Government Bails out A.I.G.
After several days of saying it would not bail out the nation's largest insurance company, A.I.G., the government bailed out A.I.G. risking $85 billion of the taxpayers' money. In return, the government got 80% of the now near-worthless stock. In other countries, when the government effectively buys (nearly) all of a company's stock, it is called nationalization. Who would have thought that the Bush-Cheney administration would go Marxist-Leninist in its waning hours? Treasury secretary Henry Paulson was clearly afraid A.I.G.'s demise would take out too many other big players and wreak massive damage on the economy. The move will be very controversial since it risks public money to protect bad investments made by A.I.G. management. The political fallout will be immense.
This nationalization poses an especially large challenge for John McCain, who is now railing against corporate greed and lack of government regulation of the financial industry. What he doesn't talk much about is how deregulation happened. It was the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and thus eliminated the depression-era walls between between banking, investment, and insurance that made this crisis possible. Glass-Stegall erected walls between banking, investment management, and insurance, so problems in one sector could not spill over into the others, which is precisely what is happening now. The primary author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was none other than McCain's economic advisor, former senator Phil Gramm (who thinks the country is in a "mental recession"). McCain fully supported the bill and has a decades-long track record of opposing government regulation of the financial industry. His new-found conversion to being a fan of regulation is going to be a tough sell as Obama is already pointing out that McCain got what he wanted (deregulation) and this is the consequence.
The Politics of Lying
Politicians have never been known for telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but generally when caught exaggerating the truth they usually stop. This year things seem to be different. For example, Sarah Palin has said over and over that she never requested any earmarks as governor. That is patently false. She requested $450 million in earmarks and got most of it. Although Congress wouldn't finance the bridge to nowhere, Palin got to keep the money anyway and spend it on other projects. When called on this, a McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers said "We're running a campaign to win." In other words, we don't care what the media think. Michael Cohen has a column in the NY Times about lying anno 2008. Ruth Marcus has one on what an economist called "the symmetry of sin." The idea is that if a reporter criticizes McCain or Palin for lying, they have an obligation to criticize Obama or Biden for lying, too. But she argues that it is not symmetric this year. Obama has been stretching the truth a little bit like quoting McCain on staying in Iraq for 100 years (which he did say) but leaving out the part where he compared it to the U.S. military presence in Germany for 60 years. In contrast, McCain and Palin have told out-and-out lies (e.g., about how Obama would raise everyone's taxes, something he never said) and repeated them even after they were pointed out numerous times.
electoral-vote.com |
