Does the Paulson plan offer taxpayers a fair deal?

Does the Paulson plan offer taxpayers a fair deal?

There’s justice in the jibes. Everyone agrees that something major must be done. But Paulson is demanding extraordinary power for himself—and for his successor—to deploy taxpayers’ money on behalf of a plan that, as far as I can see, doesn’t make sense.

Some are saying that we should simply trust Paulson because he’s a smart guy who knows what he is doing. But that’s only half true: He is a smart guy, but what, exactly, in the experience of the past year and a half—a period during which Paulson repeatedly declared the financial crisis “contained", and then offered a series of unsuccessful fixes—justifies the belief that he knows what he is doing? He’s making it up as he goes along, just like the rest of us.

So, let us try to think this through for ourselves. I have a four-step view of the financial crisis:

1. The bursting of the housing bubble has led to a surge in defaults and foreclosures, which, in turn, has led to a plunge in the prices of mortgage-backed securities—assets whose value ultimately comes from mortgage payments.

2. These financial losses have left many financial institutions with too little capital—too few assets compared with their debt. This problem is especially severe because everyone took on so much debt during the bubble years.

3. Because financial institutions have too little capital relative to their debt, they haven’t been able or willing to provide the credit the economy needs.

4. Financial institutions have been trying to pay down their debt by selling assets, including mortgage-backed securities, but this drives asset prices down and makes their financial position even worse. This vicious circle is what some call the “paradox of deleveraging".

The Paulson plan calls for the federal government to buy up $700 billion worth of troubled assets, mainly mortgage-backed securities. How does this resolve the crisis?

Well, it might—might— break the vicious circle of deleveraging, step four in my capsule description. Even that isn’t clear: The prices of many assets, not just those the US treasury proposes to buy, are under pressure. And even if the vicious circle is limited, the financial system will still be crippled by inadequate capital.

Bailout strategy: Fannie Mae’s Washington headquarters. US mortgage rates have plunged since the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Jay Mallin / Bloomberg

The logic of the crisis seems to call for an intervention, not at step four, but at step two: the financial system needs more capital. And if the government is going to provide capital to financial firms, it should get what people who provide capital are entitled to—a share in ownership, so that all the gains if the rescue plan works don’t go to the people who made the mess in the first place.

That’s what happened in the savings and loan crisis: The feds took over ownership of the bad banks, not just their bad assets. It’s also what happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and by the way, that rescue has done what it was supposed to—mortgage interest rates have come down sharply since the federal takeover).

But Paulson insists that he wants a “clean" plan. “Clean", in this context, means a taxpayer-financed bailout with no strings attached—no quid pro quo on the part of those being bailed out. Why is that a good thing? Add to this the fact that Paulson is also demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review “by any court of law or any administrative agency", and this adds up to an unacceptable proposal.

I am aware that Congress is under enormous pressure to agree to the Paulson plan in the next few days, with at most a few modifications that make it slightly less bad. Basically, after having spent a year and a half telling everyone that things were under control, the Bush administration says thatthe sky is falling, and thatto save the world we have to do exactly what it says now now now.

But I would urge Congress to pause for a minute, take a deep breath, and try to seriously rework the structure of the plan, making it a plan that addresses the real problem. Don’t let yourself be railroaded—if this plan goes through in anything like its current form, we will all be very sorry in the not-too-distant future.

©2008/The New York Times