Mr. Obama has proposed eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which is fine. However, not for another two years! Let's see now: the wealthy have enjoyed lower taxes for over six years, reducing Federal income and increasing the deficit by several hundred billion dollars a year.
Even with the global financial collapse, the wealthy can afford to pay taxes, but we will be giving them two more years of windfall. With an enormous deficit this year, can we really afford to be so generous to those who need it least? Restore tax progressivity to those making over $250,000 per year, NOW!
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Bank Bailout Principles (lost)
Recently, the NY Times reported that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner had prevailed in Administration debates over the shape of the bank bailout plan. His victories included:
o reducing limits on executive pay for companies receiving federal aid
o giving banks flexibility on how they spent the money
o protecting the jobs of current executives
o preserving share value by avoiding bank nationalization
So, he appears to have succeeded in resisting calls for more government control of the banking/investment business. How does this differ from the Bush approach?
Under Bush, banks took the money, and refused to report how they may have used it. The government refused to publish a list of those which had received federal aid. Acquisitions and mergers took place, instead of business and consumer loans. Accountability was lost in the fog.
The public charade of yelling at the managers who created this mess, yields to the reality that they will keep their jobs, and much discretion in using the money.
The Administration also appears to have decided to do nothing about the Bush giveaway. Why not go after the huge bonuses (tax them at high rates?), require aid money to be passed through as loans, condition aid on replacing the directors and executives who failed, let fail those banks deemed too weak to survive, and nationalize banks which refuse to serve the public?
Mr. Geithner is not "change." He is not protecting the public interest. Mr. Obama should fire Geithner, appoint a truly progressive Treasury Secretary, and most important, listen more closely to David Axelrod: dance with the one who brought you to the party. His principles are more in tune with the change we need.
o reducing limits on executive pay for companies receiving federal aid
o giving banks flexibility on how they spent the money
o protecting the jobs of current executives
o preserving share value by avoiding bank nationalization
So, he appears to have succeeded in resisting calls for more government control of the banking/investment business. How does this differ from the Bush approach?
Under Bush, banks took the money, and refused to report how they may have used it. The government refused to publish a list of those which had received federal aid. Acquisitions and mergers took place, instead of business and consumer loans. Accountability was lost in the fog.
The public charade of yelling at the managers who created this mess, yields to the reality that they will keep their jobs, and much discretion in using the money.
The Administration also appears to have decided to do nothing about the Bush giveaway. Why not go after the huge bonuses (tax them at high rates?), require aid money to be passed through as loans, condition aid on replacing the directors and executives who failed, let fail those banks deemed too weak to survive, and nationalize banks which refuse to serve the public?
Mr. Geithner is not "change." He is not protecting the public interest. Mr. Obama should fire Geithner, appoint a truly progressive Treasury Secretary, and most important, listen more closely to David Axelrod: dance with the one who brought you to the party. His principles are more in tune with the change we need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)