the LYNCH report

The Power of Clear Insight

Posts Tagged ‘government bailout

$1 Million/Day for 2,295 Years: Senate Bailout Plan…

with one comment

money-stacksThe US Senate is set to pass a so-called “bailout bill” that amounts to $838 billion. To give that some sort of perspective, you’d have to spend a million dollars a day for two thousand, two hundred and ninety-five years to spend an equivalent amount. Of course, that doesn’t include the interest which will accrue on that staggering debt.

How will this gigantic tab be paid? It’ll by paid by the US taxpayer: $6,2,36 per taxpayer, to be precise. That, of course, is on top of the $13,500 each taxpayer is already on the hook for via the original TARP money, the bailout of AIG, Lehman, et al. New total: $19,736 for each and every taxpayer, on average, plus interest.

There’s an additional downside: money invested in the government bonds to subsidize this massive spending is, of course, money which will not be otherwise invested in the economy for such things as actually spurring economic growth: for every dollar invested in a government bond, there’s one less dollar available for private companies looking to grow and expand.

The total amount borrowed for “bailout” spending to date? $2,651,797,108,408.

Auto Bailout Cost to Canadian Taxpayers…

with 2 comments

The Globe and Mail reports¹ the total cost of a so-called bailout of the “Big Three” by the Canadian government, which has committed to 20% of the US government bailout, to ultimately cost Canadians between $15 billion and $25 billion.auto-bailout

What’s that mean for the individual Canadian taxpayer?

According to Statistics Canada, there were 9,275,765 full-year, full-time earners as of 2005². That’s a pretty good proxy for the number of income taxpayers. So, let’s take the conservative figure of a bailout cost of $15 billion. That puts each full-year, full-time worker in Canada on the hook for $1,617.

Of course, if you personally believe in supporting the “Big Three”, there’s nothing preventing you from voluntarily using $1,617 of your income to either buy their products or their shares. Unfortunately, the government’s bailout proposal removes that choice from the taxpayer and forces the issue, whether any individual agrees with spending $1,617 of their income to support three private companies or not (and would perhaps prefer to spend $1,617 of their hard-earned money to bail themselves out instead)…

List of House Members Who Voted In Favor of Auto Bailout…

leave a comment »

Here’s a copy of Roll Call 690 – Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act. This lists how every member of the House voted on the bailout legislation.

Auto Bailout Votes – House

An Open Letter to Obama – Bailout Request #459…

leave a comment »

Dear President-Elect Obama and your fellow Democratic lawmakers,money-stacks

I run a rather large company. We are currently on the threshold of bankruptcy due to the “credit crisis”. This bankruptcy would cause numerous job losses, so as you can imagine, we need help.

Here’s a bit of background on our operations:

We produce a product the general public doesn’t much care for. They can find a better product from our competitors, often at a much better price.

We also pay our employees considerably more than the competition does; about 80% more, in fact.

About a third of all our sales are to our own employees, at heavily discounted prices. Since they’re paying considerably less than the general public, their decision to purchase our products distorts the competitive pressures which would normally exist and which would force us to produce products that the general public would buy.

We’ve faced substantial competition for many years now – decades, actually. But we believe in a consistent business model, to the exclusion of profitability, agile adaptibility and long-term success and viability.

We’re not exactly at the forefront of innovation, but we promise to get there. Maybe. We’ll see.

Our competitors – evil, foreign-based companies – have been moving their plants to the United States. We have countered this invasion by moving our jobs to foreign countries. There, we can overpay our workers too.

Our success is critical to the US economy. After all, just look to history and you’ll see America once had a booming horse and buggy industry. They were allowed to fail when superior competition emerged. The economy has clearly never been the same since.

We need taxpayer money, and lots of it – at the current rate we’re burning through our cash, we’ll be broke soon. We need to be able to burn through taxpayer cash too. And, frankly, if the taxpayers won’t buy our products, we think we should nonetheless take their money. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s reasonable.

As you can see from the points I’ve outlined above, there is clearly nothing wrong with our business model – the robust way in which we do business should not be measured by profitability or long-term viability; nor should the fact no lending institution or investors will lend us money to continue our business as it currently is run be taken to reflect poorly on our management decision and overall strategy. It’s just this “credit-crisis” thing that’s causing us a whole lot of grief. Without that thorn in our side, we’d no doubt be a viable, healthy company.

If you give us the money we are seeking, we’re sure it’ll all turn around – the staggering loss of market share we’ve experienced over the course of the past couple of decades is quite obviously an anomoly which will blow over in due course. Hopefully soon. Hopefully very soon.

Thank you in advance for this bailout. You’ve made the difference between all our workers being laid off and most of our workers being laid off.

Sincerely,

One of Three

Get Ready for a Rough Ride: World Wide Markets Continue to Tank…

with one comment

Get ready for an interesting Monday in the world of share prices.

Despite the high hopes attached to the US government’s various bailouts (so far totalling around $1,014,000,000,000, or about $7,546 per taxpayer, as we wrote in a previous article), the world’s markets continue to drop.

Asian markets are uniformly down, and signficantly – here’s a glimpse of Asia’s markets as at 5:50am eastern:

50am eastern, Monday Oct. 6, 2008

Asian markets as at 5:50am eastern, Monday Oct. 6, 2008

The situation is much the same in Europe. Again, courtesy Yahoo, and also as at 5:50am eastern:

50am eastern, Monday October 6, 2008

European markets follow suit. Also as of 5:50am eastern, Monday Oct 6, 2008

The herd psychology appears to be in full swing, with a wholesale migration out of the markets.

Hold tight for a bumpy ride: the more governments throughout the world bailout failing banks/insurers/etc., the more the taxpayers (read: consumers) get burdened with debt, and the farther away a recovery becomes…

Written by westcoastsuccess

October 6, 2008 at 3:16 am

List of House Members Who Voted for Bailout…

with one comment

Here’s the complete list of the members of Congress who voted in favor of the bailout bill:

Roll Call for Bailout Bill Vote

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 681

(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)
H R 1424 YEA-AND-NAY      3-Oct-2008      1:22 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments
BILL TITLE: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Yeas Nays PRES NV
Democratic 172 63
Republican 91 108
Independent
TOTALS 263 171

—- YEAS    263 —

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Fossella
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

—- NAYS    171 —

Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Bachmann
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boyda (KS)
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clay
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
English (PA)
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hodes
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Issa
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kaptur
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Salazar
Sali
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Taylor
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wittman (VA)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

How Democrats and Wall Street Made This Mess…

leave a comment »

As we previously wrote, the current crisis in the financial markets could not have happened without Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae: by guaranteeing undocumented, high-risk mortgages, Freddie and Fannie made investments in the mortgages a sure things for Wall Street.

Now, the New York Times has published an excellent background article on how Freddie and Fannie got into the position whereby they were guaranteeing these mortgages, and the fingers point to the usual suspects: with Democrats pushing Freddie and Fannie to insure ever riskier loans, under the guise of “helping” low-income, minority and high-risk applicants on one hand, and Wall Street pushing Freddie and Fannie to do the same, thereby enhancing Wall Street’s profits, the US taxpayer never stood a chance.

This could never have happened in a free market. In such a market, Freddie and Fannie would have been forced to charge insurance premiums commensurate with the risks they were assuming, not on the basis of some sort of “altruistic”, government-induced charity mission. Investors in the mortgage bundles guaranteed by Freddie and Fannie would have likewise been forced to scrutinize Freddie’s and Fannie’s ability to take on such risks. As it was, it was essentially known the government would back up Freddie and Fannie. That removed any risk to investors.

The article cites Democrats such as Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Frank Reed of Rhode Island encouraging Freddie and Fannie to take on ever more risky mortgages to support their ideological goals.

The Bush White House, which has shown itself to be more Democratic than any Democratic White House since Roosevelt (as measured by government interventionism in the economy and growth of government spending), made matters worse, by changing the lending standards applied to Freddie and Fannie, thereby allowing them to take on an additional $40 billion in sub-prime loans.

The lenders, meanwhile, threatened to take their business elsewhere unless Freddie and Fannie took ever more risky mortgages off the lenders’ books.

You can find the excellent New York Times article here.