Blog

Dean Baker

By Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

The country faces a serious crisis in the form of a manufactured crisis over the budget deficit. This is a crisis because concerns over the size of the budget deficit are preventing the government from taking the steps needed to reduce the unemployment rate. This creates the absurd situation where we have millions of people who are unemployed, not because of their own lack of skills or unwillingness to work, but because people like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke mismanaged the economy.

The basic story is very simple and one that we have known since Keynes. We need to create demand in the economy. The problem is that, as a society, we are not spending enough to keep the economy running at capacity. Prior to the collapse of the housing bubble, the economy was driven by booms in both residential and nonresidential construction. It was also driven by a consumption boom that was in turn fueled by the trillions of dollars of ephemeral housing bubble wealth.

With the collapse of the bubbles, both residential and nonresidential construction have collapsed. There is a huge amount of excess supply in both markets, which will leave construction badly depressed for years into the future. Together, we have lost well over $500 billion in annual demand from the construction sector. In addition, the loss of the ephemeral wealth created by the bubble has sent consumption plummeting, leading to the loss of an additional $500 billion a year in annual demand.

The hole from the collapse of construction and the falloff in consumption is more than $1 trillion a year. The government is the only force that can make up this demand. However, this means running large deficits. To boost the economy, the government must spend much more than it taxes.

The stimulus approved by Congress last year was a step in the right direction this way, but it was much too small. After making adjustments for some technical tax fixes and pulling out spending for later years, the stimulus ended up being around $300 billion a year. Even this exaggerates the impact of the government sector, since close to half of the stimulus is being offset by cutbacks and tax increases at the state and local level.

The answer in this situation should be simple: more stimulus. But the deficit hawks have gone on the warpath insisting that we have to start worrying about bringing the deficit down. They have filled the airwaves, print media and cyberspace with solemn pronouncements about how the deficit threatens to impose an ungodly burden on our children.

This is of course complete nonsense. Larger deficits in the current economic environment will only increase output and employment. In other words, larger deficits will put many of our children’s parents back to work. Larger deficits will increase the likelihood that parents can keep their homes and provide their children with the health care, clothing, and other necessities for a decent upbringing. But the deficit hawks would rather see our children suffer so that we can have smaller deficits.

In spite of the deficit hawks’ whining, history and financial markets tell us that the deficit and debt levels that we are currently seeing are not a serious problem. The current projections show that, even ten years out on our current course, the ratio of debt to GDP will be just over 90 percent. The ratio of debt to GDP was over 110 percent after World War II. Instead of impoverishing the children of that era, the three decades following World War II saw the most rapid increase in living standards in the country’s history.

We can also look to Japan, which now has a debt to GDP ratio of more than 180 percent. Investors are not running from Japanese debt. They are willing to hold long-term debt at interest rates close to 1.5 percent. In our own case, the 3.7 percent interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds remains near a historic low.

The story is that we are forcing people to be out of work – unable to properly care for their children – because people like billionaire investment banker Peter Peterson and his followers are able to buy their way into and dominate the public debate. The reality is that we have an unemployment crisis today, not a deficit crisis. The only crisis related to the deficit is that people with vast sums of money (i.e. the people who wrecked the economy) have been able to use that money to make the deficit into a crisis.

***

Dean Baker is author of the new book, “Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy,” PoliPoint Press, LLC. This piece was first published on Truthout. Mr. Baker, a macroeconomist,  previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. He is a member of Truthout’s Board of Advisers.

Dean Baker

 

By Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

I first met Ted Kennedy in the fall of 1995. The context was truly bizarre.

Alan Greenspan had testified to the Senate Finance Committee in the fall of 1994 that the consumer price index (CPI) overstated the true rate of inflation. He told the committee that if it lowered the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security to correspond to the true rate of inflation, rather than the CPI, it could largely eliminate the budget deficit.

Greenspan told the committee that the gap was between 1-2 percentage points annually, so that after a decade, his plan would cut annual Social Security payments by more than 10 percent. And, the great thing was that Congress could do this cut by claiming it was just a technical adjustment.

Over the next half year, the idea of changing the COLA for Social Security gained considerable support in Congress from both parties. (Daniel Moynihan was the strongest proponent.) There was also support for the idea in the Clinton White House.

In this context, I was invited to talk to Senator Kennedy and his staff about the CPI, since I was one of the few economists who disputed the claim that the CPI overstated inflation. I was very happy when I got to his office to see 5 senior looking staffers. I assumed that these were the people that I really had to convince and I focused my attention on them, only occasionally looking back at Kennedy to avoid appearing rude.

After about 10 minutes of boring econ jargon (price indices are even boring to economists), Senator Kennedy started asking me probing questions. It was clear that he had listened carefully and understood everything I said. I then began to focus my attention directly on Kennedy and we had a very good discussion of the issues. I walked away with a very valuable ally in this fight.

I saw exactly how valuable about a month later. The scene was a meeting of an ad hoc House-Senate Democratic committee that had been established to help hammer out a balanced budget proposal that Congressional Democrats could sign onto. This was the period when the government was shut down, as President Clinton and the Republican controlled Congress could not agree on a budget.

The Congressional Democrats felt that it was important that they have their own budget to establish themselves as an independent force in the debate. The ad hoc committee was supposed to focus on the issues of the CPI adjustment and corporate welfare. The CPI adjustment was being debated because there were many Democratic members of Congress who found it an attractive way to achieve deficit reduction.

Senator Kennedy invited me to this committee meeting so that I could speak about the accuracy of the CPI. I met with him and his staff before the committee meeting. He explained that his goal was to keep corporate welfare on the agenda and the CPI adjustment off the agenda. He said that he wasn’t sure that he could succeed, but that was his plan.

The corporate welfare discussion came first. Senator Kennedy framed the issue. He noted hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies that could be identified as corporate welfare. He said that the Democrats should set a target of reducing corporate welfare by some substantial amount as a major part of their program for a balanced budget.

Kennedy then shut up. He let the rest of the group spout off about all sorts of related and unrelated topics, only briefly intervening at a couple of points to keep the conversation moving forward. At the end of the discussion, corporate welfare was on the agenda.

Then we got to the CPI. He briefly, but accurately, laid out the case that the claims for an overstated CPI were weak. He then introduced me as an expert on the CPI and invited me to say a few words to the committee.

The ensuing discussion again went all over the place with Kennedy largely remaining silent. However, at the end of the debate, the CPI adjustment was off the table.

I was tremendously impressed. Kennedy had gotten exactly what he wanted on both issues and he never broke a sweat. He framed the debate and just let things run their course. It was truly masterful.

From the standpoint of the policy involved, although the details are incredibly obscure, the impact would have been very visible and quite large. If the CPI adjustment had taken effect, someone who had been receiving Social Security in 1996 would be getting about 13 percent less in their monthly check today (a cut of roughly 1 percent a year for 13 years). That would be a very painful cut for a segment of the population that doesn’t have much money to spare.

If the Democrats in the Congress had joined the chorus of those pushing for a CPI adjustment, it is very likely that it would have gone through. So, even though almost no one knows the details of this particular incident, Senator Kennedy played an enormously important role in protecting the financial security of tens of millions of current and future retirees.

***

Dean Baker is the author of the new book, “Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy.”

This piece was first published on Huffington Post.

Leo W. Gerard

 

 

By Leo W. Gerard

International President

From sea to shining sea, America is suffering.

She is, however, afflicted with an avoidable condition she brought on herself, like a hangover. Only this one’s interminable and internationally contagious.

She did it by choosing over the past 30 years to establish an economy that worshiped avarice. That decision has destroyed her financial system and taken down with it much of the world’s.

Now America must decide whether to be swayed by the greedy urging her to continue basing her economy on the destructive policies of deregulation, de-unionization, globalization and privatization or to construct a new financial system focused on industry and profit shared by the workers who produce it.

Over much of the  20^th century, the nation created real wealth by manufacturing – taking raw materials from the ground, using machines, energy and labor to convert them into products and selling those here and overseas. That process, to make steel or tires or washing machines, was the engine of the economy. In 1947, 32 percent of the workforce engaged in it belonged to unions, which meant workers received good wages and benefits. This enabled them to churn real money throughout the economy by buying homes and cars and television sets and sending their children to college. And it enabled them to save 7.5 percent of their earnings.

Then, in the 1980s, a new narrative for the economy emerged. In this story, greed was good. Self-interest was supposed to lead to the best outcomes for business. To accommodate this concept, Government de-regulated and, in fact, passed laws favoring big corporations and the nation’s wealthiest citizens. The idea was that some of the prosperity they created as a result of the abolished protections for workers and the environment would trickle down.

This was the new economy.

This was a scam to move wealth from the middle class to the affluent. And it worked. In 1976, the richest 10 percent in this country possessed 49 percent of the wealth. In 2007, it was 73 percent.

During this time of bowing to corporate demands, the government actually gave multinational corporations tax benefits to offshore their U.S. manufacturing facilities. Sometimes they shut down, throwing hundreds of Americans out of work, then packed the factory pieces into crates, numbered piece by numbered piece, and shipped them to China or Indonesia or whatever country would allow blatant violation of its own labor and environmental regulations. Sometimes they closed American factories and built brand new ones overseas with breaks from foreign governments. As U.S. companies closed, union membership dropped to below 12 percent. And America found herself importing toxic lead coated toys, paper made from trees illegally harvested in Indonesian national forests and untested pharmaceuticals.

Companies that remained here threatened to leave if workers didn’t accept wage and benefit concessions. American workers were vilified for seeking a living wage while CEOs pulled millions out of corporations in annual bonuses.

The American economy began to depend less on manufacturing and more on the “financial sector,” where profit was made moving money around, betting on stock trades, and participating in asset bubbles. Remember the tech bubble? That was manufactured value – not manufactured goods – and that’s why it disappeared when the bubble burst.

The same has now happened with the housing bubble. Those smart guys on Wall Street, among the brilliant ones who sold America on the idea that greed was good, bet on housing prices never falling. A decline in home values never entered their calculations.

Then they fell. And they took down with them a couple of Wall Street banks and the largest insurance company in the world and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, credit markets and then the economy of the nation and the world.

Now workers are really in trouble.

They were struggling before the crash as manufacturing jobs disappeared and wages stagnated. Personal savings declined so that the average family now owes $8,000 to credit card companies. Without sufficient wage increases to sustain their lifestyle, families borrowed against their major asset, their homes. Now, because the housing bubble burst, a quarter of mortgage holders owe more than their homes are worth and 2.5 million have lost theirs to foreclosure.

All of this is because America failed to give greed the wide berth warranted by one of the seven deadly sins.

Alan Greenspan, who served as steward over the rise of the culture of avarice for nearly two decades as chairman of the Federal Reserve, admitted to Congress in October that his opposition to federal regulation was a blunder:

“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.”

In the song, America the Beautiful,” from which the lines “from sea to shining sea, come, lyricist Katharine Lee Bates counseled in the second verse, “America! America! God mend thine every flaw.”

Clearly, this greed-based economy is a flaw. It was created by covetous humans. It must be mended by Americans of better grace, people Katharine Lee Bates described as those, “Who more than self their country loved.”

America’s workers must seize back control of their country and wrest back determination of its priorities. They must re-regulate the financial markets and remove the onerous restrictions placed on unions to prevent organization of new workplaces and bargaining of new contracts to raise worker salaries and benefits.

But, most immediately, America’s workers must insist Congress immediately pass an economic renewal package that will reinvigorate Main Streets across the nation. This is essential to prevent a prolonged and excessively painful deep recession resulting from the housing bubble collapsing.

This public investment has two purposes. It will stimulate the economy by providing jobs. In addition, it will strengthen America’s manufacturing competitiveness in the international marketplace.

The Institute for America’s Future has developed a plan called A Main Street Recovery Program calling for investment of $900 billion over two years.

The money would be targeted to areas that would create sustained, long-term, shared economic growth. This includes investing in green technologies to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and the threat of global warming. Another focus is repair and modernization of the country’s physical infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, and intellectual infrastructure – its education system. And finally, the third targeted area is assistance to workers most in need, which would include moves toward universal affordable health insurance, a middle class tax cut and expanded unemployment insurance.

More than 250 organizations and economists have endorsed this program. President-elect Barack Obama’s recovery plan outlined last weekend includes many of its aspects. Its passage would signal the beginning of conversion to an economy that values production and workers, something the self-interested greed-mongers will oppose.

But let’s work for realization of Katharine Lee Bates’ final verses:

“America! America”

God shed his grace on thee

Till selfish gain no longer stain

The banner of the free!”

 

 

 

 

Dean Baker

By Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Every few years there is a book or movie that stands out for its incredibly bad timing. As the Internet bubble exploded in 2000, the book Dow 36,000 quickly went from a work of inspired genius to intense derision. More recently, the 2005 book, Why the Real Estate Boom Will not Bust and How You Can Profit From It, has become one of the great jokes of the housing crash. As the country and the world attempt to recovery from the wreckage caused by these bubbles, the new documentary, IOUSA, seems destined to join these two earlier classics of bad timing.

The basic story of IOUSA is that the United States suffers from a massive deficit problem. The film constantly comes back to the deficit using a variety of measures that are intended to scare viewers into action. After seeing the film we are all supposed to run to our phones and computers and demand that our representatives in Congress shut down Social Security and Medicare and double our taxes.

Hopefully, the film will not have this effect, because there is nothing that the economy needs more right now than very large deficits. The collapse of the housing bubble has destroyed more than $5 trillion in wealth. The fallout from this collapse has led to an even larger decline in stock market wealth. This massive loss in wealth in turn is leading to a plunge in consumption that is driving the economy into the most serious downturn since the Great Depression.

Economists from across the political spectrum agree that the only way to counteract this loss of consumption demand is through large increases in government spending. If IOUSA viewers manage to persuade their representatives in Congress to balance the budget then they will be guaranteeing the country another Great Depression.

Ironically, the heroes of IOUSA include many of the leading villains of the current economic crisis. The story prominently features Peter Peterson, whose foundation is helping to circulate the film. Mr. Peterson made a fortune running a Wall Street private equity fund, much of which he was able to shelter from normal taxation through the “fund managers’ tax break.”

Mr. Peterson is fond of telling audiences that he doesn’t need his Social Security. Of course, no one would need their Social Security if they received tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks like Mr. Peterson.

The extensive media coverage that Mr. Peterson has received for his anti-Social Security and Medicare diatribes also helped to distract attention from those trying to call warn of the dangers looming from the housing bubble. While Peterson and his followers could count on extensive coverage from National Public Radio, the Washington Post, and other highly respected media outlets, those warning of the imminent crisis were almost completely ignored.

The film also interviews Robert Rubin. As Treasury secretary Robert Rubin promoted an over-valued dollar. The over-valued dollar made our goods uncompetitive internationally by raising the price of U.S. exports to foreigners and lowering the price of foreign made goods to people living in the United States. As a result, our trade deficit exploded, peaking at almost 6 percent of GDP ($800 billion) in 2006.

Rubin also pushed the one-sided financial deregulation that fueled the irresponsible lending practices of the housing bubble years. These were practices that he personally profited from as a top executive at Citigroup.

Finally, the film gives a starring role to former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. Greenspan will go down in infamy as the man who looked the other way as the housing bubble soared to ever more dangerous levels. He also claimed to be oblivious to the explosion of subprime and other high-risk loans during his tenure as Fed chair. More than any other individual, Alan Greenspan bears responsibility for the economic catastrophe facing the country. Audiences may find his lectures on the need to increase saving less than compelling at this point.

There is a grain of truth to the IOUSA scare story. The country has a badly broken health care system. If we don’t fix the health care system then it will cause serious damage to the economy and lead to large budget problems in future decades since the government picks up roughly half of the tab for health care through programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Unfortunately, the film never clearly mentions the need for health care reform, focusing only on the budget and not the underlying problem with the private health care system.

The moral of the IOUSA story – the need to reduce the budget deficit – is so radically out of sync with the economic imperatives facing the country that it is likely to quickly fall from sight, perhaps to be resurrected in film festivals showing red scare films from the fifties. This would be a positive development for the country, since it would be an enormous tragedy if this film helped to dissuade the public from supporting the sort of stimulus package needed to prevent a long and extremely painful recession.

The director of the film, Patrick Creadon, is highly talented and clearly well meaning. Obviously he just fell in with a bad crowd when he decided to make IUOSA. Maybe for his next two films he should interview the authors of Dow 36,000 and Why the Real Estate Boom Will not Bust and How You Can Profit From It. This could be marketed as the “people who really got it wrong” series.  

Dean Baker

By Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Henry Paulson’s main claim to fame is getting just about everything wrong in his tenure as Treasury secretary. However, he now stands to gain lasting notoriety as the person who destroyed the domestic U.S. auto industry, and the economies of the Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana along with them.

The story is that the big three automakers are struggling with record sales declines. This collapse in car sales in turn is the fallout from the collapse of the Greenspan-Bernanke housing bubble. While the domestic automakers have been hit hardest, all manufacturers have seen sharp drops in sales. Toyota’s sales were down 23.0 percent compared with its year ago levels. Honda’s sales were down 25.2 percent, and Nissan’s sales fell 33.0 percent.

These huge plunges in year over year sales by the world’s top car manufacturers can’t be blamed on the industry. Responsibility for this plunge lies with Mr. Paulson and other economic policy makers, and their Wall Street friends.

The basic arithmetic is simple. General Motors saw its sales fall by 45 percent compared to its year ago levels. That means its revenue has been cut nearly in half. While it has made some reductions in employment and can ease back its production, there is no way it can reduce its expenses by the same amount. Many of its expenses, like interest costs, property taxes, and health insurance for retirees are largely fixed independent of short-term fluctuations in output.

As a result General Motors is now losing close to $2 billion a month. At this rate, it will burn through its capital in around 2 months and be forced into bankruptcy. Chrysler and Ford are in somewhat better shape, but the basic story is the same. Furthermore, the fallout from a GM bankruptcy could sink Chrysler and Ford as well, as common suppliers shut down and credit for the industry vanishes and customers flee to manufacturers with longer life expectancies.

There have been analysts, presumably including Henry Paulson, who think that bankruptcy is a reasonable solution for the auto industry. This is yet another of Mr. Paulson’s famous mistakes. (Remember, this guy missed the housing bubble completely, thought its impact would be small when it burst, didn’t see a problem with letting Lehman Brothers fail, and thought the TARP [RIP] was a good idea.)

Bankruptcy would allow GM, Ford and Chrysler to more quickly cut back their bloated dealer networks and adjust their car lines with current market demand, as its proponents claim. Bankruptcy would also void union contracts, which will thrill the millionaire bankers by forcing workers earning $57,000 a year to take pay cuts. And, all those lazy retirees will see the health care benefits that they worked for taken away.

That’s the good part. Realistically, bankruptcy is likely to kill all three manufacturers, taking down much of the region’s economy with them.

First, some folks may recall the credit crunch. Lenders are extremely reluctant to take risks. In the absence of government guarantees, it is unlikely that any banks will step forward to provide GM and the others the money they need to keep operating in bankruptcy. In other words, bankruptcy is very likely to mean a complete shutdown of the Big Three.

Let’s say that the anti-bailout crowd suddenly gets a soft spot and decides to guarantee loans to the firms operating under bankruptcy protection. There is still the problem of selling cars. Customers will be very reluctant to buy cars produced by a manufacturer in bankruptcy, since they won’t know if a dealer and supplier network will exist in 3 or 4 years so that they can get their car serviced and buy replacement parts.

While people don’t mind flying an airline in bankruptcy, buying a car is to some extent an investment in the company. Many fewer customers will be willing to invest in a bankrupt car company.

But let’s assume that the investment financing is arranged and that customers are still willing to come through the doors. The bankruptcy itself is still likely to be devastating to the economies of Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, the three states where Big Three employment is concentrated.

Bankruptcy protects the firm from its creditors. The creditors of these firms are thousands of suppliers who are heavily concentrated in the same states. In most cases, the Big Three manufacturers were their major customers. These suppliers have already been squeezed by falling demand and lower product prices. If they cannot collect the money owed them by the Big Three, there will be a whole chain of secondary bankruptcies.

The impact in these states is potentially huge. According to the Center for Automotive Research, auto related employment accounts for almost 7 percent of total employment in Michigan, 6 percent in Indiana, and 5 percent in Ohio. Losing 7 percent of total employment in Michigan would be equivalent to losing more than 9 million jobs nationwide.

That is Mr. Paulson’s latest plan for the auto industry and these three states. This will be quite a legacy.

There is one last point that should really gall just about everyone. Mr. Paulson has argued that he does not have the legal authority to use the money appropriated for TARP for bailing out the auto industry.

This claim is outrageous for two reasons. As many of us who opposed the TARP argued, it gave Paulson a virtual blank check, and that is pretty much how he has interpreted it, using the money to bail out a wide range of non-bank institutions.

The other reason why this is so galling is that this is an administration that has taken pride in claiming virtually unlimited powers in a wide range of areas, including the conduct of war and holding of prisoners without charges or trial. It would be incredible if they allow Detroit to sink because they claim that they don’t have the legal authority to save it.

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard

International President

Are you feeling depressed, dogged by daily bad news about the effects of reckless, unregulated Wall Street speculators sinking the economy? Well, U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has decided to take this opportunity to kick you while you’re down. And use your money to do it.

Paulson cheated American taxpayers with his initial expenditure from that $700 billion Wall Street bailout fund – the $125 billion he gave to nine financial institutions.

That’s right. He paid twice what the securities were worth. That means he gave the CEOs and stockholders of these firms a $62.5 billion gift. From taxpayers.

Now Paulson is no rube. He’s a former Goldman Sachs CEO, who has surrounded himself with former Goldman Sachs executives for advice.

Oh, and by the way, one of the nine firms that received this gift from American taxpayers is Goldman Sachs.

You can find the financial analysis of Paulson’s deal here, on the USW web site.

I’ve written Paulson to demand an explanation for his profligate ways with taxpayer dollars. I’m copying it here to encourage you to write him as well. We need to stop him from spending the rest of the money as if he were still a Wall Street speculator.

October 28, 2008

Henry M. Paulson, Jr.

Secretary of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Secretary Paulson,

While I am sure that you face no shortage of advice regarding the crisis that continues to engulf the world’s capital markets, I did want to share with you some questions and concerns regarding your decision to invest $125 billion of the taxpayers’ money into nine financial institutions, including the securities firm which until recently you headed, Goldman Sachs.

While the media was filled with the usual breathless “behind-the-scenes” reports of your “High Noon” bargaining, what seems to have escaped their notice was your decision, on behalf of the taxpayers, to pay roughly twice as much as you needed to for the securities that you purchased.

To me, at least, this is far more important than whether you gave the assembled CEOs two hours, two weeks or two minutes to sign up; whether, as the New York Times helpfully tells us, you have seen “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”; whether you have worked long hours in the last few months; or what brand of cell phone you use.

While Wells Fargo Chairman Kovacevich, who was forced to get by on only $300 million over the past ten years, may or may not have actually pretended to resist the deal, if he had in fact turned you down, he should have been fired, given the extraordinary deal he was being offered.

I have enclosed with this letter a copy of the analysis that we prepared which values the investment of the taxpayers’ money in Goldman Sachs at only 50% of what was actually paid. Perhaps one of your former colleagues at Goldman could take a minute away from their busy day shorting mortgages to see if we are correct.

Mr. Secretary, this analysis is not rocket science. Just twenty days before Goldman announced that it would “accept” Treasury’s investment, Warren Buffett invested $5 billion into Goldman Sachs and acquired the very same type of security – preferred stock – with the very same form of “upside” – warrants to purchase common stock. For some reason, however, per dollar invested, Mr. Buffett received at least seven and perhaps up to fourteen times more warrants than Treasury did and his warrants have more favorable terms. In addition, Mr. Buffett’s preferred stock has a higher dividend rate and can only be bought away from him at a premium, while Treasury’s investment of taxpayers’ money pays a lower dividend and can be repurchased at par.

Now I know that you have a lot on your plate, but I am sure that someone at Treasury saw the terms of Buffett’s investment. In fact, my suspicion is that you studied it pretty closely and knew exactly what you were doing. The 50-50 deal – 50% invested and 50% as a gift – is quite consistent with the Republican version of the “spread-the-wealth-around” philosophy that seems so much in vogue.

If the result of our analysis is applied to the deals that you made at the other eight institutions – which on average most would view as being less well positioned than Goldman and therefore requiring an even greater rate of return – you paid $125 billion for securities for which a disinterested party would have paid $62.5 billion. This means that you gifted the other $62.5 billion to the shareholders of these nine institutions.

This is no different than if you paid me $10,000 for a car for which no one else would pay more than $5,000. You bought it for $5,000 and gifted me the other $5,000. In my world such gifts are rarely offered to working people.

It’s hard to list all of the ways in which this is disturbing, but let me note just a few:

• If this deal is the model for how you intend to spend the whole $700 billion that you got from the Congress, then it would appear that you intend to reward the institutions that have driven our nation, and it now appears the whole world, into its most serious economic crisis in 75 years with a gift of $350 billion from the American taxpayers, who have watched 760,000 of their jobs disappear over just the past nine months.

• The recipients of the first wave of gift-giving include Goldman Sachs. It has been widely reported that you have surrounded yourself with former Goldman employees as well as individuals from other Wall Street firms. Yet it has never been revealed whether in fact you and they have fully divested yourselves of your Wall Street holdings. Doesn’t it seem just a wee-bit of a conflict of interest for those setting the price of the investment to be either so directly linked to the firms receiving the investments or, even worse, direct beneficiaries of the decision to overpay with taxpayer money?

• Your investments do nothing to deal with the causes of the current crisis. Now that even Chairman Greenspan has discovered a “flaw” in his theories, wouldn’t it make sense to have some reason to believe that the recipients of this government largesse won’t just take the money and do it all again? Perhaps there is some reason I do not understand that you have seemingly handed this chicken coop back to the very same foxes who have been pillaging it for the last two decades?

• It has been reported in the media that these firms have no intention of using this money for its intended purpose. Don’t we deserve a commitment that the money will in fact be used for either loans to the companies which are groaning under the weight of the credit crisis and being forced to shed tens of thousands of more jobs or to help the millions of Americans struggling with their troubled mortgages? Does it really seem too much to demand that we get a commitment that our gifts to these firms be used to help revive the economy that they have driven into the ditch?

• Your terms also undercut the more stringent restrictions that the Brits imposed, thus making it clear that not only are you fronting for American wastrels, but European ones as well.

Now I do not doubt for a minute that the irresponsible and fraudulent actions of Wall Street have indeed put the world financial system and now the real economy at grave risk. And I also do not doubt that the literally hundreds of billions of dollars of undeserved bonuses ($38 billion in 2007 alone), reckless speculating and dividends to shareholders have left many of these institutions woefully under-capitalized and in need of new equity dollars. Where I get a little lost is why you think that the system or the American taxpayer is better off if the government gets half as much for its investment as Mr. Buffett did.

Let’s agree that America’s nine largest banks need $125 billion of new money and let’s further agree that no one else, not even Warren Buffett, has that kind of money lying around. That still does not explain why our $125 billion should buy us securities worth half of what we paid for them. Nor does it explain why the nearly $25 billion per year that the firms pay out in dividends to their shareholders should continue. At current levels, dividends to shareholders will distribute all of our money that you invested in just five years.

Secretary Paulson, out in the real economy, the unbridled pursuit of greed that you and your friends on Wall Street have celebrated as a national religion has taken a terrible toll on ordinary Americans. Jobs with stagnant real wages have now given way to massive lay-offs, home foreclosures and real suffering.

Out in the real economy, we need to once and for all bury the philosophy that worships only business, free markets, deregulation and free trade, and replace it with an economic program that restores the balance of power between workers and business, rebuilds the middle class and curbs corporate excesses.

Out in the real economy, we need our government to invest in creating sustainable shared prosperity – not play Santa Claus to the scoundrels who have laid waste to the American Dream.

I eagerly await your response.

Sincerely,

Leo W. Gerard

International President