Will media note House GOP has proposed a plan that its own leader called a power grab?
SUMMARY: Rep. John Boehner has called Timothy Geithner's proposal to allow the government to take over nonbank financial institutions "an unprecedented grab of power," but a budget blueprint by House Republicans proposes steps similar to Geithner's plan, raising the question of whether the media, which have reported extensively on the conservative charge of a "power grab," will note the similarities.
In recent days, conservative media figures have characterized Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's proposal for Congress to pass legislation allowing the federal government to take over failing nonbank financial institutions as, in the words of Fox News' Sean Hannity, "the single biggest power grab and move toward socialism in the history of the country." Other media sources have uncritically cited such conservative claims, including House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) charge that Geithner's proposal constitutes "an unprecedented grab of power." But in the budget blueprint that House Republicans, including Boehner, released on March 26, they proposed "a process to address insolvent institutions that stops throwing good money after bad into failing institutions and places insolvent ones into temporary receivership." The Republicans' proposal raises the question of whether the media, which have reported extensively on the charge that Geithner is engaging in a "power grab" by asking Congress for this authority, will note that the same House Republican caucus that made the charge is now proposing to give the federal government similar authority.
In nearly 1,000 words, a CNN.com article on the Republican proposal does not note this. Despite quoting Boehner's criticism of the president's budget as "completely irresponsible," the article does not mention that the proposal Boehner is pushing includes a plan for federal authority that he previously denounced.
In prepared remarks for his March 24 testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, Geithner stated: "The Administration proposes legislation to give the U.S. government the same basic set of tools for addressing financial distress at non-banks as it has in the bank context," including the ability for the government to act "as a conservator or receiver":
As we have seen with AIG, distress at large, interconnected, non-depository financial institutions can pose systemic risks just as distress at banks can. The Administration proposes legislation to give the U.S. government the same basic set of tools for addressing financial distress at non-banks as it has in the bank context.
The proposed resolution authority would allow the government to provide financial assistance to make loans to an institution, purchase its obligations or assets, assume or guarantee its liabilities, and purchase an equity interest.
The U.S. government as a conservator or receiver would have additional powers to sell or transfer the assets or liabilities of the institution in question, renegotiate or repudiate the institution's contracts (including with its employees), and prevent certain financial contracts with the institution from being terminated on account of the conservatorship or receivership.
This proposed legislation would fill a significant void in the current financial services regulatory structure with respect to non- bank financial institutions. Implementation would be modeled on the resolution authority that the FDIC has under current law with respect to banks.
Before taking any emergency action, the Treasury Secretary would need to determine that resolution authority is necessary upon the positive recommendations of the Federal Reserve Board and the appropriate federal regulatory agency.
Likewise, the House Republican budget blueprint -- signed by Boehner -- states that "our plan supports a process to address insolvent institutions that stops throwing good money after bad into failing institutions and places insolvent ones into temporary receivership":
Republicans believe the best antidote for market turmoil is certainty and economic growth. We oppose the trend toward national ownership and control of financial institutions. The government's interventions to date have generated market uncertainty and an aversion to private lending and investment. The government's strategy needs to minimize government interference in the management of companies and provide a clear exit strategy.
The Republican budget ends this failed bailout strategy by refusing to assume additional spending for bailouts. In addition, our plan supports a process to address insolvent institutions that stops throwing good money after bad into failing institutions and places insolvent ones into temporary receivership. Our plan would first perform a thorough stress test to determine whether a financial institution is healthy, troubled, or insolvent. For troubled firms, some portion of the firm's toxic assets would be insured, but such insurance would be self-financed by the industry itself in the form of premiums. For insolvent firms, either the FDIC or a Resolution Trust Corporation-type entity would restructure these firms in receivership by selling off their assets and liabilities, reappointing private management, while protecting depositors -- a process that builds off of Washington Mutual's arranged sale last year.













The Reboobulicans 18-page "budget" is a joke. Are they kidding? Talked about Paulson's 3-page bailout "request" and this, this 18-page, what? Every fiscal conservative Republican, including Joe Scarborough, ESPECIALLY Joe Scarborough, should get a load of this. Hey Joe, finally, a budget you can live with. 10% tax cuts for that make under $100,000 and 25% tax cut for those that make more.
LisaLV711, Joe Scarborough is just 'heartbroken' that the Republicans did "NOT" release a "true" Republican Budget yesterday. Now poor Joe won't be able to spew out how great this Republican Budget (with "NO" deficit or spending numbers) is for our Country. Oh shoot, does this mean that Joe is left speechless? Uh oh, Joe won't do his rantings about his Republican Party - something gotta be wrong here. Hmmm.
While it is true that the internets are as tricky in finding the truth as it is hard to hear much truth from our corporate owned media...
It is still a good thing that the internet is still here... more or less protected by net neutrality laws...
Click this LINK for a story that begins to explain the nature of corporate owned media... why this is likely the begining of their wanting to take away the internets from us as well...
So that the truth is potentially stolen?
Ok... so the link is to a story on FoxNoise... but I think by now we can all agree that FoxNoise is and always has been .... a propaganda machine for rightwing ideology!
CaptFoster2, You wrapped this up "greatly" and straight to the point. Thanks.
The Republican Budget? You mean that non-specific piece of garbage Boehner couldn't explain yesterday?
its not that he couldn't w explain it......per sae
it was more that he had more important business than trying to explain it.
like meet with the other Sith Lords and figure out how they can take back their power.
Will media note House GOP has proposed a plan that its own leader called a power grab?
Of course "NOT", the media does not want to be accuse (by Republicans, Rush, and Matt Drudge) of attacking the House GOP by pointing out the similarities? Btw, Chuck Todd just aired a news story of how members Rep. John Boehner, Rep. Eric Cantor, and others had received PAC donations from Financial Institutions that received money from Tarp (Bailout) Funds. Uh oh.
sniff sniff......do i smell hypocracy in the air?
the neo cons really nuts it up yesterday making everyone think the budget was coming and here it was only a blueprint and they didn't even have any figures or even the slightest detail.
of course they are saying it will come next week. ill be sure to be watching c-span to see if that happens
Sorry MMFA, but I think you are wrong on this one. As useless as this GOP budget is, this is different that what Geithner is asking for. From the GOP budget "For troubled firms, some portion of the firm's toxic assets would be insured, but such insurance would be self-financed by the industry itself in the form of premiums. " the key words here are "insurance would be self financed". If they pay insurance, then this proposal is similar to the way FDIC handles failed banks. I do not think their plan for insurance premiums is easily workable, but regardless, I think MMFA is wrong on their claim.
well if the firms would be going down that road....doesn't that mean they would have to come up with the money to ensure they make payments on those premiums?
absolutely they would have to pay the insurance. I don't think Geithner is asking for them to pay insurance, just let them be taken over and get fixed. All I am pointing out is there is a difference between the two proposals. They are not exactly the same, since when you pay insurance there is a certain expectation you could be "power grabbed". I just think the insurance amounts are probably untenable.