Blog

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
USW International President

Japan, no economic small fry, challenged China last month. The conclusion of the dispute is a cautionary tale for countries confronting China about currency manipulation.

In September, Japan seized a Chinese trawler captain after his boat collided with two Japanese Coast Guard ships near some East China Sea islands claimed by both countries.

Immediately afterward, China “coincidentally” detained four Japanese employees of Fujita Corp., charging them with filming in a restricted military area. When Japan proposed a prisoner swap, China upped the ante instead — halting shipments of rare earth minerals to Japan. China controls 93 percent of the world’s rare earths, which are minerals essential for manufacturing high-tech and energy-efficient products, from cell phones to wind turbines.

Japan caved, releasing the Chinese captain unconditionally. Suddenly, China rescinded its restriction on rare earth exports to Japan and released three of the four imprisoned Japanese nationals, ending the dispute one captive ahead of Japan.

This incident confirmed China as a burly international tyrant. The caution for countries attempting to negotiate with China is to avoid Japan’s mistake, which was single-handedly contesting the giant. For America, that means seeking an end to China’s currency manipulation by simultaneously pursuing every option the United States has, including  formally naming China a currency manipulator,  imposing tariffs on imports from countries that undervalue currency and creating a community of allies to campaign together to combat the illegal trade practice.

Rallying partners should be reasonably easy, as Japan, Brazil and the European Union all have exhorted China in recent weeks to allow the value of its currency to freely float on international markets.

Like the United States, each has acted unilaterally. Last week, EU finance ministers confronted Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao at a European-Asian economic summit in Brussels. Wen rejected their demands for China to speed appreciation of the yuan in relationship to the euro.

Also last week, Brazil doubled a tax it charges foreigners who purchase Brazilian bonds.  This was an attempt to slow speculation that has increased the value of its currency, the real, by 39 percent against the dollar over the past 22 months.

A day later, Japan announced it would lower its benchmark interest rate and purchase $60 billion in government bonds and securities, both actions designed to lower the value of the yen, which would cheapen its exports.

The Swiss tried intervening in the market in 2009 to hold down the value of its currency, the franc, but failed. Singapore, Thailand, India and Canada have considered it.

So far, America has just attempted to persuade China to stop undervaluing the yuan – a practice that artificially suppresses the price of Chinese exports while at the same time artificially raising the price of imports into China from America and other nations.  China’s deliberate currency undervaluation accounts for a significant part of America’s massive trade deficit with China.

Last spring, the United States asked China politely to allow the value of its currency to float up. As the United States awaited China’s answer, the U.S. Treasury delayed issuing its semi-annual foreign exchange report in which it could name China as a currency manipulator, then initiate a formal response.

China replied June 19 that it would allow the yuan to float on international currency markets. Treasury then released its report – which, no surprise, failed to list China as a currency manipulator. Since China’s announcement, the yuan has increased in value less than two percent – this for a currency believed by many economists, including the conservative C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, to be undervalued between 25 and 40 percent.

Annoyed with China’s failure to keep its pledge and angry over unfair trade gutting 2 million jobs from the body of the American economy over the past decade, Congress reacted just before its recess. With massive bi-partisan support, the House passed a bill that would allow the Commerce Department to impose tariffs on imports to counter the effects of currency manipulation. If passed by the Senate and signed by President Obama, it would expand the definition of improper government subsidies to include manipulation of currency to gain trade advantages.

Afterward, just nine days before the next Treasury report on currency manipulation is due on Oct. 15, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, in a speech at the Brookings Institution, offered thinly veiled criticism of China’s persistent manipulation:

“When large economies with undervalued exchange rates act to keep the currency from appreciating, that encourages other countries to do the same. . . This sets off a dangerous dynamic.”

In rebuffing the European Union’s request for revaluing, the Chinese prime minister claimed allowing the yuan to appreciate too quickly would bankrupt Chinese factories as their prices rose to uncompetitive levels, and the resulting exodus of unemployed workers to the countryside would provoke social unrest.

No one wants that. Workers everywhere applaud the rise of millions of Chinese citizens out of abject poverty. But increasing the value of the yuan will benefit Chinese workers at the same time as it begins to balance currencies worldwide. An appreciated yuan effectively increases Chinese workers’ wages.

By deliberately undervaluing its currency, the government of China is waging a stealth trade war against the rest of the world. Independently, the United States must protect its economy, but to reign in this international outlaw, America also must secure the help of a posse.

***

Leo W. Gerard also is a member of the AFL-CIO Executive Committee and chairs the labor federation’s Public Policy Committee. President Barack Obama recently appointed him to the President’s Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. He serves as co-chairman of the BlueGreen Alliance and on the boards of the Apollo Alliance, Campaign for America’s Future and the Economic Policy Institute.  He is a member of the IMF and ICEM global labor federations and was instrumental in creating Workers Uniting, the first global union.

David Sirota

By David Sirota
Newspaper columnist, radio host, bestselling author 

 Washington’s favorite term these days is “moral hazard.” Though this buzz-phrase may seem like a complex and even intimidating idea, most of us, whether consciously or not, understand the principle because it’s basic common sense.

Applaud your kid for punching another kid — rather than grounding him — and you’ve created a moral hazard that means he’ll probably punch other kids in the future. Give your dog a treat — rather than a scolding — after he urinates in the house, and the moral hazard you’ve engineered makes it likely you’ll soon be cleaning up even more sallow stains on your rug.

In short, without consequences — or worse, with rewards — for wrongdoing, there is an incentive to do wrong. That’s moral hazard.

To date, the national discussion about this concept has revolved specifically around financial moral hazard. And, as evidenced by trillions of dollars in public loans, guarantees and subsidies given to speculators to cover their massive losses, leaders in both political parties have no interest in preventing financial moral hazard — despite stern press releases insisting the contrary.

By rewarding rather than punishing Wall Street for losing irresponsibly risky bets and by holding out the promise of similar bailout rewards in the future, politicians have incentivized even more irresponsible risk-taking for years to come.

But financial moral hazard is only half the story. The other half is political moral hazard — the mother of all other moral hazards. Consider, for instance, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. He’s the top regulator who not only sowed financial moral hazard with the Fed’s post-meltdown bailouts, but openly admits that as the crisis developed, his Federal Reserve “should have done more — we should have required more capital, more liquidity (and) we should have required tougher risk-management controls.” 

Firing Bernanke would tell other regulators that there are consequences for negligence. Instead, President Barack Obama rewarded Bernanke with re-nomination and thus manufactured a pernicious problem. 

As economist Dean Baker says, just as bailouts create a financial moral hazard giving speculators no incentive to avoid excessive risk, Bernanke’s re-nomination creates a political moral hazard whereby regulators “will not have an incentive to do their jobs properly (because) there are no consequences” for failure. The Democratic Congress, of course, could reject Bernanke’s nomination for being “the definition of moral hazard,” as Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky correctly noted.

But that seems unlikely, considering how many Democrats have been aggressively embracing moral hazard. 

When Senate Democrats ratified Obama’s nomination of New York Fed chief Tim Geithner as treasury secretary, they rewarded yet another shill who also fell down on the regulatory job. When those same Senate Democrats considered the nomination of Gary Gensler to head the agency regulating derivatives, they could have rejected him for championing derivatives deregulation as a Clinton official and then cashing in as a Goldman Sachs executive.

 Instead, Democrats backed his nomination and effectively told every other Gary Gensler-like parasite that misguided actions and corruption don’t prevent future promotion.

And let’s be fair — it’s not just Democratic politicians who are creating political moral hazard. Many Democratic pundits, activists and voters continued cheering on Obama while he stuffed his administration full of Wall Streeters — and many of these rank-and-file voices attacked as disloyal those progressives who raised questions. 

That told Obama he faces few consequences — and even defense — from his own base for promoting those who engineered the economic meltdown. 

The only open question is whether the public at large becomes complicit, too. Come election day, if there are no consequences at the ballot box for the politicians — Democrat or Republican — who legislated bailouts, supported these appointments and are now working to undermine proposed Wall Street reforms, then America will have created the biggest moral hazard of all.

*** 

David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books “Hostile Takeover” and “The Uprising.” He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.

Dean Baker

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

Most of the economists and pundits who could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble are telling us that the United States desperately needs for the Chinese government to keep buying its debt. This crew of failed analysts argues that without the support of the Chinese government, interest rates in the United States will rise, choking off the recovery. In reality, the decision by China to stop buying U.S. government debt may not harm the economy’s recovery, but it could be devastating to the recovery efforts at Citigroup and other basket case banks.

The basic logic is simple. China’s central bank has been buying up huge amounts of dollar-based assets for the last decade. Their purchases include short and long-term government debt, mortgage backed securities and to a lesser extent private assets.

The Chinese central bank’s purchases have two effects. First, they help to keep interest rates low. This supports economic growth by keeping down the interest rate on mortgages, car loans and other borrowing that boosts demand.

The other effect of China’s purchase of dollar-based assets is that it keeps down the value of its currency against the dollar. This is the famed currency “manipulation,” that draws frequent complaints from politicians. Of course, it is not exactly manipulation. China has an explicit policy of keeping down the value of its currency against the dollar. It is not buying up hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. assets in the dark of night. It does it in broad daylight in order to keep its currency at the targeted rate.

Suppose China stopped buying up U.S. government debt. Interest rates in the U.S. would rise, which would have some negative impact on growth. Of course, the Fed could try to offset this rise in rates by simply buying more debt itself. It has already been buying debt and it could simply buy enough to replace the lost demand from China. This would leave interest rates largely unchanged.

Suppose that the Fed doesn’t intervene and lets interest rates rise. This will have some negative impact on growth, but there will also be a very positive side from China’s decision to stop buying dollars. The dollar would fall in value against China’s currency. This would make Chinese goods more expensive in the United States, leading U.S. consumers to purchases fewer imports from China and more domestically produced goods.

A lower-valued dollar would also make our exports cheaper in China. That would allow us to export more to China.

The net effect would be an improvement in our trade balance, bringing back some of the 5.5 million jobs that we’ve lost in manufacturing over the last decade. In fact, since nearly all economists agree that the current trade deficit can’t persist for long, China would be helping the country bring about a necessary adjustment if it stopped buying up dollars.

Even the rise in interest rates would have a positive effect since it would allow for the completion of the deflation of the housing bubble, with house prices finally settling back to their trend levels. This drop in house prices will be a painful adjustment, but there is no way to avoid it. Bubbles cannot be sustained indefinitely and we are better off allowing the housing market to return to normal so we can get back to a path of sustainable growth.

While decision of the Chinese to stop buying dollars might be good for the economy, it is likely to be disastrous for Citigroup and the rest of the basket case banks. If interest rates rose, then the value of the government bonds they hold would plummet. If the interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds goes from the current 3.5 percent to a still low 4.5 percent, then the banks will have lost 8 percent on their holdings. At a 5.5 percent interest rate, a rate that would still be far below the average for the 90s, the loss would be 15 percent. Citi and the other basket cases could not endure these losses in their current financial state.

This could be why we see shrill pronouncements from the likes of the Washington Post editors, and other “experts” who couldn’t see an $8 trillion housing bubble, that we need the Chinese government to keep buying up our debt. We absolutely do not need the Chinese government to keep buying U.S. debt and would almost certainly be better off if it stopped tomorrow. Citigroup and the other big banks do need the Chinese government to keep the money flowing if they are to have a chance of getting back on their feet. And, we know where the sympathies of the Washington Post’s editors and other “experts” lie.

***

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.

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

A decade or so ago, some states gave welfare recipients food stamp debit cards. Welfare mothers could use them to buy groceries with plastic, just like virtually everybody else in the check out line. Plastic made accounting easier for clerks because the debit cards failed to function for excluded items like cigarettes and alcohol.

That’s what America needs for Wall Street. When bankers get money from the $700 billion bailout called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), they should receive it on plastic. A TARP debit card would restrict bankers’ spending. TARP plastic would fail to function if bankers tried to use it for excluded items like $18 billion in year-end bonuses, private French-manufactured jets and $35,000 inoperative toilets.

TARP debit cards are required because Wall Street’s wizards of finance have shown repeatedly they can’t or won’t control their own spending.

These are the guys who bankrupted their own financial institutions with unrestrained risk-taking. Then they went bawling to Congress for a bailout that was supposed to free up credit for the rest of the country. Not true to their word, the bankers didn’t extend credit, and businesses and municipal governments across the nation suffered the ugly consequences: that being, of course, unemployment. In the last quarter of 2008, more than 1.5 million Americans lost their jobs – the highest number in more than a quarter century.

Still, after causing all that devastation, and asking those same Americans to clean it up, Wall Street’s bankers don’t understand that they are on the dole. They’ve behaved as if their banks made profits, as if they had a credit card, not a big fat IOU to the American public.

Let’s start with the bonuses. The very financial institutions that already have taken $350 billion in taxpayer dollars to prevent their collapse turned around and gave away more than $18 billion in bonuses to employees. The average bonus was $112,000.

By contrast, the Social Security Administration reported that in 2006, the most recent year for which it has statistics, the average non-Wall Street American’s wages for an entire year’s work totaled $37,078.

Still, the Wall Streeters pouted about their bonuses. Of 900 surveyed by eFinancialCareers.com, a job search Web site, 46 percent said they thought they deserved more.

And no wonder. Look what their bosses get. The financial services industry pays its CEOs more than any other, an average of nearly $19 million in 2007, according to a study by Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute. Think about 2007. That was one year before Wall Street crashed, taking the country down with it. And its CEOs were making $19 million while overseeing the bankrupting of the system.

The bankers are all claiming none of those bonus bucks they paid out at year’s end came from their TARP funds. But let’s look at it this way. Lehman Brothers didn’t get a TARP bailout. It failed in September, and its workers left the building with their belongings in boxes. None got a year-end bonus. If the U.S. taxpayers had permitted any one of the institutions that got tens of billions in TARP money to go bankrupt, their workers would be in the same shape as Lehman’s – carrying cardboard boxes not big fat bonus checks.

Of course, there’s also the in-your-face bonus behavior of John A. Thain, the former Merrill Lynch chief executive who spent $1.2 million renovating his personal office including that just-for-show toilet and a $1,400 trash can. Thain decided to hand out between $3 and $4 billion in bonuses while Bank of America was struggling to take over the failing Merrill with the help of billions in TARP welfare.

Thain tried to defend the bonuses by saying they are an essential tool banks use to keep their best people. Jon Stewart, host of “The Daily Show,” provided the only reasonable response to this assertion: “You don’t have ‘best people!’ You lost $27 billion! Do you live in Bizarro World?”

Yes. Yes, he does. This is a guy who asked the Bank of America board to give him a $10 million bonus in December after Merrill, the company he directed, lost $15 billion that quarter – for a grand total of  $27 billion in one the year.

Though Bank of America originally received $25 billion in TARP welfare, after Thane’s third quarter losses, it had to return to the taxpayers of America for $118 billion in government loan guarantees and an additional $20 billion in TARP welfare to complete the purchase of Merrill.

Bizarro World is right.

John A. Thane and his ilk, who blithely spend more on decorative toilets for their offices than middle class families can scrape together for a year of college tuition, need a rude awakening.

More than just the debit card, these guys ought to experience the humiliation of standing in a welfare line.

For some reason, when bankers get in trouble, the treasury secretary and the chairman of the Security and Exchange Commission have been running up to New York to huddle in weekend-long secret meetings in those fancy Wall Street offices with decorative toilets to solve their problems by handing them billions in taxpayer money.

No wonder those bankers act so entitled.

Let them drag their sorry lack-of-assets down to Washington, D.C. and stand in line and beg for taxpayer bucks in tawdry public offices like other welfare recipients must do.

When and if they qualify, hand them TARP debit cards that forbid expenditures on bonuses and $1.2 million office renovations for CEOs. Go ahead with President Obama’s plan to limit to $500,000 the salaries of CEOs who receive TARP welfare, but make sure that those wise guys can’t find sneaky ways to circumvent those restrictions with bonuses that come in the form of restricted stock, for example. Otherwise, CEOs will just be buying cigarettes with their taxpayer-funded TARP debit cards.

And then taxpayers, who despise the notion of welfare queens, will demand Congress “discredit” and dethrone the kings of Wall Street.

Dean Baker

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

Hold onto your wallets. The bankers are coming bank for more money. They burned through the $350 billion that we gave them in the first round of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and they are worried that even the second $350 billion will not be enough money to keep them solvent. The selective leaks from Treasury tell us that the banks will need far more money to cover their bad debts.

The latest story is that the banks want to sell us their bad assets at above market prices, which was the original plan that Treasury Secretary Paulson proposed, except the banks want to push off their junk on an even bigger scale. In one version, the government would set up a Resolution Trust-type corporation (RTC), like we did with the bankrupt Savings and Loans in the 80s, which would hold all the garbage and then gradually resell it to the private sector to recover a portion of what the government paid.

This is a reasonable course, except there is one big difference between what we did with the S&Ls in the 80s and the leaked plan being floated. The S&Ls were taken over by the government and then resold to the private sector. These were bankrupt institutions that were put out of business. The stockholders were wiped out, which is what is supposed to happen to stock holders when their company goes bankrupt.

But this is not what happens in the plan being discusses. In this plan, the taxpayers just do the banks the great favor of paying above market prices for their junk so that we can relieve them of the burden of their past mistakes. The taxpayers get to eat the losses and the bank executives and their shareholders go on their merry way.

These folks are not market fundamentalist types. The Wall Street view of the world, and apparently the view of at least some people in the Obama administration, is that the government always is there to help a bank or banker in need.

The idea that we would give one more penny to this crew that has wrecked the economy should make taxpayers furious. There is a legitimate public interest in keeping the banks operating; a modern economy needs a well-operating financial system. But, there is zero public interest in rewarding shareholders and overpaid banks executives.

These executives bankrupted their banks and brought the economy down with them. They belong in an unemployment line not collecting multi-million dollar paychecks in their designer office suites.

The obvious answer is to take over the insolvent banks, just as we did with the insolvent S&Ls. The government should form an RTC as we did in the 80s, which would dispose of the assets over time, collecting as much money as possible for the government. The bankrupt banks would be restructured and sold back to the private sector as soon as their books were straightened out. The point of the exercise is not have the government run the banks, the point is to keep the financial system running without giving even more money to the richest people in the country.

This is the only reasonable solution to the mess that the bankers have created. The other solutions are simply efforts to transfer dollars from hardworking taxpayers to overpaid and incompetent bank executives. It is hard to believe that anyone would take it seriously, if not for the enormous political power of the Wall Street gang.

It’s too bad that the Republicans’ anger over giving tax breaks to workers who did not pay income taxes does not extend to giving tax dollars to Wall Street banks who have wrecked our economy. Where are the anti-government conservatives when we need them?

PoliPoint Press, LLC.

Robert Kutner

By Robert Kutner
Co-Founder and Co-Editor of The American Prospect

Here is a fine example of why a despairing President Truman once said, “Bring me a one-armed economist.” Our quote of the day comes from Martin N. Baily, an economist at the Brookings Institution, who was once on President Bill Clinton Council of Economic Advisers. The quote, incidentally, was the centerpiece of Peter Goodman’s lead article in the Sunday New York Times News of the Week Section, “Printing Money – and its Price” — expressing alarm that President-Elect Obama’s stimulus program will over-spend and over-borrow.
Baily told the Times:

“We got into this mess to a considerable extent by overborrowing. Now, we’re saying, ‘Well, O.K., let’s just borrow a bunch more, and that will help us get out of this mess.’ It’s like a drunk who says, ‘Give me a bottle of Scotch and then I’ll be O.K. and I won’t have to drink anymore.’ Eventually, we have to get off this binge of borrowing.”

But, wait, here comes the predictable “on-the-other-hand” that drove President Truman to look for a one-handed economist. Goodman, in alarmist mode, continues disapprovingly:

“‘This is a dangerous situation,’ says Mr. Baily, essentially arguing that the drunk must be kept in Scotch a little while longer, lest he burn down the neighborhood in the midst of a crisis. ‘The risks of things actually getting worse and us going into a really severe recession are high. We need to get more money out there now.’”

What is totally unhelpful here is the Times’ use of misleading metaphors about drunks, and Baily’s sloppy and promiscuous use of the pronoun, “we.” In fact, “we” did not borrow recklessly. Many financiers speculated with borrowed money to get very rich, and the financial economy is now unraveling as their assets turn out to be worthless. The Bush administration plunged the Treasury deeper into debt so that millionaires could pay lower taxes and a needless war could be waged. The entire economy borrowed from foreign central banks to finance purchases of products that the U.S. economy no longer made at home because of a perverse trade policy. And yes, consumer borrowing increased to make up for wages that were stagnant or declining. But that is not an undifferentiated “we” in the sense of thee and me. Mainly, it is a “we” made up of the rich, the powerful, their political enablers and their perverse policies.

So now that “we” are collectively up a creek, what exactly should we do? First, the rest of us need to take back our democracy from the tiny elite we that got us into this predicament. And in deciding what course to pursue, let’s appreciate that Baily’s left hand is much wiser than his right one: the government needs to spend a lot of money, so that the collapsing private economy does not end up as Great Depression II. When recovery comes, we can get the budget closer to balance. But if we attempt fiscal austerity in a severe recession, depression is all but guaranteed.

However, en route to a sensible stimulus program, President Obama will need to hack his way through a forest of elite nay-sayers like the Times article. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander (TN) said of a proposed stimulus package in the range of a trillion dollars, “I don’t even want to think about a number that big.” The President-Elect will face almost wall-to-wall Republican opposition.

Others contend that government is just not capable of spending large sums efficiently in short order. Infrastructure spending is debunked as taking too long to conceive, plan, and execute. “It’s actually very hard to spend $700 billion quickly,” New York Times columnist David Brooks argued. “If you’ve got a tiddlywinks hall of fame, they’re going to fund that thing.”

In fact, state and local governments and school districts are likely to suffer a revenue shortfall approaching $200 billion by next year. All the federal government has to do is write a check to cover that amount, and not a single policeman, fire-fighter, teacher, or first-responder need be laid off; not a single human service office closed; and not a single public project deferred.

These are not new projects that take time to conceive and plan. This is about preventing layoffs and shutdowns of existing public services. And Washington should also help non-profit social service agencies that are reeling from cuts in charitable giving and foundation losses as well as declining local government aid.

Some housing projects take a while to conceive. But according to Anne Gelbspan, a Boston non-profit community developer, finance for “shovel-ready” affordable housing projects has dried up in the current crisis. That’s because Congress foolishly structured our non-profit housing system to depend on tax credits for private financiers–who are now too traumatized to lend. If Washington substituted direct lending, these projects could move forward.

The federal government could also usefully spend money subsidizing mortgage rates on starter homes and on refinancing mortgages at low interest rates so that people at risk of foreclosure could keep their homes.

And even if universal health insurance is too heavy a lift for Obama’s first hundred days, part of the stimulus could go directly to community health clinics, which are already stretched to their limits.

An emergency infusion of federal cash could make public universities affordable again, and increase the value of Pell Grants. It’s far better to have young people attending classes (and not graduating saddled with huge debts) than to have them clogging unemployment rolls.

Another easy way of raising purchasing power is a temporary cut in the payroll tax. That’s a quick 6.2 percent after-tax raise for all workers. To qualify, businesses would have to resist the temptation to cut wages or employee benefits.

Still other doubters worry about increased deficits rekindling inflation. A loss of confidence in the value of the dollar, warns the same Peter Goodman in the Times, “would force the Treasury to pay higher returns to find takers for its debt, increasing interest rates for home and auto buyers, for businesses and credit-card holders.

Well, in case Goodman doesn’t read the Times’ financial page, the government’s current borrowing cost on 30-year bonds is currently around 2.5 percent. That means private investors here and abroad are willing to lend the federal government money for 30 years at a very low yield. Thirty years! The markets are aware that larger federal borrowing is in the offing. If markets anticipated inflation, they would be demanding far higher rates.

The government should sell lots of these bonds, and lock in a low rate. The national debt is going to have to rise for a time–the alternative is a depression–and the government might as well finance that debt cheaply. A cost of 2.5 percent for thirty years is effectively zero; it’s lower than the likely rate of inflation.

Once recovery comes, more credit will begin flowing to private investments again. There will no longer be a stampede into the safety of Treasury bonds, and government borrowing costs will rise. By then, the government can begin paying down debt, as we did after World War II.

So there is no shortage of good uses for a trillion dollar stimulus package, and no shortage of funds to finance it–and no good alternative. There may, however, be a shortage of political will. And that’s where the exceptional leadership of our new President will face its first big test.

President Obama will need to ignore the nay-sayers, and win over public opinion to the proposition that temporary use of very large deficits is preferable to a great depression. It is bizarre than any educated person thinks otherwise.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. His new best-selling book is “Obama’s Challenge: America’s Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency.”

First Published on The Huffington Post

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.

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.

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