Senators to Paulson: Bailout Funds Are For Lending

November 10, 2008 RSS Feed Print

The issue of how banks should use their TARP funds is really starting to heat up. On Friday, Democratic Senators Robert Menendez, of New Jersey, and Charles Schumer, of New York, sent the following letter to Treasury Secretary Paulson. In it, the lawmakers expressed concerns about banks using TARP funds to acquire healthy banks.

The use of TARP funds to help finance acquisitions became a point of controversy in PNC’s recent deal to acquire the struggling National City. And House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, has also raised concerns about banks using bailout funds for purposes other than lending.

Look for this issue to become increasingly prominent as lawmakers come back to Washington, D.C.

Here is the letter from Menendez and Schumer:

Dear Secretary Paulson:

In light of recent and disturbing reports about the Capital Purchase Program, we are writing to express our concern about its implementation. While we support efforts to thaw the credit freeze that has gripped our markets, we believe such efforts should be focused on inducing financial firms to offer more loans to businesses and individual Americans. These loans must not be used to acquire healthy banks, hoard in their coffers, or pay shareholder dividends.

When Congress authorized the Capital Purchase Program through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the expectation was for banks to use capital infusions to make new loans and spur economic growth, not to use the funds to acquire other healthy banks and continue or even increase dividends to their shareholders.

We are also troubled by the fact that the Treasury Department appears to be taking a hands off approach to this issue, preferring instead to leave decisions solely up to the discretion of senior bank executives. After seeing the consequences of years of deregulation, we can no longer afford to sit back and hope that lenders do the right thing. Banks must understand that these funds aren't a gift and if they don't want to play by our rules, they don't need to cash the check.

People and businesses on Main Street are counting on banks to use this capital to free up lending, prevent foreclosures, and stimulate the economy. If used correctly, they will help students pay for college, families get auto loans, homeowners modify mortgages, and small businesses stay open and keep their employees on the payroll. On the other hand, if the money is used to acquire healthy banks and create a financial empire or to increase dividends, then this rescue package will be transformed into merely a give-away to banks, which is not in the taxpayers' best interest.

Over the past several months, the federal government has taken unprecedented steps as it risks hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in order to stabilize the financial markets and prevent further economic damage. The American people deserve to know that their money is being used to provide maximum benefit for our economy and the public as a whole and not to create banking empires or reward players on Wall Street.

We urge you to issue guidelines or best practices to ensure that the Capital Purchase Program effectively addresses the needs of Main Street and protects taxpayers. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your prompt response.

Tags:
bailout,
Robert Menendez,
Henry Paulson,
Wall Street,
Chuck Schumer

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I agree with some of the objectives of the republicans, I strongly disagree with the implementation. I think Paulson has totally mismanaged this crisis. He shows complete disregard for the market's perception of him, or his actions, and by allowing large companies to crash, has ensured that the future of America will be managed by corporations in Asia and Europe. The market is not just Wall street fat-cats, it's your street. Your pensions, your money. If you don't have investments, then your neighbours do, your customers do. What Paulson should have done was to provide a means for the American taxpayer to invest in US companies in crisis, with a phased withdrawal over 20 years, so that the taxpayer would actually earn money back, once the companies recovered.

What Paulson tends to do, however, it play hard-ball on companies whose balls are already broken. When they're on their knees, he publically gives a "Hm... don't know whether I'll save you or not". So, the market panics, the companies crash, and he buys into the assets for a bargain price. That crushes the ordinary Joe like me. All our life savings are worth the equivalent of a trip to McDonalds.

Yes, if you rescue companies, you might save some rich people along the way, but wealthy people employ a hell of a lot of normal people. So you're saving their jobs too, and their customers, and so on. And there are millions of ordinary non-rich people who either day-trade or pay into pensions, or have their 401k affected by this madness. It's affecting everything now, jobs, investment, services, everything.

This garbage about FannieMae not being supported by the government was criminal. The goverment should be sued for sitting and watching it burn. In fact, they set it alight. All he had to do was to say the right words at the right time. There should be criminal charges brought against the Treasury secretary, and an investigation into corruption. The SEC should investigate all members who voted and determine how much they profit they made by voting 'no' to the bailout, while short-selling fanniemae. And then buying it a few days later, before the 'yes' vote.

We should know why Paulson did what he did. Why it was allowed to continue. I mean, how do a few risky mortgages caused a global economic collapse, when the US has only 4% of the world's population? An average house in the UK costs about double an American home anyway. So, how does that happen?

Why are we poor? Why did I lose all my money investing in the USA? Ask your government.

Emmet of CO 12:19PM November 13, 2008

What did you expect would happen?

Even if the bail out operated as expected, it still would have shifted the losses from those that deserved them (investment banks for the most part) to those that do not (anyone subject to US Taxes).

When you start off with a bad law, do not be surprised it turns out to be even worse than expected.

of CA 7:03PM November 12, 2008

I have been saying the same thing. Who is running the show? We have to come together and seriously take the power back. This is out of hand, and we need to stop it.

J of NY 11:28AM November 11, 2008

The Home Front

The Home Front

Associate Editor Luke Mullins tracks the treacherous housing market and explains how to unload a five-bedroom McMansion or even find that dream home.

advertisement

advertisement