Revised bailout plan: OK, now I’m not just skeptical, I’m angry and disgusted

Lynne Kiesling

Before I read the Senate version of the revised bailout plan, I generally agreed with Tyler Cowen: “The modified Paulson plan was better than nothing — especially after the market had been scared — but far from my first choice.” I also generally agree with his conclusions (1) on the importance of transparency of derivative instruments, (2) the value of implementing rules that focus on information revelation, and (3) that various financial market deregulations are incorrectly blamed for the severity of this credit crunch. My natural skepticism about both the morality and the efficacy of regulation are what moved me to sign the economist’s letter that John Cochrane spearheaded last week.

But now that I’ve actually read the text of the bill, I’m angry. No, I’m beyond angry, I’m freakin’ pissed off. It’s completely and utterly disgusting that the “sweeteners” added to the bill to generate more support are all vile examples of mutual back-scratching pork that have nothing, nothing to do with back-stopping credit markets so that parties in those markets can find mutually beneficial transactions again. I agree with John Cochrane’s comment on the Newshour this evening that it’s a “pinata full of ridiculousness” (MP3) [note that Ken Rogoff also speaks persuasively about the flaws of this bailout, although he’s kinder to it than I would be.].

I submit into evidence one portion of the bill: Division B: Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008. This division has 4 titles and assorted subtitles. For example:

TITLE I–ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVES

Subtitle A–Renewable Energy Incentives
Sec. 101. Renewable energy credit.
Sec. 102. Production credit for electricity produced from marine renewables.
Sec. 103. Energy credit.
Sec. 104. Energy credit for small wind property.
Sec. 105. Energy credit for geothermal heat pump systems.
Sec. 106. Credit for residential energy efficient property.
Sec. 107. New clean renewable energy bonds.
Sec. 108. Credit for steel industry fuel.
Sec. 109. Special rule to implement FERC and State electric restructuring policy.

Subtitle B–Carbon Mitigation and Coal Provisions
Sec. 111. Expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credit.
Sec. 112. Expansion and modification of coal gasification investment credit.
Sec. 113. Temporary increase in coal excise tax; funding of Black Lung Disability
Trust Fund.
Sec. 114. Special rules for refund of the coal excise tax to certain coal producers
and exporters.
Sec. 115. Tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration.
Sec. 116. Certain income and gains relating to industrial source carbon dioxide treated as qualifying income for publicly traded partnerships.
Sec. 117. Carbon audit of the tax code.

Many of these provisions extend existing tax or investment credits for several more years. None of these provisions is directly relevant to confidence in credit markets. Why are they here?

One of the provisions of Title III of Divison B is something that I support:

Sec. 306. Accelerated recovery period for depreciation of smart meters and
smart grid systems.

This provision is not directly relevant to confidence in credit markets. Why is it here?

This one wins the “Too Absurd To Believe” prize:

Division C, SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.

Do our elected so-called “representatives” require all of these expensive and tangential bribes to induce them to support an expensive bailout, which is likely to be a large wealth transfer to the people who made the incorrect risky decisions, by making the plan that much more expensive?

Moreover, the rhetoric blaming this credit crunch on “deregulation” is disturbingly factually incorrect, as Steve Horwitz explained. Decades of government policy have contributed to this credit crunch, and that fact should not be overlooked. Furthermore, as Steve points out, companies will not hesitate to use political processes to increase their profits if given the opportunity, and sadly I fear that the lobbying for this bailout plan shows the extent to which we have to save capitalism from the so-called capitalists.

This massive wealth transfer and money waste of a bailout bill is likely to pass, if the amount of lobbying for it is any indication:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce alone has spent $28 million on lobbying this year. The group’s top lobbyist, Bruce Josten, says it’s now in “full-court press mode” to get the bailout bill passed immediately. The National Association of Realtors has spent nearly $7 million lobbying this year. The political action committee for the American Bankers Association spent $2.1 million influencing politicians from 2007 to 2008, the center says.

Sadly, as a financially responsible homeowner with investments primarily in indexed mutual funds, I have little opportunity to belly up to the trough that the Congressional “pinata full of ridiculousness” creates. But I feel my taxes going up, and I feel the desperate urge to go take a shower.

In addition to the comments from Tyler and Steve linked above, I also recommend Arnold Kling here and here; Arnold has extensive expertise in this area.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Revised bailout plan: OK, now I’m not just skeptical, I’m angry and disgusted

  1. An alternative approach to the bailout: enable fast recapitalization

    Lynne Kiesling Fast recapitalization, removing the signaling penalty by having the government require banks to stop giving dividends in the short run … those are the kind of policies that economists have been discussing, fleshing out, and encouraging…

  2. Dr. Kiesling is mad as hell, and shes not gonna take it any more…

    I like it.

    I love how so much tangental crap makes it into bills like this–some may say thats just how you play politics or compromise, but I also think its what gives us excessive waste and red tape.

    And speaking of waste, I’m still wondering how the treasury is going to price these opaque assets that the market is having immense difficulty valuing. But I guess thats why they need $700 billion.

  3. Unfortunately; Yes. That is what is deemed ‘necessary’ for a massive, controversial bill like this to pass through the House and Senate, especially given the politically contentious election year.

    A large number of the energy legislation were portions of the budget which couldn’t get passed due to partisan blocking of the general budget.
    It’s the reason why all government programs are underfunded.
    It’s the reason why everyone is slinging mud.
    It’s the road that an elected official has to take by looking out for it’s constituents, donors, and their localized, vocalized voting public.
    Senators and congressmen (persons?) are elected not to serve the nation, but THEIR STATE or THEIR CITY. Oftentimes, these goals are conflicting or inconveniencing, but that is the primary source of government ‘pork barrel’ and local federal funding that wouldnn’t exist otherwise.

    Seriously, why would a Maryland senator vote to approve funding on a Colorado road? it doesn’t benefit his voter base. it’s a political ‘bad’ because the opposition will not his desire to “raise government spending.”
    This form of compromise is just the sickening result of a crippled political system. it’s just the way it has to work.

  4. The bailout passes

    The bailout passed and the stock market is essentially flat at this writing. That puts it within 150 points of where the Dow Jones Industrial Average finished after the crash on Monday. If the market continues to operate at this…

Comments are closed.