Bailout would take away lots of change
Commentator and economist Robert Shapiro says the $700 billion bailout is going to amass so much debt that it won't be possible for the next president to pursue some of the key programs he's promised.
Robert Shapiro (Sonecon)
More on The Economy, Commentaries, Fed. Budget/Govt. Spending, America's Financial Crisis
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
KAI RYSSDAL: Both presidential candidates have been talking tough about the economy. Not like they really had an option. John McCain said this morning he wants a bipartisan oversight committee to keep an eye on how Henry Paulson spends that $700 billion he's about to get his hands on.
At a speech in Green Bay today Barack Obama announced that he'll hire a chief performance officer to make sure the government's spending taxpayer money wisely. There is some irony here. Because amid all the uncertainty about how this bailout's going to work, commentator and economist Robert Shapiro points out that $700 billion is a whole lot of money not to have.
ROBERT SHAPIRO: Whatever we do, this bailout will use up virtually all of the resources the next president needs to bring about whatever changes he's envisioning.
That's because the government will need those resources to buy up all those devalued mortgage-backed securities and their derivatives.
The direct costs of buying up all those falling securities will come over the next several months. But any revenues the Treasury eventually recoups from selling them back to the market? That won't happen for years, if ever.
And that leaves the next president facing a deficit of $600 billion to $700 billion, maybe more.
There goes the money for President Obama to expand health care coverage, or for President McCain to cut corporate taxes or extend President Bush's tax cuts for wealthy people.
And next, President Obama may have to trade off a major push on alternative fuels against those new tax cuts for the middle class.
While President McCain may have to give up extending tax relief for dividends or the funding for his educational reforms.
Both candidates also may face a version of the dilemma European leaders faced in the 1960s and 1970s, when they gave up plans to maintain strong military spending in order to elaborate their social welfare protections.
Here, this time, the next president's promises to expand the Army may well give way to new subsidies not for poor or working people, but for the financial institutions that once presided so proudly over the global economy.
Since most of the bailout's costs should come in the next two years or so, they shouldn't constrain the new president's longer-term plans for perhaps one major initiative. That is if he still has any public support left after failing to deliver on all those other promises he's making right now.
RYSSDAL: Robert Shapiro used to be the Under Secretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration. He's now the chairman of the consulting group, Sonecon.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Chicago, IL, 09/23/2008
The government can do one thing which it hasn't focused on at all so far which is to add more controls over how these large US global corporations outsource their jobs to other countries. My fear is that with our economic downturn large corporations will use it as an excuse to export more and more jobs overseas which will further cripple our economy and may be the 2nd crisis we face. Only Obama has addressed this issue, and for this reason he has my vote. I also think this, just like the housing bust, is a bubble on the verge of popping. It is worth some serious discussion. And cutting taxes for large corporations doesn't appear to benefit our country since they still export jobs. So we aren't getting any growth back in our own country from these tax breaks we are giving them. Go OBAMA!!!
From nyc, NY, 09/22/2008
RE the 700-B story today:
True that the mission should not be called a "bail-out" since shareholders lose all?
Today, ON POINT, APR guest James Galbraith said, if I understood correctly, that the deficit-increasing rescue transactions would NOT preclude candidates' plans for spending. Somehow, health care and infrastructure repair, as Obama example, would still be possible, since dollars now allocated to bad debt would be freed up, like energy, to fund social programs. But Robert Shapiro, on Marketplace program today, seemed to say the opposite: that the 700-bill plan would wipe out funds for such spending. See quote below.
Can anyone explain? Important point for candidates to communicate. and everyone to understand in voting.
alex
Marketplace, APR, September 22, 2008:
ROBERT SHAPIRO: "Whatever we do, this bailout will use up virtually all of the resources the next president needs to bring about whatever changes he's envisioning.
That's because the government will need those resources to buy up all those devalued mortgage-backed securities and their derivatives.
The direct costs of buying up all those falling securities will come over the next several months. But any revenues the Treasury eventually recoups from selling them back to the market? That won't happen for years, if ever.
And that leaves the next president facing a deficit of $600 billion to $700 billion, maybe more.
There goes the money for President Obama to expand health care coverage, or for President McCain to cut corporate taxes or extend President Bush's tax cuts for wealthy people.
And next, President Obama may have to trade off a major push on alternative fuels against those new tax cuts for the middle class.
While President McCain may have to give up extending tax relief for dividends or the funding for his educational reforms."
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.