Nationalizing banks would mean nationalizing the banks’ losses. That would cost a ton of money. Money that congress would need to authorize. If I were a member of congress, I would gladly vote to appropriate the funds. But would the actual members of congress? You can see where doubts might creep in. Indeed, where I giving the president advice on legislative matters I would say, at a minimum, that if it’s at all possible it would be better to just keep delaying on the bank issue until the 2009 appropriations bill and the 2010 budget have both passed, lest the price tag of the banking fix drag the rest of the administration’s agenda down with it.Which is a good point. The problem is the "keep delaying on the bank issue" part, which is rapidly becoming a non-viable option. At some point the clock becomes the enemy in this game (and increasingly becomes the friend of the GOP). Obama's got one last real shot at this before Congress tells him no more money, and he has to make it count. I appreciate the situation. But if he doesn't act soon, he'll no longer have the luxury of choice.
If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed. -- Benjamin Franklin
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Costs On Plan N
Matt Yglesias theorizes the reason why Obama and Timmy The Invisible Boy haven't pulled the trigger on Plan N yet is because they know it'll cost trillions of dollars, and Congress isn't about to give that to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment