The Plank

Hank Tanks


At this point it’s hard even for supporters of the
original bailout plan, like myself, to keep faith in Hank Paulson and the
Treasury. As all the papers are reporting this morning, Paulson has officially
the original plan for the congressionally approved $700
billion--namely, buying troubled assets from banks--in favor of buying stock in
banks, thrifts, and, increasingly, bank holding companies, a broad category
that includes everything from AmEx to automakers (of course, he refuses to
extend a hand to Detroit). To his credit, he appears to be considering a
to inject money into the consumer debt sector, but the details remain
to be seen.

The problem is that Paulson has yet to explain why his
game-changing moves were necessary, and he has yet to set up the mandated
oversight office that could force him to do so (for more on that little slip
up, read all--all--of this great
Washington Post piece
). What’s
wrong with buying troubled assets, and why is it better to buy stock directly? Why
bailout AIG but not GM? There are perfectly persuasive answers, even obvious ones, but
Paulson has yet to float any of them. He simply says,
haughtily, “I will never apologize for changing the approach and the strategy
when the facts change.” But he’s never explained what changed: Why did he
decide, on day one, that buying troubled assets was a bad idea, after lobbying so hard for the power to do just that? And by what
metric does he think buying stock directly is a better idea? Credit isn’t
coming unstuck, and the market continues to tank. And why is this a better move than aid to homeowners--which was an explicit, if
poorly detailed, plank in the original bill? In these times, who’s surprised
that John Boehner is the voice of reason? The House Republican leader told the Financial
, “Transparency is even more important now, given that the program
appears to have been implemented in some ways that were given little to no
discussion as Congress was being urged to pass the rescue plan.”


Unfortunately, without that transparency, the upshot is a
loss of faith in Paulson: Either he’s in the tank with banking-sector
lobbyists--who, as the New York Times
reported, have launched an obscenely
large campaign
over the last month--or he’s clueless as to the proper
response to the continuing crisis.


--Clay Risen

For more stories, like the New Republic on Facebook:

Loading Related Articles...
The Plank

More articles tagged as

Article Tools