Did the US Treasury Department just...you know...like...did they just break the law?

Plot Device

A woman said to write like a man.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,867
Location
Next to the dirigible docking station
Website
sandwichboardroom.blogspot.com
This area of Federal Law is more than just a tad bit over my head. So I'd like the opinions of some of the more Washington-fixated news junkie geeks here.

Was this ... illegal??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/09/AR2008110902155_pf.html

A Quiet Windfall For U.S. Banks
With Attention on Bailout Debate, Treasury Made Change to Tax Policy

[SIZE=-1]By Amit R. Paley[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Washington Post Staff Writer[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Monday, November 10, 2008[/SIZE]

The financial world was fixated on Capitol Hill as Congress battled over the Bush administration's request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry. In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention.

But corporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications of the document: Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion.

The sweeping change to two decades of tax policy escaped the notice of lawmakers for several days, as they remained consumed with the controversial bailout bill. When they found out, some legislators were furious. Some congressional staff members have privately concluded that the notice was illegal. But they have worried that saying so publicly could unravel several recent bank mergers made possible by the change and send the economy into an even deeper tailspin.

"Did the Treasury Department have the authority to do this? I think almost every tax expert would agree that the answer is no," said George K. Yin, the former chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional authority on taxes. "They basically repealed a 22-year-old law that Congress passed as a backdoor way of providing aid to banks."

The story of the obscure provision underscores what critics in Congress, academia and the legal profession warn are the dangers of the broad authority being exercised by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. in addressing the financial crisis. Lawmakers are now looking at whether the new notice was introduced to benefit specific banks, as well as whether it inappropriately accelerated bank takeovers.

The change to Section 382 of the tax code -- a provision that limited a kind of tax shelter arising in corporate mergers -- came after a two-decade effort by conservative economists and Republican administration officials to eliminate or overhaul the law, which is so little-known that even influential tax experts sometimes draw a blank at its mention. Until the financial meltdown, its opponents thought it would be nearly impossible to revamp the section because this would look like a corporate giveaway, according to lobbyists.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
Dunno about that or its legality, but (to ever-so-slightly derail this thread) something that had been on my radar, this "Mental Health Parity Bill" thingie got stuffed in with the bailout and passed with it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/washington/06mental.html
What does it have to do with the bailout? Nothing whatsoever. It's been an issue that's been floating around since at least 1990 that I personally know of (a petition was stuck under my nose back then for mental health parity that I signed).

What all else got passed with the bailout? Did every congressman and senator get to attach his or her own personal bill to it? Who knows?
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
What ...

Full pardons are no longer in fashion????????
I think they're too, uh, public. They might not give Bush the legacy <snort> he wants to have.

But maybe he'll pardon Colin Powell for his testimony before the UN (the testimony that Bush so strongly urged Powell to give)...
 

Don Allen

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
3,573
Reaction score
845
Location
Gilman, Illinois
Hey Plot,
I have to admit I read this article on release twice and get the idea but still don't understand the full ramifications. It's extremely complicated, but YES the jist of this seems to be treasury screwed us right under the nose of congress. My gut feeling is that in the months to come some people are going to jail....
 

Plot Device

A woman said to write like a man.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,867
Location
Next to the dirigible docking station
Website
sandwichboardroom.blogspot.com
Hey Plot,
I have to admit I read this article on release twice and get the idea but still don't understand the full ramifications. It's extremely complicated, but YES the jist of this seems to be treasury screwed us right under the nose of congress. My gut feeling is that in the months to come some people are going to jail....


NEWS FLASH!!


The magnificent Rachel Maddow JUST did this entire piece on her show fifteen minutes ago! :)

Here's what I gleaned from her:

1) Back in the 1980's when predatory mergers and acquisitions (sometimes called corporate acts of robber-baron piracy) were becoming the "in" thing, some of the very strong companies were deliebrately buying up super weak and flimsy companies NOT because they truly wanted those companies but because they wanted to be able to play see-saw with their own end-of-year statements of profit-and-loss. By buying sucky companies, they could artificially jack up the yucky column of "loss" figures in order to offset the totals in the more beautiful column of "profit" figures, and then get away with paying loads less taxes for that year. So the IRS stepped in and said "No more freebie tax shelters via buying lame-o companies!" So in 1986 the IRS wrote Tax Code 382 to stop this convenient tax shelter free-for-all nonsense.

2) Ever since Tax Code 382 was put into law back in 1986, Big Business has been crying boo-hoo and trying to get it repealed, or at the very least softened somewhat. But no one had the cajones to actually do so because of how blatantly it would look like nothing but a freebie gift to Big Business (which it of course would indeed be). So all efforts to battle Tax Code 382 have failed every year for the past 22 years.

3) When the September 2008 Bail-Out happened, part of the crisis being addressed included the "fact" that money needed to be loosened up in the private sector, AND there was a need for all these failing banks full of toxic credit to get snatched up by the healthier banks who were pretty much afraid to go near them. And so derailing Tax Code 382 looked like a neat-o-keen way to make exactly that happen, since derailing 382 would bring back the good old days of buying crapy companies for no other reason than playing more of the profit/loss see-saw game. So after 22 long years of waiting for an opportunity to scuttle 382 ... their wish came true and it was done.

4) The result is that now these big healthy and hungry banks are (in theory) more willing to go ahead and swoop down upon the toxic ones becasue they know that --if nothing else-- they'll at least get a HUGE tax break for doing so.

5) The estimated tax break that about five very big and relatively healthy banks will now collectively be gettting this year amounts (thus far) to about $140 billion.





How's that?








.
 

Rolling Thunder

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
15,209
Reaction score
5,341

Plot Device

A woman said to write like a man.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,867
Location
Next to the dirigible docking station
Website
sandwichboardroom.blogspot.com
Actually, dismantling 382 might be just the thing for the current economy.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/a-credit-crater-too-big-to-fill.aspx

"Governments are not really trying to save the system anymore," said Satyajit Das, a banking expert in Sydney, Australia. "They now realize that's impossible. They are just trying to manage the decline."


Which explains the 'bailouts'. It's better to parachute the economy to the ground versus a crash.


Scary.

And btw, I now thoroughly hate Paulson and Bernanke for allowing all of this to sneak up on us like this and essentially destroying the global economy and setting up approximatey 92% of all 6 billion of us for a lifetime of a miserable and unrelenting readjustment into a drastically downgraded standard of living the likes of which might very well cause some people to actually die either from suicide or just plain lack of food, lack of heat, and even lack of medical care. I hope they both burn in Hell for all eternity (or at least a significant portion of eternity).

Just my feelings.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Scary.

And btw, I now thoroughly hate Paulson and Bernanke for allowing all of this to sneak up on us like this and essentially destroying the global economy and setting up approximatey 92% of all 6 billion of us for a lifetime of a miserable and unrelenting readjustment into a drastically downgraded standard of living the likes of which might very well cause some people to actually die either from suicide or just plain lack of food, lack of heat, and even lack of medical care. I hope they both burn in Hell for all eternity (or at least a significant portion of eternity).

Just my feelings.
Let me ramp that up just a bit, by pointing out that this whole debacle was both predictable and preventable, and the 'fixes' they are instituting now are the equivalent of giving cough medicine to someone with lung cancer.

In the early 20's, Lugwig von Mises, the father of the Austrian school of economics, predicted the crash of 1929, and based on the actions of FedGov in response, predicted the decade-long depression that followed.

The handwriting has been on the wall since then, and in the early parts of this decade, Austrian economists started predicting another crash. Some expected the Dot-Com bubble to kick it off, but FedGov pulled a rabbit out of the hat and delayed it, so that the housing bubble became the straw that broke the economy's back.

You've seen the videos of Peter Schiff, nearly laughed off the channel in 2006 and 2007 when he predicted these problems. During the Republican primaries, Ron Paul was also nearly laughed off the stage during the Republican primaries when he pointed out that all the topics being discussed were relatively minor, and the real issue that needed to be faced was the economy.

Remember, it's not simply Paulsen and Bernanke. There are 545 people in DC charged with the country's well-being, and save for a very few voices, not one has raised an alarm, or proposed treating the cancer instead of the cough.
 

Rolling Thunder

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
15,209
Reaction score
5,341
I hadn't heard of Schiff until recently but I've been reading his articles. I agree with some of his points, but others seem more like armchair quarterbacking.

If Obama gave him a position in his administration, one where Schiff could put his ideas into motion, would he do just that? The implications of being responsible for the outcome might change his POV.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
I hadn't heard of Schiff until recently but I've been reading his articles. I agree with some of his points, but others seem more like armchair quarterbacking.

If Obama gave him a position in his administration, one where Schiff could put his ideas into motion, would he do just that? The implications of being responsible for the outcome might change his POV.
I wasn't totally convinced of Austrian economics either, until I really dug into the matter. I mean, sound money? No cranking up the presses when things get slow? Government actually having to live within its means? I took macroeconomics in school, and was well-indoctrinated in how critical it is that government be able to fiddle with the dollar to keep us out of a great depression, round two. Guess what, we've been lied to.

History has literally thousands of examples of fiat money. NONE has ever maintained its value over time; they all lose purchasing power, although a primary function of money is as a store of value. Only a few have avoided hyperinflation, and all of those are relatively young, or have been historically tied to some real good, usually gold or silver, until the last few decades.

As for Schiff acting if given the chance, I don't doubt it a bit. Until money quits being a tool for government 'policy' and once again becomes a store of value as well as a medium of exchange, the same problems will occur over and over again. History proves the case.

No doubt the prescription will be ugly, and taking the medicine even worse. In the long run, we have no other choice, except the same funny-money approach that's killed the economies of country after country after country.
 

Plot Device

A woman said to write like a man.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,867
Location
Next to the dirigible docking station
Website
sandwichboardroom.blogspot.com
Let me ramp that up just a bit, by pointing out that this whole debacle was both predictable and preventable, and the 'fixes' they are instituting now are the equivalent of giving cough medicine to someone with lung cancer.

In the early 20's, Lugwig von Mises, the father of the Austrian school of economics, predicted the crash of 1929, and based on the actions of FedGov in response, predicted the decade-long depression that followed.

The handwriting has been on the wall since then, and in the early parts of this decade, Austrian economists started predicting another crash. Some expected the Dot-Com bubble to kick it off, but FedGov pulled a rabbit out of the hat and delayed it, so that the housing bubble became the straw that broke the economy's back.

You've seen the videos of Peter Schiff, nearly laughed off the channel in 2006 and 2007 when he predicted these problems. During the Republican primaries, Ron Paul was also nearly laughed off the stage during the Republican primaries when he pointed out that all the topics being discussed were relatively minor, and the real issue that needed to be faced was the economy.

Remember, it's not simply Paulsen and Bernanke. There are 545 people in DC charged with the country's well-being, and save for a very few voices, not one has raised an alarm, or proposed treating the cancer instead of the cough.

Brilliant post.

I was likewise indoctrinated into the lie of endless growth. I questioned the concept from a sheer mathematical standpoint, but was reassured via a bunch of non-answers such as: "It'll all work out in the end."

What an evil delusion.
 

Plot Device

A woman said to write like a man.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,867
Location
Next to the dirigible docking station
Website
sandwichboardroom.blogspot.com
I hadn't heard of Schiff until recently but I've been reading his articles. I agree with some of his points, but others seem more like armchair quarterbacking.

If Obama gave him a position in his administration, one where Schiff could put his ideas into motion, would he do just that? The implications of being responsible for the outcome might change his POV.


RT, did you catch this one:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120801

I also never heard of Schiff until recently. It was THIS YouTube video that introduced me to him.

A cabinet position? I don't know if Schiff even wants to go into politics. But I have been hearing good things about Austrian economics for over six months now and if Obama has at least two Austrian-school-of-thought guys at his side, I think we'll be okay.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Brilliant post.

I was likewise indoctrinated into the lie of endless growth. I questioned the concept from a sheer mathematical standpoint, but was reassured via a bunch of non-answers such as: "It'll all work out in the end."

What an evil delusion.
PD, I believe in endless growth. However, every advancement in society has come in spite of, not because of, some people's insistance that others must be controlled. Man does not advance by listening to conventional wisdom, following regulations, standing in lines, or filling out forms.

Advancement occurs in direct inverse proportion to the control exercised by those who stand athwart man's progress, yelling 'stop!' Had government been the size it is today, the first man to discover fire would have been forbidden from sharing it with others, because it was of military value, would put blanket-weavers out of business, and could be harmful to the ecology. :D

One example; there is endless energy pouring down from the sky, less than 100 miles above where you sit. But only in the last few years have governments allowed man to move toward that source unimpeded. During the 50 or so years when we should have been developing ways to capture that energy, governments the world over prevented men from seeking ways to get out there and harness that energy. Today, it may well be too late.

The evil is much greater than we can truly comprehend.

There's much more to be said, but this is not the appropriate thread, so I'll stop at that.
 
Last edited:

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
RT, did you catch this one:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120801

I also never heard of Schiff until recently. It was THIS YouTube video that introduced me to him.

A cabinet position? I don't know if Schiff even wants to go into politics. But I have been hearing good things about Austrian economics for over six months now and if Obama has at least two Austrian-school-of-thought guys at his side, I think we'll be okay.

I haven't looked closely, but at least pre-election, he had no Austrian school economists on his team. Given his belief in bigger government, I'd be very surprised if any show up. I sincerly hope I'm wrong. I've considered sending him a copy of 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazlitt. :D
The "One Lesson" is stated in Part One of the book:

the art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

Part Two consists of twenty-five chapters, each demonstrating the lesson by tracing the effects of one common economic belief, and showing that common economic belief to be a fallacy.
 
Last edited:

Dale Emery

is way off topic
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
1,429
Reaction score
311
Location
Sacramento CA
Website
dalehartleyemery.com
I haven't looked closely, but at least pre-election, he had no Austrian school economists on his team. Given his belief in bigger government, I'd be very surprised if any show up. I sincerly hope I'm wrong. I've considered sending him a copy of 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazlitt. :D

I remember being mildly impressed by Obama's economic thoughtfulness when I listened to The Audacity of Hope. I was discouraged by the economic ideas he expressed during the last month or two of the campaign (e.g. support for the bailout; repetition of the LouDobbsian phrase "shipping jobs overseas"). But since McCain was offering similarly dysfunctional ideas, that didn't sway me away from Obama.

Here's a government giveaway I'd support: A Hazlitt in every pot.

Dale
 

dgiharris

Disgruntled Scientist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
6,735
Reaction score
1,833
Location
Limbo
Damn it Don,

I agree with you until you get to the Government is evil bit.

*sigh*

You make some great points but I would argue that with the size of corporations, we need some government involvement.

The problem as I see it is not so much that the government got involved, but moreso that they screwed up and or don't keep an eye on corporations.

If corporations were to be left unchecked, we really would be the incarnations of all the evils that Karl Marx talked about. I shutter to think of what some of the companies I've worked for would do without regulation.

But tabling that aspect of it, I think you say a fair amount of truth on this subject.

Overall, I think the REAL problem is lack of accountability and visibility. Too many decisions and policies being made in the back room and snuck out in the dark of night while no one is watching.

I think that is where the real genesis of our problems come from. And in that respect, you are absolutely right, the government's actions in that regard have been horrific.

Mel...
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Mel...

Corporations are government constructs, deriving their power from the government. They are overly powerful because the government wrote rules that allow them to be.

The history of the development of corporations is worth a quick read. The Wikipedia entry is not a bad survey.

They started out with good intentions. Corporations were specifically chartered by the government to perform a specific task, and the corporation's charge was to serve the general welfare. How far we've come... and politicians made every one of the changes that make them the overly powerful beasts they are today.

Things that make ya' go hmm... :)
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
I didn't specifically say government was evil, although I regularly argue that most results of unchecked government are evil, so I can see where you get that.

I'm in good company, though. :)
George Washington said:
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.
Thomas Jefferson said:
In questions of power...let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
Did you see my post in the Proposition 8 thread about Government not doing the job they're SUPPOSED to be doing? They keep doing things they're not supposed to do, at the same time failing to do the things they're tasked to accomplish.

Evil or not, government, and in particular FedGov, is horribly broken.