borrow money more cheaply because their creditors will believe that if the institution is unable to pay, the taxpayers will. Second, if there ever is a bailout benefitting a very large financial institution, the tax will be imposed on the medium-sized institutions.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Anti Oligarch on
-
I can sense it now, the day is near, (always the optimist), when we won't be asking the criminals whether they would be so kind as to give us permission to bring them to justice.
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
The De-intellectualizing of the West!
One of the saddest aspects of reducing a society into chaos and division is propaganda, which is…See More
The file of shame - Zandvoort - one of the largest covered-up paedophile scandals
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
Alaskan Triangle US Air Force Loses 5 Aircraft
The year is 1950 and the US and Soviet Union are locked in a crucial arms race that epitomizes the…See More
Is this an Undeclared War We are Technologically Losing?
Incident No. 1The year is 1980 and in US Air Force records this incident is still classified so…See More
THE PAPER CHAINS
"Well from now on this fight is up to Amerian People to win it. I'm afraid that all wars you…"
Top German Panzer Ace of WWII Meets His End Finally
On the battlefields of the eastern and western fronts there was a scourge for the Germans who had…See More
Big Lonely: An Indie Film that Will seriously Affect You
It's easy for us to be caught up in our little world, feeling sorry for ourselves, or lamenting the…See More
© 2026 Created by truth.
Powered by
