|
Bailout Could Impact Critical Welfare Programs
By Kevin Canessa Jr.
September 26, 2008
Keywords: $700 billion bailout, Wall Street, economic crisis, healthcare, education, infrastructure, impact of bailout
The $700-billion bailout plan to rescue Wall Street may be in limbo, but there are already a series of questions from economic experts wondering whether the money could be better spent elsewhere. For the proverbial "little guy"--perhaps a subprime-mortgage holder or a small-business owner--the answer appears to be yes.
Matt Woolsey, who writes for Forbes magazine, says the economic bailout is commendable on the surface but the money could be better spent elsewhere. The effects of the bailout, he argues, could be felt in sectors other than finance for a number of years.
"It's a monster plan, but there's little choice, according to White House and Federal Reserve officials," Woolsey writes. "Though much of the money may return to the nation's coffers over time as the treasury sells off the mortgage-backed assets it will purchase, the bailout will severely limit what the government can afford to spend on healthcare, energy, infrastructure and education in the years ahead.
"Let's start with the nation's infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates our nation's bridges need $180 billion in repairs, with our rail infrastructure in need of $185 billion in maintenance. California wants to spend $40 billion for the nation's first high-speed rail network to connect Southern and Northern California," he says in the article.
Such infrastructure upgrades would positively impact the construction industry, since there would be a need for a massive number of construction workers to do the repairs and maintenance. According to Woolsey, the construction industry's unemployment numbers are 40 percent greater than the rest of the country's workers.
Beyond infrastructure issues, the money expected to be spent on the bailout could also impact healthcare spending, a major concern for the 40 million Americans who are uninsured.
Woolsey says that only a small percentage of the proposed $700-billion bailout would be needed to implement government-paid healthcare for every single American.
"Healthcare and climate change are other major concerns," Woolsey writes. "Kenneth Thorpe, a professor of health policy at Emory University, points out that for $150 billion, you could provide every American with private health insurance and create a universal automated health-information system. When you consider that the National Cancer Institute receives $5 billion a year in funding, you could multiply its budget by 10 and provide private healthcare to every American.
"McKinsey & Co., a consulting firm, estimates it will cost the U.S. economy $150 billion per year to stabilize greenhouse gases by 2030. For three years, $700 billion could pay for the cost of both healthcare plans (in case one doesn't work) and cover the cost to reduce carbon emissions."
Can the little guy recover?
Chances are that no matter what happens over the next few days and weeks with the bailout, middle-class Americans will still have to curtail their regular spending habits. And although there has been some speculation that this crisis could lead to a depression--and as much as a 25 percent unemployment rate--some economic experts say the depression symptoms aren't there.
But a positive turnaround might not occur until sometime in 2010, which would still represent the worst economic period in America since the Great Depression.
Chris Isidore, a senior economic writer for CNN Money, recently wrote about how the bailout isn't going to be enough to help the average person rebound. In fact, Jerry Howard, the CEO of the National Association of Home Builders, believes $40 billion to $90 billion more is needed for the housing market alone, Isidore says.
"Howard said as soon as Congress returns to work from its upcoming recess, his trade group will be asking for another package of between $40 billion and $90 billion directed toward the housing market," Isidore writes. "And even if the bailout package is passed and banks start lending again, the events of the past few weeks could batter already 'abysmal' consumer confidence, said Keith Hembre, chief economist with First American Funds.
"Hembre said worries about the economy, falling home and stock prices and the weakening job market will lead consumers to pull back on spending over the next few quarters," continues Isidore. "If that happens, it would likely cause cutbacks in business and government spending as well."
Click here to read the full story on MSNBC.
Click here to view a slideshow in Forbes.
Click here to read more on CNN Money.
Readers' Comments
Posted: Sunday, Oct 12, 2008
Bailout Could Impact Critical Welfare Programs
Have you forgotten about 911? A self-inflicted war that did not have to happen? Many were killed…Stock market crashing! Loans are frozen! Foreclosures at an all time high! While Walstreet receives a 700 Billion dollar buyout budget while Corporate Admin enjoy thousands of dollars soon after the buyout by treating themselves at a spa….Soldiers are continually coming home in body bags or caskets & honored with medals after they are dead! Familes all across America are grieving the loss of their loved ones! Billions of Funds Washington is spending to keep the war going!!American jobs being shipped overseas!!Small business closing!!Billions of American dollars being spent on Foreign Oil!! Educational funds are being jeopardized!!!We are in a current Recession NOW!!!Non-affordable healthcare to working class Americans…Veterans that risked their lives that are now handicapped and is not receving adequate benefits for their battle wounds/scars.The neglect of such poor hospitalization and much more. Barack is not in offfice yet & all has taken place under the Bush Admin! 4 more of this or anyone in office like him! No Way! McCain is not offering any thing different than George Bush has already given us with his dead policies and Presidency…We need CHANGE desperately…Go BARACK/BIDEN 2008!!!
Rhonda Jordan
|
Posted: Monday, Sep 29, 2008
Bailout Could Impact Critical Welfare Programs
Bush, McCain can run. But they cant hide anymore. What ever congress does to try and fix our stunning economic catastrophe needs to be done very carefully. Congress needs to take their time, and be sure of what they are doing. Whatever is done needs to be sharply focused at helping, and protecting the best interest of the ordinary Americans. In particular the vast American middle class. 700 billion dollars is a lot of the peoples money to spend to bail out a bunch of corrupt Bush loan sharks. When have you ever known any government plan, or project to only cost what the government said it would. Remember the war in Iraq. Bush and his so-called advisers said it would only cost you about 80 billion dollars. But we now know that the war in Iraq will cost you, and your children, and your grand children over a trillion dollars, and still counting. So if 80 billion can end up costing you over a trillion dollars. How much could 700 billion end up costing you. Any math wizards out there. I come up with 9 trillion...:-( My fellow human beings, just as I warned you ahead of this catastrophic economic meltdown, I must now warn you that what is ahead has the potential to be even more catastrophic than what we are going through now. The worlds geopolitical landscape has been booby trapped by the Bush McCain administration and their republican allies in congress. These booby traps are poised to spring at any time. Fortunately the Worlds Nations have been blessed with many excellent leaders (except the US) who have been careful, wise, strong, and self-restrained in dealing with the provocations, and antagonism's of the Bush, McCain administration. Barack Obama and the democrats are your best hope now. Tell your family, friends, and everyone you know to support them as best you can, and vote for them like your life, and the lives of your loved ones depends on it. Because it does. You will not survive 4 more years of Bush McCain. JACK SMITH - WORKING CLASS...
jack smith
|
Posted: Saturday, Sep 27, 2008
Bailout Could Impact Critical Welfare Programs
It is not surprising that this biil will have covert effects on the :Little Guy." I am not a political expert, but as long as I have been living and able to comprehend the political maneuvering, I have not seen a repuyblican back legislation that did not have adverse affects on the "little guy." At firs glance, it appears like a good thing, but onece you read the "fine print," and peruse the verbiage extensively, you will find all kinds of benefits for the wealthy and nothing for the working class. That is the legacy of the Republican Party.
David Thomas
|
Posted: Friday, Sep 26, 2008
Bailout Could Impact Critical Welfare Programs
We can't just sit back and do nothing, as Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the United States said, "The brave man inattentive to his duty is worth little more to his country than the coward who deserts in the hour of danger." So I am doing my small part to save my country. If you are an American citizen, now is the time for you, too, to come to the aid of our country. As I write you, President Bush is preparing to go on national television and try to convince you, with help from both Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders, that we have only two options regarding the current financial debacle: 1. Do nothing and hope we survive 2. Go $700,000,000,000 further into debt This is a blatant lie, which is, of course, what we've come to expect from the morons in Washington. There IS, however, a third option on the table, and it IS the better one. The media is not giving it any coverage, which is why I'm writing you. This whole mess is the result of a poorly written law called the Sarbanes Oxley Act, which was hastily passed in 2002 by the morons in Congress as a knee-jerk reaction to the Enron, WorldCom, and Adelphia scandals. These companies had listed the value of assets on their books at the price they thought they were worth when they bought them, but never updated the value on the books when it fell. Sarbanes Oxley didn't work because you can't cause legislate ethics. However, it does make publicly traded companies restate what their assets are worth if sold, every single day. This accounting procedure is called "MARK TO MARKETING". It's a good concept and keeps companies from having loaded balance sheets. However, it's part of what caused this mess. Merrill Lynch had $30 billion tied up in sub-prime loans with houses. But those houses didn't suddenly become worthless because Merrill Lynch couldn't sell their bonds. Since they couldn't sell them, they basically gave them away for 22 cents on the dollar. Now do you think all those houses lost 80% of their value underneath that deal? No, they didn't. But there was no market for the bonds because they're junk bonds. But at 22 cents on the dollar, it's a bargain because even if you foreclosed on every one of the houses, you'd probably get $20 billion back. The company that bought those for $6 billion got a deal. But there's no market for them, and that's where these companies are stuck. They can't sell this stuff, but accounting-wise, they've had to mark it down to market and it's frozen the marketplace. Economist Brian Wesbury has suggested a third alternative that could solve a lot of this mess, without us bailing these companies out with $700 billion of new debt. If we change don't force them to mark down to market value. and just let them hold on to the sub-primes -- a temporary change -- that'll free up the market, which is frozen right now. That one accounting rule is what made Merrill Lynch sell out. That one accounting rule is what's driving other companies into the dirt. So the simple question is: "Would you rather let them temporality change one accounting rule, or loan them $700 billion to buy out their bad paper?" Here's Brian's idea. We just extend the FHA insurance program across these sub-primes. This means that you and I are guaranteeing the lender that they're not going to lose as much, or anything, on those mortgages. I don't like guaranteeing them, but it's better than BUYING them. Instead of $700 billion in taxpayer debt, we just extend the insurance. You could probably do that for less than $40 billion. If the government insured those mortgages, they would then be marketable, could be sold, and the companies would stay afloat. And WE THE PEOPLE don't have to get into the mortgage business. WE CAN DO THIS WITHOUT going into debt $700 billion.
Lori Caldwell
|
Send Your Comments About This Article Now
©DiversityInc. Reproduction in any format is absolutely prohibited.
|
|