I am 100% against the original rescue plan set forth by President Bush. Moreover, I like each new proposed wrinkle to the plan even less than the original. Is listening to Republicans discuss the U.S. government buying shares of private companies and characterizing that as a good and necessary thing a sign of the apocolypse?
Unfortunately, we are being held hostage. I mean that both as conservatives and as Americans. If we do not take corrective action, credit will completely dry up and the economy will go into a death spiral in a way that it hasn’t since the great depression. Think 5% unemployment is too high, well it won’t be less than 15% if small businesses can’t get loans.
Principled conservatices are basically being threatened with the following choice: (1) embrace unprecedented government intrusion in the economy such that it will take decades to roll back on a bite, scratch, and brawl basis; or (2) destroy the country as we know it.
Of course some of us think (1) also destroys the country as we know it, but that is for another day.
I have identified a modificed version of the White House/Treasury/Fed plan that make sense to me, costs virtually nothing, and involves no steps not currently planned for (i.e. my plan is a subset of the government plan).
The Sobieski Plan:
STEP 1: Set up a committee of people whose job it will be to determine the proper value of the distressed mortgage-based securities that are causing the crises. Everybody arguing about the rescue plan pretty much agrees on this, they just disagree on exactly who sits on the committee and what type of oversight there will be. Given step 2, I don’t think there will be as much fuss about Step 1 and I suspect it will be easy to reach agreement on the “valuation board” of my proposal.
STEP 2: Instead of having the government purchase the distressed security at a fair value price determined by the “Valuation Committee” which is what Bush/Paulson/Bernacke/et al want, we instead allow the current owner of the security to assign that same value to the asset. In other words, we allow the owner to adjust their balance sheet in accordance with the “fair value” as determined by the committee that would otherwise be chartered with spending the $700B… only the committee won’t be entitled to spend the money.
STEP 3: Celebrate the $700B in cost savings
STEP 4: If necessary, the Valuation Committee could continue to meet, providing updated “fair value” determinations as the various bonds age, updating the values accordingly. This can be done until the crisis is past.
If you think about it, its hard to argue against this plan. the core approach of the rescue plan is to help clean up the balance sheets of these beaten down bond holders so that the can loan money again.
In terms of impact to their various balance sheets, the impact of the Bush plan is the same as the impact of the Sobieski plan. My plan just happens to be $700B less expensive.
Neil Stevens
Steve Maley
Again, here I expected a suggestion to sell people for food....
Moriah (Diary) Thursday, September 25th at 1:36AM EST (link)… why is it that “modest proposal” means what it says nowadays?
Again, you make a very excellent suggestion — just like the last person I saw on here call his very real possible solution “A Modest Proposal“.
I love a good satire, and I keep getting disappointed every time I click.
Darn.
Blessings,
Moriah
Excellent point. I will rename the post so as to be so distracting
JSobieski (Diary) Thursday, September 25th at 1:43AM EST (link)Good night.
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
Sorry, I can't help myself sometimes.
Moriah (Diary) Thursday, September 25th at 1:52AM EST (link)It was supposed to be a compliment. I can assure you of that.
The reason I am here is because this is a place where I can find intellectual people with whom to discuss important issues that affect us all, even if we may not agree on some things.
I think some people are just too modest, and it looks like you may be one of them.
(And, this is one of the few places where most people are well-read enough to get my comment without getting offended, even though I do link just to make sure I am understood.)
Blessings,
Moriah
I love satire too, and I remember reading "A Modest Proposal" in high school
JSobieski (Diary) Thursday, September 25th at 2:40AM EST (link)However, given my intention to focus the debate somewhat, I should avoid distrations–pleasant or otherwise
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
And getting into serious mode....
Moriah (Diary) Thursday, September 25th at 2:52AM EST (link)… your plan actually would reduce inflation, albeit drastically, instead of doing the opposite, as a buyout would — which it would do drastically.
It would increase the value of our dollar, because the new values would be reflective of property values before the amount of inflation caused by the housing boom/bubble/bust.
The absolute last thing we want to do is essentially print more money; whether we raise taxes, borrow money from Bank of China, or just put ourselves in the hole without any backing to it, the bailout will have exactly the same effect on our economy as printing $700 billion of new money.
Under the current plan, America will be a distressed mortgage, not just have one.
It’s something I’ve reflected in a graphic that will likely peeve every person off: I haven’t finished it yet, but essentially it’s an upside down flag similar to the American flag but technically not because the Stars of the Union have been removed, replaced with an advertising slogan: “Live the American Dream! Own a Home! Do It For Your Children. Inquire Within Today!” Then the words “America’s Mortgage — Who Saw This in the Fine Print” below it. The Stripes of the flag are replaced with an exegesis of each word of the slogan, saying first why the bailout is a bad idea, and then starting with the “For”, showing the only ways we can recover.
I’m afraid if I post it anywhere I will offend 99% of the people who see it, but I am justifying the idea by that it is not truly the American flag I am defacing because the Stars have been removed, and if it were… America is being distressed and defaced by this rush to put a bandaid on a problem, and the cure will be much worse than the disease.
Blessings,
Moriah
One other thought.
Moriah (Diary) Thursday, September 25th at 4:05AM EST (link)Your plan does seem to involve essentially making money that doesn’t exist anymore disappear. If your plan is implemented….
That also needs to happen to the mortgages that are current.
Primary mortgages, that are now higher than the value of the home, would need to be reduced to the actual value of the home, as determined by a similar committee.
Second mortgages and HELOCs would still be the responsibility of the debtor who used their secured assets for unsecured debt.
Blessings,
Moriah
GC HIGHLY RECOS - will weigh in myself after
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, September 25th at 8:00AM EST (link)a bit more study and suing people today in court!
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
I don't understand.....
Terilyn Donaldson (Diary) Thursday, September 25th at 8:56AM EST (link)maybe I’m not as smart as I thought. Can you explain exactly how your plan would work? I understand how the $700B would function, in theory, but am not sure I follow your reasoning.
Thanks, Terilyn from Small Town, Wyoming
SURVIVING IN WYOMING…
Join the RedState Strike Force
The original and core Paulson plan
JSobieski (Diary) Thursday, September 25th at 9:07AM EST (link)is for the Treasury to purchase distressed mortgage-based securities from distressed Wall Street bond holders.
For example, there may be a bond with a current mark-to-market value of $0.20/dollar even though the mortgages associated with the bond are not in default, delinquent,etc.
The Paulson plan would be to have Treasury purchase the bond at an estimated value that is more fair and accurate (not the mark-to-market accounting rule that the companies are required by law to use).
Paulson argues that the purchase of such securities at such a price would stop to imploding balance sheets of these entities.
My point it that merely allowing the distressed bond holders to use a Paulson valuation on their balance sheets rather than the “what is worth at this very second” mark-to-market rule would have the same balance sheet impact as the Paulson plan, but without the $700B price tag to taxpayers.
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
So,
Terilyn Donaldson (Diary) Thursday, September 25th at 9:34AM EST (link)what you’re saying is that the value would simply change on paper and we would not be footin the bill?
SURVIVING IN WYOMING…
Join the RedState Strike Force
Yup. We need to temporarily undo the 1997
JSobieski (Diary) Thursday, September 25th at 12:17PM EST (link)change to the mark-to-market rule.
At its core, this is an artificial crisis.
An accounting rule is causing the brushfire to spread.
An accounting change can stop the brushfire from spreading.
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!