A plan must
1) give taxpayers tangible benefits,
2) be transparent,
3) be reviewable
A plan must not:
1) give anyone - especially Paulson - unlimited unquestioned power
2) have no safeguards. When you put money back into the system, and do not restrict exotic instruments that you have proved to be unable to regulate, and that have caused this problem, then you are asking taxpayers to fund yet another round of bailouts. Learn from your mistakes. You did not understand some of the instruments, or how large the market was or how much they were all interconnected thereby setting off a domino effect. Do not allow things you cannot monitor or regulate, especially when people are trying to recoup losses.
3) provide more than absolutely necessary relief to institutions who created these now "troubled assets". The relief is to stabilize the markets. The relief is to provide confidence in financial institutions. The relief is to get the financial gears working again smoothly instead of coming to a grinding halt. The objectives are the lives and livelihoods of the people and the broader economy. Making financial institutions super profitable and their executives rich beyond belief are not the objectives.
Here is Paulson's proposed plan
Here are my questions :
(the numbers refer to the sections of the plan)
2a. Define and list all "mortgage-related assets".
2a. Only Paulson determines terms and conditions when he's spending taxpayer's funds? I don't think so
2b. "without limitation"? When has unlimited power ever been the right move?
2b1) who gets hired? how much are they paid? are the same people who caused this benefiting
2b2)contracts with the same people who caused this?
2b3)the same financial institutions who caused this?
2b4)does Paulson have the supervisory capacity?
2b5)who reviews the regulations?
3) "consideration" is not good enough
4) "within 3 months" - sooner. "semi-annual" reviews are not sufficient for 700B of taxpayers funds...monthly or week
5a) what rights?
5c) he can sell, but not set the rules for the sale
6)Does "at any one time" mean its more than 700B?
7)"expenses shall be deemed appropriate"....huh?
8)"non-reviewable by any court of law or administrative agency"? If he wants immunity, then you all sort that out - the decisions must be reviewed.
And oh yes, Where is the benefit to the taxpayers?