Praise Jesus, the day finally arrived. In a posting I did over the weekend I stated that the problem I have with the TARP program is the possibility of these banks using the money to expand their business instead of just "solidifying" their business. It appears that the JRC feels the same way. I am sure that it is basically just the janitor in the basement that wrote the editorial but it is a bright day indeed. Hell, I will even post the whole text of the editorial.
The Phoenix, 12/08/2008
| Use taxpayer money to energize U.S. economy |
|
As the Big 3 U.S. automakers became the latest corporations to trek to the nation’s capital with outstretched palms in an effort to secure taxpayer money to bail out their failing businesses, Mick Pattinson fumed. Not about Ford, GM and Chrysler, but about an earlier congressional handout. Pattinson is president and CEO of a homebuilding company in San Diego. His company has been a customer of Bank of America for 27 years. In October, the federal government used $700 billion taxpayer dollars for equity buys into Bank of America Corp., JP Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and other financial institutions. Bank of America received $15 billion under the Troubled Asset Recovery Program. The reason for Pattinson’s anger? Bank of America Corp. used about $7 million of its $15 million handout to almost double its stake in state-owned banking giant China Construction Bank Corp., and will control nearly 20 percent of China’s second-largest bank when the deal is finalized. The November announcement indicated the investment was to help offset the effects of the global financial crisis. Pattinson does not see it that way. In an article sent around the country, Pattinson adjusted the now-famous line from “Jerry Maguire” to make his point. “People who actually create jobs only have one thing to say to the dozens of banks that received hundreds of billions of bailout dollars: Show us the money,” he wrote. Pattinson, who is also past president of the California Building Industry Association and the San Diego Building Industry Association, as well as a member of the board of directors of the National Association of Homebuilders, has reason to be angry. His was one of thousands of companies that had financing pulled in the middle of a project after Bank of America decided it longer wanted to be in that business. So, while American companies wither with no work, American taxpayer money sent to American banks ends up in China. This on top of billions already invested in the same bank for construction in Asia — all while pulling its money out of construction in America. As CEOs interrupt their grouse hunting trips to England and trudge up to Capitol Hill asking for money, American taxpayers footing the bill are told to think of the money spent as an investment in America’s future. But the Bank of America example indicates it may be an investment in other nations’ futures. Anyone Christmas shopping knows it is already difficult to find anything not made in China, mostly, or Indonesia, Taiwan, India or Vietnam as the next in a series of choices. As the American economy falters, as the stock market continues its plunge, as unemployment rates rise, Congress should not keep handing taxpayer money away without specific safeguards that the money should revitalize the American economy — not the Asian market. “Last year, when the housing crisis was just beginning its downward spiral, Bank of America started aggressively re-evaluating the property we had pledged to secure our loans. The bank told us that we would soon need millions of dollars in additional cash as collateral. “Then the bank told us it would not renew two of our loans and raised our interest rate,” Pattinson wrote. Is it too simplistic to ask that taxpayer dollars go to American workers? That’s what some economists tell Americans who question the investment strategy, but Mike Pattinson doesn’t think it’s too simplistic. And neither do we. — Journal Register News Service |
