Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
search  
 
Subscribe   Subscribe   MI on Facebook Find us on Twitter Find us on Instagram      
 
 
   
 
     
 

National Review Online

 

The IMF, the U.S., and Greece

May 07, 2010

By Nicole Gelinas

It is good, though, that Congresswoman Rodgers is concerned about “bailout fatigue.” As a House Republican leader, perhaps she could ask her Senate counterparts — including Richard Shelby on the Banking Committee — why they have signed off on a flawed amendment to Sen. Chris Dodd’s financial regulatory bill.

Shelby has said that the Senate amendment “ends ’too big to fail’”; it does not. For one thing, the amendment would allow the FDIC to guarantee banks’ new bond issuances in an emergency, as the agency did from October 2008 to last year. (The guarantee program included the former investment banks, too, like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which won traditional bank-holding company status in late 2008.)

Sure, the bill, thanks to the GOP tweaks, now says that the FDIC cannot offer such extraordinary guarantees again absent Congress’ explicit “approval.” But if future legislation is needed, anyway, why say anything in the bill on this topic? Congress prohibits all sorts of things. We understand that it reserves the privilege of changing its mind in the future. There is no need for extra laws reminding people what Congress prohibits but may change its mind about.

But that is exactly what the bill does here. It goes beyond that, actually, ordering Congress (itself) to fast-track the approval of FDIC bank-debt guarantees if the president asks for it.

The language is there to achieve one end. Bondholders to banks will know that in an emergency, the firms to which they’ve lent money will have access to new government-guaranteed debt to keep themselves afloat.

Funny. We’re trying to crawl out from under a “financial crisis” that’s really just a massive pile of debt. But we keep thinking that we can do it with yet more government subsidies of debt.

Successful financial reform would wean markets off the idea that the government will continue to take extraordinary measures in the credit markets on demand (beyond, say, zero percent interest rates).

Now, Congress, with Republican approval, is just making the extraordinary — including regular need for emergency legislation — ordinary.

Original Source: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDQ2ZWFmZDcxNDg0YWIzOTIwNDcxMGUzZTBmMzM0YzQ

 

 
PRINTER FRIENDLY
 
LATEST FROM OUR SCHOLARS

5 Reasons Janet Yellen Shouldn’t Focus On Income Inequality
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 10-20-14

Why The Comptroller Race Matters
Nicole Gelinas, 10-20-14

Obama Should Have Picked “Ebola Czar” With Public-Health Experience
Paul Howard, 10-18-14

Success Of Parent Trigger Is Unclear­—Just As Foes Want
Ben Boychuk, 10-18-14

On Obamacare's Second Birthday, Whither The HSA?
Paul Howard, 10-16-14

You Can Repeal Obamacare And Keep Kentucky's Insurance Exchange
Avik Roy, 10-15-14

Are Private Exchanges The Future Of Health Insurance?
Yevgeniy Feyman, 10-15-14

This Nobel Prize-Worthy Economist Figured Out How To Destroy Terrorism
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 10-15-14

 
 
 

The Manhattan Institute, a 501(c)(3), is a think tank whose mission is to develop and disseminate new ideas
that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility.

Copyright © 2014 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017
phone (212) 599-7000 / fax (212) 599-3494