Monday
Oct062008
Who's to blame for Lehman Brothers bankruptcy?
The general consensus was "jail not bail" for Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld, Jr., at a hearing by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the causes and effects of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. This view was held by the Committee, panel, and Code Pink protestors (who were eventually thrown out of the hearing). Congressman Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) said, "Is this Wallstreet or a casino? Lehman did not find itself in this situation by accident. It as the unlucky draw of a consciously made gamble." Dr. Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago pointed out that by bailing out these investment banks, we are giving them incentive to gamble at the cost of taxpayers down the line.
Nell Minow of the Corporate Library said that Fuld, "intentionally surrounded himself with people who are complicit. These were people who were getting side payments from the company. They had no incentive to provide any kind of independent oversight." Minow said that by doing so, Fuld created a false idea of the value of his company. These false ideas created high leverage rates, leaving little security in times of economic trouble, and eventually the downfall of Lehman Brothers. Minow proposed a general rule be mandated to pay executives based on the value of business rather than the volume of business. Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute agreed that the only protection taxpayers have at this point is more government regulation.
Additionally, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said, "there is an apparent conflict of interest permitting Treasury Secretary Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, to be involved in these discussions on the survival of Lehman Brothers." The panel agreed it was clear that Goldman Sachs benefits from Lehman Brothers going under, due to the competitive market they're in. As long as Goldman Sachs' interest is in Paulson's pocket, Kucinich says, his role in the bailout goes "against the free market."
Nell Minow of the Corporate Library said that Fuld, "intentionally surrounded himself with people who are complicit. These were people who were getting side payments from the company. They had no incentive to provide any kind of independent oversight." Minow said that by doing so, Fuld created a false idea of the value of his company. These false ideas created high leverage rates, leaving little security in times of economic trouble, and eventually the downfall of Lehman Brothers. Minow proposed a general rule be mandated to pay executives based on the value of business rather than the volume of business. Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute agreed that the only protection taxpayers have at this point is more government regulation.
Additionally, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said, "there is an apparent conflict of interest permitting Treasury Secretary Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, to be involved in these discussions on the survival of Lehman Brothers." The panel agreed it was clear that Goldman Sachs benefits from Lehman Brothers going under, due to the competitive market they're in. As long as Goldman Sachs' interest is in Paulson's pocket, Kucinich says, his role in the bailout goes "against the free market."
Democrats In House, Senate Claim Competition Essential To Driving Down Health Costs
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or.) and Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Jim Cooper (D-Tn.) said Tuesday that infusing the health insurance market with competition would be the best way to bring down health care costs for most Americans.
“We’ve got to open up the exchanges to a broader array of people, both employers and employees,” Wyden said at a panel discussion hosted by The New Republic magazine. “That’s how we’re going to respond to people making $66,000 a year who are going to look at the [Senate] Finance Committee Bill and say that it’s not going work for [their families].”
The discussion occurred the day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that the current draft of the health care bill will include a public option with an opt-out provision for individual states. In theory, giving Americans the option to choose a government-run health care plan would drive down the costs of private insurers by creating competition. The Health Care Exchange would allow those who already have insurance to upgrade to better plans then the ones they already have using the program, further encouraging insurance companies to lower prices and raise their coverage quality standards.
“As these bills are being drafted, only ten percent of the people in America will ever be allowed to shop for any option, whether it's public or private,” Cooper said. “In other words 90 percent will be stuck with what they’ve got. So why don’t we allow people to upgrade to get a better deal?”
Cooper added, “As far as the public option is concerned, I’m for one, we can have a good one, we can have one that’s affordable for the individual family and for the system as a whole, but all this effort is for naught if we can’t get 60 votes in the Senate.”
On Tuesday, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who is often considered the one Republican who might vote in favor of health care reform legislation, responded to Reid’s announcement, saying that she would not support a bill that includes a public option. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) also announced Tuesday that he would block Reid’s plan as long as it includes a publicly funded insurance plan.
According to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the House may introduce their health care bill by the end of this week.