I want to make a single point.
- New York City is a very large city that is in the United States of America. It is not, itself the United States of America.
from The New York Times:
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, recalled Mr. Bernanke telling him in a recent meeting that the growing freeze in the credit markets, spawned by troubles with shaky mortgages, meant that "the arteries are clogged," and that without action "the patient will surely suffer a heart attack."
Since we're using a medical analogy here, Senator Schumer, I need to remind you that Dr. Bernanke is amongst those who served us up all those high-cholesterol banquets in the first place. Which arteries are clogged? I think we need a second medical opinion. I think we need a third, fourth and fifth medical opinion.
So Congress will act quickly, Mr. Schumer said, but not without strict scrutiny.
So you've decided that Congress will act. You've decided that Congress will act quickly. I just want to remind you, Senator Schumer, you are a member of Congress. You are not Congress. Most of the banks and other concerns we're supposed to bail out are headquartered in New York City. This crisis affects your state more than any other. Normally this wouldn't be an issue. Hurricanes and earthquakes for the most part, don't affect every state in our country equally -- yet we allow our federal tax dollars to be used in helping the states that are damaged. In this case though, we're not talking about an act of God or Nature. We're talking about a crisis that was caused by the very people in your state you insist we're going to bail out.
I agree that Congress will probably have to act upon this. I DO NOT agree that Congress will or has to act quickly. There is a very real possibility that this can wait until after the election. If Congress possibly CAN wait until after the election, it SHOULD. You yourself, Senator Schumer, hit upon the way this could be done. You asked Secretary Paulson why we couldn't go with an emergency appropriation of (your number) $150 billion. My own out-of-my-ass number was $130 billion, so we're close. I amongst many many others found Secretary Paulson's answer wholly insufficient. Why do I get the impression that Secretary Paulson knew you were going to bring this up? Why do I get the impression you brought it up to defuse it as a possibility? Why do I get the impression you were working towards helping Secretary Paulson convince the American People that this bailout must be the full-monty $700 billion, all of it, right now, 5 weeks upstream of the most important general election in many generations? Help me out here.
If that was your intention, it didn't work. Secretary Paulson's answer was weak and vague. I can prove that. David fucking Gregory found Secretary Paulson's answer wholly insufficient (for fuck's sake!).
Here's one of my problems, amongst many, in getting my head around this whole deal. And it IS IN FACT a deal. This is not legislation. This is a deal. In the last 7 years, the problem has been a lack of enforcement just as much as it has been a lack of regulation. Many, if not most of these companies we're fixing to bail out HAVE BROKEN THE LAW. Their CEOs are GUILTY OF CRIMES. Not morally questionable practices. CRIMES. Obvious fraud. Tax evasion. Collusion. Conspiracy. Price fixing. Many more... crimes. Violations of FEDERAL AND STATE LAW. If you're going to bail comapnies out, it would be nice, for once, to investigate them BEFORE we bail them out intead of AFTER!!! If they broke the law, maybe we shouldn't bail them out.
There are two federal departments entrusted by the American People with law enforcement: The Department of Justice and The Department of The Treasury. Why, in today's hearings, did no one ask Secretary Paulson,
Question 1: In your operations persuant of this bailout, are you going to look for violations of THE LAW?
Question 2: If you find probable cause that persons or companies VIOLATED THE LAW, how will this be pursued? WILL it be persued?
Senator Schumer, Congress CANNOT act upon this quickly. There are potentially, a dozen Enrons out there. There is potentially a Keating 20. Are we going to be looking at the financial equivalent of Telecom Immunity a year from now? If you're doing your job, the only thing Congress can do quickly is an emergency appropriation of a lesser amount, $150 billion (again, your number) before the election. There are important issues that cannot be addressed within this week, next or the week after that. If you drop your suggestion of an emergency allocation instead of the full-monty without further consideration, I'M GOING TO ASSUME YOU'RE COMPLICIT in removing it from consideration!
I understand that this crisis affects your state much more (and much more immediately) than it does the country at large. Secretary Paulson has tried to convince us otherwise, that this will be the downfall of the United States of America if we don't give him the full $700 billion, now, without worrying about him enforcing the law (amongst other duties). He has failed.
As a United States Senator, you serve The United States of America. Not just The Great State of New York. I might not need to remind you of that, but I am. I'm reminding you of that. Don't suck.