Rescue Plan released; What does it mean?

[Zkribbler]

No, really. What does it mean? How does it work?

The plan was supposed to have been posted on the Congressional website, but I can't log on. So I'm guessing the site has crashed.

CNN says the $700 billion will be disbursed in stages, with $250 billion available immediately. What are we buying? From whom?

There's a dampner provision on CEO salaries, i.e. only the first $500,000 will be tax deductable. I'm not finding anything re the banning of "golden parachutes," and the provision was voted down that would have extended a bankruptcy judges power to re-write interest rates for residences (the way they can for vacation homes and yachts).

They're be an oversight board, consisting of the Fed chairman, the SEC chairman, the Director of the Federal Home Finance Agency, and the Secretary of HUD. CNN does not mention any congressional oversight.

The Treasury Secretary MAY establish the insurance program (a demand by House Republican). But I can't tell what assets are being insured, by whom, against what.

The reporting on the bill has really been amateurish. The reporters appear to have too much hair gel and not enough brains.

[Wezil]

I don't think the "plan" has been put into writing yet. From what I gather the principles have been agreed upon and now it's time to construct the Bill.

[Zkribbler]

That would explain the confusion.

Pelosi predicted it would be posted at noon Eastern Time. -- It's 6 1/2 hours late.

[Darius871]

I thought they expected a draft AND enactment today. WTF is going on?

[Wezil]

Ever been to the DMV? Government.

[Zkribbler]

I understood the committees would be voting on it today; it would be posted today at noon; and the House and Senate would vote on it possibly on Monday...but no later than Wednesday.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Wezil
I don't think the "plan" has been put into writing yet. From what I gather the principles have been agreed upon and now it's time to construct the Bill.

$700B rescue plan finalized; House to vote Monday

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Congressional leaders and the White House agreed Sunday to a $700 billion rescue of the ailing financial industry after lawmakers insisted on sharing spending controls with the Bush administration. The biggest U.S. bailout in history won the tentative support of both presidential candidates and goes to the House for a vote Monday.


The plan, bollixed up for days by election-year politics, would give the administration broad power to use taxpayers' money to purchase billions upon billions of home mortgage-related assets held by cash-starved financial firms.

Flexing its political muscle, Congress insisted on a stronger hand in controlling the money than the White House had wanted. Lawmakers had to navigate between angry voters with little regard for Wall Street and administration officials who warned that inaction would cause the economy to seize up and spiral into recession.

A deal in hand, Capitol Hill leaders scrambled to sell it to colleagues in both parties and acknowledged they were not certain it would pass. "Now we have to get the votes," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the majority leader.

The final legislation was released Sunday evening. House Republicans and Democrats met privately to review it and decide how they would vote. "This isn't about a bailout of Wall Street, it's a buy-in, so that we can turn our economy around," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

The largest government intervention in financial markets since the Great Depression casts Washington's long shadow over Wall Street. The government would take over huge amounts of devalued assets from beleaguered financial companies in hopes of unlocking frozen credit.

"I don't know of anyone here who wants the center of the economic universe to be Washington," said a top negotiator, Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. But, he added, "The center of gravity is here temporarily. ... God forbid it's here any longer than it takes to get credit moving again."

The plan would let Congress block half the money and force the president to jump through some hoops before using it all. The government could get at $250 billion immediately, $100 billion more if the president certified it was necessary, and the last $350 billion with a separate certification — and subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval.

Still, the resolution could be vetoed by the president, meaning it would take extra-large congressional majorities to stop it.

Lawmakers who struck a post-midnight deal on the plan with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson predicted final congressional action might not come until Wednesday.

The proposal is designed to end a vicious downward spiral that has battered all levels of the economy. Hundreds of billions of dollars in investments based on mortgages have soured and cramped banks' willingness to lend.

"This is the bottom line: If we do not do this, the trauma, the chaos and the disruption to everyday Americans' lives will be overwhelming, and that's a price we can't afford to risk paying," Sen. Judd Gregg, the chief Senate Republican in the talks, told The Associated Press. "I do think we'll be able to pass it, and it will be a bipartisan vote."

A breakthrough came when Democrats agreed to incorporate a GOP demand — letting the government insure some bad home loans rather than buy them. That would limit the amount of federal money used in the rescue.

Another important bargain, vital to attracting support from centrist Democrats, would require that the government, after five years, submit a plan to Congress on how to recoup any losses from the companies that got help.

"This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with," said Republican presidential nominee John McCain. "The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option."

His Democratic rival Barack Obama sought credit for taxpayer safeguards added to the initial proposal from the Bush administration. "I was pushing very hard and involved in shaping those provisions," he said.

Later, at a rally in Detroit, Obama said, "it looks like we will pass that plan very soon."

House Republicans said they were reviewing the plan.

As late as Sunday afternoon, Republicans regarded the deal as "a proposal that is promising in principle, but that is still not final," said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt, the top House GOP negotiator.

Executives whose companies benefit from the rescue could not get "golden parachutes" and would see their pay packages limited. Firms that got the most help through the program — $300 million or more — would face steep taxes on any compensation for their top people over $500,000.

The government would receive stock warrants in return for the bailout relief, giving taxpayers a chance to share in financial companies' future profits.

To help struggling homeowners, the plan would require the government to try renegotiating the bad mortgages it acquires with the aim of lowering borrowers' monthly payments so they can keep their homes.

But Democrats surrendered other cherished goals: letting judges rewrite bankrupt homeowners' mortgages and steering any profits gained toward an affordable housing fund.

It was Obama who first signaled Democrats were willing to give up some of their favorite proposals. He told reporters Wednesday that the bankruptcy measure was a priority, but that it "probably something that we shouldn't try to do in this piece of legislation."

"It's not a bill that any one of us would have written. It's a much better bill than we got. It's not as good as it should be," said Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the House Financial Services Committee chairman. He predicted it would pass, though not by a large majority.

Frank negotiated much of the compromise in a marathon series of up-and-down meetings and phone calls with Paulson, Dodd, D-Conn., and key Republicans including Gregg and Blunt.

Pelosi shepherded the discussions at key points, and cut a central deal Saturday night — on companies paying back taxpayers for any losses — that gave momentum to the final accord.

An extraordinary week of talks unfolded after Paulson and Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, went to Congress 10 days ago with ominous warnings about a full-blown economic meltdown if lawmakers did not act quickly to infuse huge amounts of government money into a financial sector buckling under the weight of toxic debt.

The negotiations were shaped by the political pressures of an intense campaign season in which voters' economic concerns figure prominently. They brought McCain and Obama to Washington for a White House meeting that yielded more discord and behind-the-scenes theatrics than progress, but increased the pressure on both sides to strike a bargain.

Lawmakers in both parties who are facing re-election are loath to embrace a costly plan proposed by a deeply unpopular president that would benefit perhaps the most publicly detested of all: companies that got rich off bad bets that have caused economic pain for ordinary people.

But many of them say the plan is vital to ensure their constituents don't pay for Wall Street's mistakes, in the form of unaffordable credit and major hits to investments they count on, like their pensions.

Some proponents even said taxpayers could come out as financial winners.

Gregg, R-N.H., said: "I don't think we're going to lose money, myself. We may — it's possible — but I doubt it in the long run."

___

On the Net:

House Financial Services Committee: http://financialservices.house.gov/

House Speaker's Office: http://speaker.gov

[Wezil]

Why you quoting me?

Released Sunday evening. That's within the last half hour.

[Kidlicious]

We'd be 10x better off with $700bn. We should riot.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
acknowledged they were not certain it would pass. "Now we have to get the votes,"

Why the hell was everyone calling this a "deal" when they don't even have a sizable majority in the bag? Kinda defeats the purpose of the term if it's just a "proposal" by the parties' leaders. The vote debates tomorrow will be fascinating beyond measure.

[Darius871]

Dirtyrottenstinkinlousy House website is dead for me too. Could anyone who eventually gets through re-post the document here?

[Wezil]

I don't know the website. Your link does not work for me.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Darius871


Why the hell was everyone calling this a "deal" when they don't even have a sizable majority in the bag? Kinda defeats the purpose of the term if it's just a "proposal" by the parties' leaders. The vote debates tomorrow will be fascinating beyond measure.

They have a deal in the committees. Now, the bill goes to the floor.

It was the members of the House Republicans who revolted, suggesting an insurance approach instead. The proposed bill gives Paulson the option to institute such a program. Will that be enough for the Repugs. I doubt it.

I'm sorry to see the defeat of a proposal to empower bankruptcy judges to lower interest rates on these loans to a reasonable rate. This is the second time it's been shot down and, IMHO, would be the best tool to use to decrease the number of foreclosures and to pump some value into these mortgages.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Wezil
Why you quoting me?

Released Sunday evening. That's within the last half hour.

Are you having a stroke or something? From my time frame, you posted at 3:24pm, from yours it would be 6:24pm. I posted the article 8 minutes later. It's a three hour difference between us, but the minutes are the same. The AP article was already circulating when you posted, which means the bill had already been "put into writing" earlier this afternoon from your time frame, midday from mine.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


Are you having a stroke or something? From my time frame, you posted at 3:24pm, from yours it would be 6:24pm. I posted the article 8 minutes later. It's a three hour difference between us, but the minutes are the same. The AP article was already circulating when you posted, which means the bill had already been "put into writing" earlier this afternoon from your time frame, midday from mine.

When was a deal reached, when was it released and what were they doing in the meantime? My guess? They were cobbling together the final draft.