Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Pittsplan

    Uploaded by

    tmurse
    Congressman Joe Pitts voted against the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act because it attempted to address the credit crisis in the wrong way by taking a big-government approach rather than market-based solutions. He argues the crisis was caused by government policies in the 1990s that pressured lenders to make risky home loans, and that this bill does not reform the mistakes that caused the crisis. Instead, Pitts advocates for an alternative plan focused on insuring mortgage-backed securities through risk-based premiums paid by holders, creating Fed and FDIC loan programs for failing institutions backed by sell-only stock warrants, reducing taxes to spur private capital, and reforming regulations on executive pay and credit rating agencies.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pittsplan

    Uploaded by

    tmurse
    36 views5 pages
    Congressman Joe Pitts voted against the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act because it attempted to address the credit crisis in the wrong way by taking a big-government approach rather than market-based solutions. He argues the crisis was caused by government policies in the 1990s that pressured lenders to make risky home loans, and that this bill does not reform the mistakes that caused the crisis. Instead, Pitts advocates for an alternative plan focused on insuring mortgage-backed securities through risk-based premiums paid by holders, creating Fed and FDIC loan programs for failing institutions backed by sell-only stock warrants, reducing taxes to spur private capital, and reforming regulations on executive pay and credit rating agencies.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Congressman Joe Pitts voted against the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act because it attempted to address the credit crisis in the wrong way by taking a big-government approach rather than market-based solutions. He argues the crisis was caused by government policies in the 1990s that pressured lenders to make risky home loans, and that this bill does not reform the mistakes that caused the crisis. Instead, Pitts advocates for an alternative plan focused on insuring mortgage-backed securities through risk-based premiums paid by holders, creating Fed and FDIC loan programs for failing institutions backed by sell-only stock warrants, reducing taxes to spur private capital, and reforming regulations on executive pay and credit rating agencies.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    36 views5 pages

    Pittsplan

    Uploaded by

    tmurse
    Congressman Joe Pitts voted against the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act because it attempted to address the credit crisis in the wrong way by taking a big-government approach rather than market-based solutions. He argues the crisis was caused by government policies in the 1990s that pressured lenders to make risky home loans, and that this bill does not reform the mistakes that caused the crisis. Instead, Pitts advocates for an alternative plan focused on insuring mortgage-backed securities through risk-based premiums paid by holders, creating Fed and FDIC loan programs for failing institutions backed by sell-only stock warrants, reducing taxes to spur private capital, and reforming regulations on executive pay and credit rating agencies.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    MEMORANDUM

    TO: Citizens of the 16th Congressional District of Pennsylvania


    FROM: Congressman Joe Pitts
    DATE: Friday, October 3, 2008
    RE: H.R. 1424, The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

    Today I voted against The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act because I felt it
    attempted to do the right thing the wrong way. America is facing a credit crisis. It
    needed to be addressed quickly and well. Congress has acted quickly, but it has not
    acted well.

    This crisis began in 1995 when the government began pressuring lenders to give
    mortgages to high-risk borrowers in order to increase homeownership in America. This
    created a new market for lenders who soon rushed to make as much money as possible
    by inducing people who could only afford small houses to buy large ones instead. In
    other words, this crisis began with the government botching an attempt to do something
    good. It should not have ended that way as well.

    This week, Congress had an opportunity to try again to do this correctly. Instead, the
    Senate sent the House a bill full of tax breaks for special interests, unrelated provisions,
    and only minor improvements. Instead of earning more votes by improving the bill, the
    Senate bill bought votes by adding “sweeteners.”

    The crisis we are facing is real. However, in this country I believe market problems
    should be addressed with market-based solutions. This bill is a big-government
    approach that increases the federal debt limit to $11.3 trillion, in order to create a quick
    fix. It gives unprecedented power to the federal bureaucracy. There are no reforms in
    this bill to correct the mistakes that caused this crisis. It does not address the basic
    problem. It does not adequately protect the taxpayer.

    I and a great number of my colleagues advocated for a plan focused on market-based


    asset insurance, changes to the tax code, regulatory reform, and protections for
    homeowners and taxpayers. Unfortunately, our advice was not taken.

    The bill does increase FDIC insurance limits, which should help. The Securities and
    Exchange Commission is reportedly also planning to alter the much-discussed “mark-to-
    market” accounting rules. That will also help. The bill passed today will probably have
    MEMORANDUM TO 16 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, PAGE 2

    the desired effect of encouraging markets and removing “toxic” assets that are
    “clogging” credit markets. American workers and American businesses are the best in
    the world. We will make it through this crisis, and we will return to prosperity.

    I do want you to know, however, what I and so many colleagues in Congress would
    have done if we had had the chance to offer an alternative for a vote in Congress.
    Following is a summary of provisions our alternative would have contained. I will
    continue to advocate for these actions and reforms.

    Representing you in Congress is a tremendous honor. It is also many times a


    tremendous challenge. The economic problems we face today are complex and
    difficult. Two thousand of you reached out to me over the last week to let me know
    what you thought. While calls came in on both sides of the issue, the overwhelming
    majority of you opposed this legislation. Regardless of your position, I was gratified to
    hear from so many of you. The principled arguments you made encouraged me and
    reminded me of the fundamental wisdom of our system of government. Democracy
    works.

    What the Government Should Do


    1. Create an Insurance Program
    Instead of buying assets, the Treasury should insure the bad assets of banks and
    investors by:

    1. Stabilizing Financial Markets: Require that the Department of Treasury to


    create an insurance program to guarantee losses up to 100 percent, resulting
    from the failure of timely payment and interest from mortgage-backed securities
    (MBS) originated prior to the date of enactment. Such insurance would provide
    immediate value to the securities and a foundation for which they could then be
    sold.
    2. Creating Risk-Based Premiums: Direct the Treasury Department to assess a
    premium on outstanding MBS to finance this insurance program. Participation in
    the program would be mandatory for all holders of such MBS in order to guard
    against adverse selection where only the holders of troubled assets participate. A
    risk-based premium would be assessed on those with troubled MBS to ensure
    those who have acted irresponsibly have to pay more than those who have acted
    responsibly. The premium would expire when the Treasury Secretary determines
    the fund has sufficient resources to meet any projected losses.
    3. Currently the federal government insures approximately half of all mortgage
    backed securities (MBS). We can insure the rest of current outstanding MBS;
    however, rather than taxpayers funding insurance, the holders of these assets
    should pay for it. The Treasury Department can design a system to charge
    premiums to the holders of MBS to fully finance this insurance.
    MEMORANDUM TO 16 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, PAGE 3

    2. Create a Loan Program


    Congress should work with the President, the Federal Reserve Bank, and the
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to set up an additional loan program for
    failing financial institutions that would:

    1. Grant the Fed the authority to lend to financial institutions: The Fed
    currently has $400 billion in cash that they could inject into the market place.
    This money could be infused into the market immediately and would allow banks
    to free up existing capital.
    2. Reform FDIC Regulations: Congress should authorize the FDIC to backstop the
    Fed’s loans by ensuring more capital. Additional FDIC insurance would shore up
    confidence in banks and keep people from losing their savings.
    3. Keep the Federal Government out of the market: Fed loans to failing financial
    institutions should be backed by sell-only stock warrants. Backing government
    loans with sell-only stock warrants will be allow the government to recoup its
    investment and prevent it from controlling a private institution.
    4. When the government stepped in to rescue AIG, the government made a loan at
    an interest rate similar to what most people pay on their credit cards. The
    government also received sell-only stock warrants as collateral for their loan. In
    this arrangement, AIG is able to continue meeting the needs of the market place
    while the government is in a strong position to recoup its investment.
    Additionally, bureaucrats in Washington will not be able to control AIG because
    of their sell-only stock warrant arrangement.

    3. Restructure the Tax Code

    Congress should act immediately to increase private capital in the marketplace


    by reducing taxes to critical sectors of the economy:

    1. Two-Year Suspension of the Capital Gains Tax: Immediately suspend the


    capital gains rate from 15 for percent individuals and 35 percent for corporations.
    By encouraging corporations to sell unwanted assets, this provision would
    unleash funds and materials with which to create jobs and grow the economy.
    After the two-year suspension, capital gains rates would return to present levels
    but assets would be indexed permanently for any inflationary gains.
    2. Net Operating Losses: Allow companies to carry-back losses arising in tax
    years ending in 2007, 2008, or 2009 back 5 years, generating a tax refund and
    immediate capital. Despite the presence of willing buyers, many firms with MBS
    are not willing to sell at such a huge loss. This carry-back would provide cushion
    for any such loss, making firms more willing sellers.
    3. Repatriation Infusion: Allow a repatriation window for profits earned by U.S.
    firms overseas. Such repatriation amounts would be taxed at 0 percent if
    invested in distressed debt (as defined by Treasury) for at least one year.
    4. Bank Losses on GSE Stock: Allow banks to treat losses on shares of preferred
    stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as ordinary losses, not as capital losses.
    5. Instead of injecting taxpayer capital into the market to produce liquidity, private
    capital can be drawn into the market by removing regulatory and tax barriers that
    MEMORANDUM TO 16 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, PAGE 4

    are currently blocking private capital formation. Too much private capital is sitting
    on the sidelines during this crisis.

    4. Reform Market Regulations


    The SEC and Congress should immediately act to increase Transparency,
    Oversight, and Market Reform by:

    1. Limiting Executive Compensation: Require the Treasury to write rules


    prohibiting excessive compensation or golden parachutes to executives of failed
    companies at the expense of taxpayers.
    2. Reforming the Credit Rating Agencies: Call on the SEC to review the
    performance of the Credit Rating Agencies and their ability to accurately reflect
    the risks of these failed investment securities.
    3. Modifying Fair Value Accounting (Eliminate Mark-to-Market Rule): Fair
    Value Accounting dictates that financial institutions holding financial instruments
    available for sale (such as mortgage-backed securities) must mark those assets
    to market. Currently, there is no meaningful market for mortgage backed
    securities. Asset value should not be assessed at unrealistic fire-sale prices.
    Regulators must evaluate the assets on the basis of their true economic value.
    The SEC should exercise its immediate ability to suspend fair value accounting
    standards as applied to mortgage backed securities. The mark-to-market rule
    can be suspended for six months and then replaced with a more accurate three
    year rolling average mark-to-market.
    4. Repealing Sarbanes-Oxley: Sarbanes-Oxley failed with Freddy Mac. It failed
    with Fannie Mae. It failed with Bear Stearns. It failed with Lehman Brothers. It
    failed with AIG. It is crippling our entrepreneurial economy. Many more firms
    would be able to go public if the law was repealed. It is Sarbanes-Oxley’s $3
    million per startup annual accounting fee that is keeping these companies
    private.
    5. Ending “Naked” Short Selling: In recent years the SEC has lifted restraints on
    short sellers of stock to allow “naked selling” (when a broker does not in fact
    borrow shares to deliver to the buyer) and to eliminate the requirement that short
    sellers could sell only on an uptick in the market. The SEC has temporarily
    restricted short sells on financial stocks. To prevent artificial price volatility, there
    should be no naked short sales and short sales should only take place when
    there are upticks in the market.
    6. Creating a Blue Ribbon Panel: A blue ribbon panel with representatives of
    Treasury, SEC, and the Fed should make recommendations to Congress for
    reforms of the financial sector by January 1, 2009. (This has in large part, already
    been accomplished by Treasury, which produced the “Department of Treasury
    Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure” in the spring of 2008.
    We should take its suggestions seriously)
    7. Reforming GSEs: Since Congress chartered Freddie Mae in 1938 and Freddie
    Mac in 1970, these two Government-Sponsored Enterprises have consumed a
    lion’s share of the market, undermining the housing market and jeopardizing the
    economy. Congress must learn from its mistakes by reforming these GSEs and
    limiting Federal exposure to high risk loans. Freddie and Fannie should never
    MEMORANDUM TO 16 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, PAGE 5

    again be allowed to securitize the unsound mortgages created by the greed on


    Wall Street and poor policies in Washington.
    8. Reforming CRA: In 1993 President Clinton advocated for changes to the
    Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). These proposals were adopted by 1997,
    and had the disastrous effect of encouraging lending agencies to offer
    irresponsible mortgages that people could not afford. Congress should reform
    CRA and stop encouraging irresponsible lending practices.

    5. Helping Homeowners
    Congress should implement measures to encourage responsible homeownership
    and decreased mortgage foreclosures:

    1. Tax Credits: Congress should provide additional tax credits for purchasing
    homes.
    2. Assistance to Homeowners: Provide assistance to homeowners who have
    been caught up in the current mortgage crisis and are trying to save their homes
    by extending the Cancellation of Mortgage Indebtedness Forgiveness. In a
    foreclosure proceeding or write-down of principal on a mortgage, the forgiven
    debt is considered taxable income. The “Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act
    of 2007,” P.L. 110-142, excludes debt forgiven before the end of 2009 from
    taxable income. The proposal extends this treatment for 3 years, through 2012.
    It does not extend the relief to home equity loans.

    You might also like