- Pennsylvania Among 'Terrible 10' Most Regressive Tax States
- February 4 Non-Partisan Training: HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013: HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Republican Governors Opt-In to Medicaid Expansion
- The Reports of Unions' Death Are Greatly Exaggerated
- Ask Allyson Schwartz to run for Governor
- Mind the gap: Opting Out of Medicaid Expansion Leaves Low-income Families Behind
- Jan. 14 Workshop:HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013; HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Seth Williams on Guns, Jasmine Rivera on School Closures @PFC Meetup Wednesday
- PA Revenue Strong Midway Through Year; Tax Cut Could Have Big Impact
- What to Make of the Fiscal Cliff Deal?
Remember when I said I was for the bailout? I'm still for the bailout that I said I was for. Not so sure that I'm for this bailout, though:
Treasury may capitalize banks by end of October. Buying into the banks makes no sense to me. I know that it's what lots of economists say would make more sense, but the logic of it just doesn't work for me. I think it was Nancy Pelosi who said that people shouldn't think of this is as a "bailout" but a "buy-in." When I heard it, in the early days of the bailout discussion, I thought: "Yeah, that's right!"
But buy in to the banks (and etc)?
I see three problems with buying in to the financial industry:
1) You can't directly improve the terms of mortgages. Whether the government directly bought mortgages or the securities that held them (the former is better), it could change the terms of those mortgages, giving consumers much more stability, insuring a more even flow of money back into those securities and greater stability across the board. It would be great for homeowners and the rest of the economy. If we just give banks some money, well, who knows what they will do?
2) We won't ever get our cash back, even if the securities make money.