Blog

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard

International President

Congress drove the Big Three CEOs out of Washington, D.C. last week, ordering them not to return with their tin cups until they could guarantee their companies would be viable after a $25 billion bailout.

Just days later, Citigroup, a bank that had already received a $25 billion bailout in October, held its hands out for more. Within 48 hours, federal officials approved giving the bank another $20 billion and providing backing for $306 billion in its risky loans and securities. Even though Citigroup was failing just weeks after getting its first government bailout, Congress didn’t subject its CEO to the public lecturing and demands for business plans that it did the Big Three.

The message here could not be more clear: Washington will bailout out those who shower before work but not those who shower afterwards.

Washington, D.C. is a white collar town. President Bush and members of Congress understand their suited counterparts on Wall Street. In fact, several prominent figures in the banking industry – including Citigroup’s Robert Rubin, a former Secretary of the Treasury, and UBS Investment Bank’s Phil Gramm, a former Texas Senator, – worked in Washington first, aiding and abetting the current crisis by de-regulating the financial markets and everything else they could.

Detroit, by contrast, is a blue collar town. It’s a place where workers at the Big Three earn thousands of dollars — the average production employee making $67,480 last year — not hundreds of thousands, and certainly not Wall Street’s millions. The Citigroup CEO credited with overseeing the bank’s ill-fated investments, Charles O. Prince III, was forced out a year ago as the bank’s massive sub-prime losses began mounting but the board of directors still gave him a $12.5 million bonus, $68 million in salary and accumulated stockholdings, a $1.7 million pension, an office, and a car and driver for up to five years. Heading the board executive committee at that time was Rubin, who would briefly serve as chairman and receive $17 million in compensation as the bank declined further into financial ruin.

Detroit is a place where workers are unionized; Wall Street is not. And right-wing Republicans and conservative pundits have made it clear they want the union workers to suffer. They want federal aid denied to the Big Three so that the firms go bankrupt. Then the companies can renege on pensions they guaranteed to retirees and can break salary and benefit promises to workers in current contracts.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl writes on his web site that Chapter 11 bankruptcy would be best for the Big Three because it would enable them to break their pledges to retirees receiving health care and other benefits earned over decades of service, what he calls “legacy debts”: “Like many other industries, including the airlines, the goal under Chapter 11 is to gain temporary protection, reorganize in a way to reduce legacy debts, and emerge as a more viable and competitive company.”

Conservative columnist George Will, similarly, wrote: “Do nothing that will delay bankrupt companies from filing for bankruptcy protection, so that improvident labor contracts can be unraveled. . .” Will’s fellow Washington Post Columnist Martin Feldstein blamed all of Detroit’s problems on the unions, writing that the basic reason the Big Three can’t compete: “is labor costs imposed by union contracts.” He said if Congress gives the Big Three a loan, it must require “that the unions accept reductions in wages and benefits to levels that allow the firms to compete with imports and with non-union U.S. auto firms. The trustees of retiree benefits should be required to accept reductions in those benefits.”

They want the unions broken. They want retirees’ benefits slashed and union workers’ wages and benefits cut, which, of course, will enable the foreign auto makers – whose U.S. plants are non-union – to reduce their wages. It’ll be an all-American race to the bottom, rather than the preferable opposite, where workers and retirees are treated with dignity and respect for their hard labor.

None of those conservatives, however, is calling for Citigroup’s Charles O. Prince III, who took down Citigroup at a cost of untold billions to taxpayers, to return his $1.7 million pension, office and car and driver.

Unlike Citigroup and the other Wall Street banks, which have their very own inside-the-beltway apologists in the form of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to argue their case before Congress, the Big Three CEOs had to appear before Congress to plead for themselves.

There, legitimately, lawmakers grilled them about flying to the hearings in expensive private jets and about their multi-million dollar compensation packages. Still, none of the lawmakers has asked Citigroup’s CEO, Vikram S. Pandit, to take $1 for next year’s compensation, as they did the auto executives. Nor have they asked any of the CEOs from the nine banks that shared $125 billion in bailout money in October to sell their private jets, as they did the auto executives.

Conservatives also argued that the Big Three should be left to die because in a free market, that’s what happens to poorly operated companies offering inferior products.

Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said, for example, “I do not support the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to reward the mismanagement of Detroit-based auto manufacturers.”

Shelby made this accusation while part of the Congress that ran up the largest federal deficits known to man and allowed Paulson to broker a deal to sell troubled Wachovia bank to troubled Citigroup – a bank that so far got two bailouts, the first of which arriving within weeks of the failed Wachovia marriage.

Shelby, of course, has a lot to lose if Michigan does well. His home state of Alabama gave tax breaks to foreign car companies Mercedes-Benz, Honda and Hyundai to locate factories there – hardly a free market approach.

So, like many conservatives, he twists reality to suit his circumstances. He’s right that American car companies made mistakes. In October, GM’s sales were off 45 percent from the year before, Chrysler 35 percent and Ford 30. But he’s wrong about that being a result of mismanagement alone, well, unless he thinks his precious foreign car companies made the same mistakes. Toyota was down 23 percent, Honda 25 and Nissan 33 for the same month.

And if aid denial is based on bad products, Wall Street definitely should be the first refused. Its firms built and sold what are now being called “toxic securities,” products so defective that they took down banks, the U.S. economy and international financial stability – creating the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Now that’s mismanagement for you!

When the representatives of blue collars went to Congress hat in hand, lawmakers insisted that to get loans automakers would have to present viable business plans. Congress didn’t impose similar conditions, however, when Bernanke and Paulson went to Congress seeking grants for reckless white collar firms.

In fact, they gave $125 billion to nine big Wall Street banks in October, contending the direct infusion of money would melt frozen credit. It didn’t. The firms apparently didn’t lend the money, and the deal didn’t require them to. There’s a viable business plan for you!

Paulson and Bernanke gave insurance giant AIG $85 billion. And when that didn’t work, they forked over more until it all added up to $150 billion. Now, it’s not clear that will be enough to resolve AIG’s problems. Sen. Jon Kyl, the Republican from Arizona who voted for the Wall Street bailout, didn’t demand a viable business plan for AIG or Citigroup, yet said this about the auto industry request: “There’s no reason to throw money at a problem that’s not going to get solved.”

This year, as Wall Street’s recklessness destroyed the American economy, a million Americans lost their jobs. It’s no wonder no one is buying cars. It’s not just that they can’t get credit. It’s also that they don’t have money to spend or they’re afraid to spend the money they have.

Some of those furloughed had been on Wall Street. Citigroup announced recently it would cut 52,000 jobs by early next year. But of the million jobs lost so far, 100,000, or one in ten, have been auto workers or employees of auto suppliers. Unemployment in Michigan is 9.3 percent – while in the rest of the nation it is 6.5.

Just like Paulson who couldn’t see that Citigroup was too weak to buy Wachovia, the conservatives intent on denying the Big Three loans are shortsighted. They don’t see that 2.3 million jobs in and dependent on the auto industry could be lost. They don’t see the effect of slashing the wages and benefits of people who get their hands dirty for a living.

It would mean even more mortgage foreclosures and even more credit card debt unpaid to those struggling banks. It would mean the Big Three defaulting on the $100 billion they owe to those weak banks and bondholders, some of which is secured, some not.

It’s the big circle of economic life. If Congress spits on the autoworkers and the millions whose jobs depend on the Big Three, the lawmakers may find themselves using more and more taxpayer dollars to scrub new blood off Wall Street.

William Greider

By Willaim Greider

National Affairs Correspondent, The Nation

The swindle of American taxpayers is proceeding more or less in broad daylight, as the unwitting voters are preoccupied with the national election. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson agreed to invest $125 billion in the nine largest banks, including $10 billion for Goldman Sachs, his old firm. But, if you look more closely at Paulson’s transaction, the taxpayers were taken for a ride–a very expensive ride. They paid $125 billion for bank stock that a private investor could purchase for $62.5 billion. That means half of the public’s money was a straight-out gift to Wall Street, for which taxpayers got nothing in return.

These are dynamite facts that demand immediate action to halt the bailout deal and correct its giveaway terms. Stop payment on the Treasury checks before the bankers can cash them. Open an immediate Congressional investigation into how Paulson and his staff determined such a sweetheart deal for leading players in the financial sector and for their own former employer. Paulson’s bailout staff is heavily populated with Goldman Sachs veterans and individuals from other Wall Street firms. Yet we do not know whether these financiers have fully divested their own Wall Street holdings. Were they perhaps enriching themselves as they engineered this generous distribution of public wealth to embattled private banks and their shareholders?

Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, raised these explosive questions in a stinging  letter sent to Paulson this week. The union did what any private investor would do. Its finance experts vetted the terms of the bailout investment and calculated the real value of what Treasury bought with the public’s money. In the case of Goldman Sachs, the analysis could conveniently rely on a comparable sale twenty days earlier. Billionaire Warren Buffett invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs and bought the same types of securities–preferred stock and warrants to purchase common stock in the future. Only Buffett’s preferred shares pay a 10 percent dividend, while the public gets only 5 percent. Dollar for dollar, Buffett “received at least seven and perhaps up to 14 times more warrants than Treasury did and his warrants have more favorable terms,” Gerard pointed out.

“I am sure that someone at Treasury saw the terms of Buffett’s investment,” the union president wrote. “In fact, my suspicion is that you studied it pretty closely and knew exactly what you were doing. The 50-50 deal–50 percent invested and 50 percent as a gift–is quite consistent with the Republican version of spread-the-wealth-around philosophy.”

The Steelworkers’ close analysis was done by Ron W. Bloom, director of the union’s corporate research and a Wall Street veteran himself who worked at Larzard Freres, the investment house. Bloom applied standard valuation techniques to establish the market price Buffett paid per share compared to Treasury’s price. “The analysis is based on the assumption that Warren Buffett is an intelligent third party investor who paid no more for his investment than he had to,” Bloom’s report explained. “It also assumes that Gold Sachs’ job is to protect its existing shareholders so that it extracted from Mr. Buffett the most that it could…. Further, it is assumed that Henry Paulson is likewise an intelligent man and that if he paid any more than Mr. Buffett–if he paid $1 for something for which Mr. Buffett would have paid 50 cents–that the difference is a gift from the taxpayers of the United States to the shareholders of Goldman Sachs.”

The implications are staggering. Leo Gerard told Paulson: “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 a$125 billion for securities for which a disinterested party would have paid $62.5 billion. That means you gifted the other $62.5 billion to the shareholders of these nine institutions.”

If the same rule of thumb is applied to Paulson’s grand $700 billion bailout fund, Gerard said this will constitute a gift of $350 billion from the American taxpayers “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.”

Is anyone angry? Will anyone look into these very serious accusations? Congress is off campaigning. The financiers at Treasury probably assume any public outrage will be lost in the election returns. I hope they are mistaken.

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

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

Protestors disrupted a convention of mortgage financers in San Francisco this week, storming the stage as former Bush advisor Karl Rove spoke, heckling bankers with bullhorns, and badgering a panel with demands for a foreclosure moratorium.

Fear and frustration compelled ordinary citizens to harangue the green-visor set at their normally-staid annual meeting. Middle class Americans are losing their jobs and their homes and their hope while watching Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson spend their tax dollars to bail out the infinitely-wealthy on Wall Street whose reprehensible risk-taking caused the country’s financial crisis. The middle class want their piece of the American pie.

Congress is trying to dish it out in the form of a second stimulus package that would extend unemployment insurance and food stamps and create jobs through programs such as highway construction projects.

Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin oppose it. They’re running around the country with caricatures of Joe the Plumber and Joe Sixpack, pretending the GOP ticket represents the best interests of the working class and small business owners. It’s all false rhetoric and no real action. McCain and Palin object to intervention for anyone other than the wealthy, for whom they plan to enshrine tax cuts; for overfed CEOs, for whom they believe the $700 billion bailout was justified, and for themselves, for whom they believe the Republican National Committee appropriately opened its purse to purchase haute couture wardrobes, hair stylists and makeup artists.

McCain wants to brand a socialist S on Barack Obama although both voted for the bailout plan under which the U.S. government is nationalizing banks.

Unlike McCain, however, Obama is a man of the people and believes not in socialism but in the religious concept of everyone serving as their brothers’ keepers.  This is how he explained it in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention:

“What — what is that American promise? It’s a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have obligations to treat each other with dignity and respect.
It’s a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.
Ours — ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.
Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who’s willing to work.
That’s the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation, the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper.
That’s the promise we need to keep. That’s the change we need right now.”

That philosophy has great appeal with unemployment at a five-year high of 6.1 percent, with the poverty rate rising to 12.5 percent in what is supposed to be the richest country in the world; with 47 million without health insurance; with 1 million homes lost to foreclosure in the past two years and another 1.5 million in the process, and with the chronically ill across American skipping medications because they can’t afford them, as the NYT reported this week.

Because this philosophy is popular, Palin and McCain are trying to channel it, to steal it just as they did the “change” slogan, to try to make Americans believe that they would best serve the middle class. The problem is that everything they do belies their claims.

Sarah “Sixpack” Palin definitely has an elitist eye for clothing, hair styling and makeup. She spent $150,000 of Republican National Committee money on designer duds for herself and her family since accepting the nomination on Sept. 3. That’s three times the annual income for a typical American family. If she doesn’t shell out another dime, she’ll have spent $2,400 a day on clothing between the convention and the election. The vice presidential candidate’s taste includes a $2,500 Valentino Garavani jacket from Saks Fifth Avenue that she wore to the convention.

In addition, she and McCain decided their most important advisor, the one they would reward with the highest salary in the first two weeks of October as the stock market crashed, was Sarah Palin’s makeup artist. Her earnings for proper Palin powdering were $22,800 for two weeks, nearly twice the salary McCain and Palin gave their second highest paid staffer – their chief foreign policy advisor. They paid him $12,500, just $2,500 more than the $10,000 they ponied up for Palin’s hair stylist, whose compensation was fourth highest. The total for Palin’s hair and makeup in two weeks: $32,800.

While you’re scrimping and saving and shopping at Costco to prevent foreclosure of your home, just remember what Palin told CNN reporter Drew Griffin about providing a stimulus package to help the middle class: “But now that we’re hearing that the Democrats want an additional stimulus package or bailout package for what, hundreds of billions of dollars more, this is not a time to use the economic crisis as an excuse for reckless spending and for greater, bigger government and to move the private sector to the back burner and let government be assumed to be the be all, end all solution to the economic challenges that we have.”

So, for Palin, great big government is okay to bail out Wall Street fat cats, but not to help the middle class. Palin’s knee-jerk Republican “let-the-private-sector-solve-it” attitude shocks the consciousness after the indiscretion of the private sector just landed this country in financial crisis. We’re not inclined to trust them, frankly, Ms. Palin.

McCain said the same, backing the bailout for the reckless on Wall Street, and damning attempts by Democrats to help those on Main Street – of course, all the while dragging up the image of Joe the Plumber and contending he’s the guy’s advocate.

The ticket clearly lacks both introspection and economic expertise. McCain said it himself last year – that he was no authority on the economy.  By contrast, a person with some degree of economic proficiency, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, this week endorsed additional fiscal stimulus, saying it was appropriate now because the economy is likely to be weak for several quarters. In addition, economic expert and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said this week that additional government spending now – for a stimulus package – is appropriate, particularly for infrastructure improvement, which would provide real value and create jobs.

Though McCain and Palin clearly don’t understand, it’s time for everyday Americans to share in the American pie. At a rally in Florida this week, Obama talked about how the policies of the Bush administration have shrunk the pie and permitted the wealthy to grab the few remaining crumbs. He told he crowd he has no desire to reapportion the pie, as McCain keeps accusing him wanting to do – as a socialist, you know. Also, Obama objects to the McCain-Palin policy of continuing to feed the rich all of the crumbs, which is particularly evident in the GOP tax plan.

Obama told the group his goal is to expand the pie to ensure that all Americans get a piece. The crowd responded with a spontaneous chant of, “We want pie!”

That’s what is going on in America. That’s why protestors accosted mortgage bankers at their California convention. The middle class won’t stand for the rich wolfing down all of the pie anymore.

Robert Borosage

By Robert L. Borosage
Co-Director Campaign for America’s Future

Focused on the election? Might be a good idea to watch your pockets at the same time. Here’s a glance at what’s happening to the Wall Street bailout.

Hank Paulson is, no doubt, the most impressive of the Bush administration cabinet members, (admittedly not a high bar.) He made hundreds of millions on Wall Street, ascending to be the head of Goldman Sachs. Now, as Treasury Secretary, he has brought in colleagues from Goldman to help manage the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street banks that are in trouble, including Goldman, and… Wait one minute. Doesn’t something ring false here? Hank Paulson no doubt is honorable, but even he has conflicted interests.

When the bailout bill was before Congress, a number of outside groups — including the Campaign for America’s Future which I head — pushed hard for the bailout to be managed by an independent agency, with an empowered board that included independent representatives of workers and consumers. Whatever the form of the bailout — Paulson’s initial demand for $700 billion left that undefined — it was vital that the transactions be accountable to more than once and future bankers.

And know we know why. After initially proposing to buy toxic securities from the banks at inevitably elevated prices, Paulson sensibly decided to follow the British model and inject capital directly into the major banks in exchange for equity. $125 billion is going into the first nine — Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of New York Mellon and State Street Corporation. This plus a guarantee of new debt over the next three years is designed to reassure other banks of their solvency, and hopefully get them to resume lending to one another and to businesses.

But Mr. Paulson didn’t exactly cut a great deal for taxpayers. He didn’t get the terms that Warren Buffett demanded, putting up a lot less cash, to invest in Goldman Sachs. And as the New York Times editorial complained, he made government a passive investor, leaving in place the boards and the directors that led their banks into crippling losses.

He made no demands that the banks begin lending again, instead of just hunkering down, girding for future losses. And remarkably — unlike the British — he didn’t demand that the banks stop paying out dividends to shareholders. Nor is it clear that bank regulators will perform the triage needed, merging and purging the banks of excess capacity.

That failure is likely to be very costly to taxpayers and very generous to the very folks who led us into this mess. In a New York Times op ed, David S. Scharfstein and. Jeremy C. Stein show that, if paid at the current levels, the dividends will redirect more than $25 billion of the $125 billion to shareholders in the next year alone. One in five dollars will go out the door, and thus be unavailable to plug the large capital hole on the banks’ balance sheets.

Will those dividends be paid? Most likely, since the directors and officers of the nine banks are leading shareholders. Scharfstein and Stein estimate their personal take will amount to $250 million in the first year, nothing to sneeze at.

Worse, Paulson does nothing to curb the bloated compensation levels that characterized Wall Street in the days of debauch. Jonathan Weil of Bloomberg News shows the effect. Morgan Stanley, for example, gets $10 billion in taxpayers, dollars. Yet this year it has racked up $10.7 billion in employee compensation — the vast majority not yet paid out — even as its stock market value plummeted lost 34.7 billion since the beginning of the company’s fiscal year. With taxpayers help, Morgan Stanley may well pay those bonuses.

Weil reports that the ” five families of Wall Street” — Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Sterns — lost about $83 billion in stock market value from the start of the 2004 fiscal year. At the same time, they reported about $239 billion of employee compensation. For every dollar of shareholder value destroyed, the employees pocketed almost three. And that was before they got taxpayer money.

No one doubts that the bailout is needed to prop up the global economy. But under Paulson’s plan, we may end up, in Weil’s words, “throwing money at an industry that pays too many people more than they’re worth, to perform services the world has too much of already.”

What’s needed is an independent agency with summary powers and an independent board, to work with the FDIC and other agencies to sort out the solvent banks from the broke, those that need to be saved from those that should fail. And, as in the Chrysler bailout, a suspension of dividends to shareholders until the government has been repaid.

Now maybe Paulson is making the best choices possible given the extent of the crisis. He’s got more information and is far better banker than the rest of us. But with $700 billion in taxpayers’ money at stake, surely it would be wise to have an independent board that can hold him accountable.

Dean Baker

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

Okay, as we all know now that almost everything about Joe the Plumber is a lie. He doesn’t own a plumbing business and apparently is not even licensed as a plumber, but he does raise a legitimate concern about “spreading the wealth around.” The only problem is that in this country, when the government spreads the wealth around it usually means redistributing it upward.

That is certainly the case with the hundreds of billions of dollars being used to bail out the banks. The public has a real interest in keeping the banking system functioning. It has zero interest in subsidized the pay checks of wealthy bank executives or enriching the bank’s shareholders, which Secretary Paulson is now doing.

There is no question about what is going on here. The public is providing massive subsidies to the country’s major banks. The terms of the bailout were far more generous than what the banks could get from the private market. As a result, banks that might not have survived otherwise, or at least would have been forced to make serious cutbacks, can now keep operating as they had been.

This means that their high level executives will continue to draw salaries in the millions or tens of millions of dollars. It also means that the shareholders will continue to receive dividends.

This was not inevitable. Paulson could have imposed serious pay caps on executive compensation. In Germany, the banks that are getting government money can’t pay their executives more than 500,000 euros, about $680,000. The United Kingdom also limited executive compensation as part of its bailout.

In addition, the banks in the UK are prohibited from paying dividends as long as they have public capital. This makes sense not only as a punitive measure, but it will also help them to build up the capital they need to stay in business.

It has sometimes been argued that the healthy banks would not take part in a bailout under such conditions. Let’s see.

Suppose we apply the compensation limits/no dividend bailout rules, and then give everyone the option to opt in or out. Those taking the opt-out route will not benefit from the government’s extension of deposit insurance nor will they be able to count on access to the Fed’s discount window. My bet is that no banks go this route, but if any do, there will be plenty of investors happy to short their stock, assuming the government allows it.

But, Paulson went the bank welfare route. Joe the Plumber and everyone else should be very upset about this method spreading around the wealth. The top executives at the big banks will be getting the equivalent of several thousand years of TANF checks for a mother with two kids. And, unlike the mother receiving a TANF check, the bank honchos inflicted serious damage on the economy.

The big question is, which candidate is opposed to this sort of spreading around the wealth?