A Common Sense Approach to the Bailout
- October 1st, 2008
- Frugality
- 4 Comments
I agree with most everything Dave Ramsey says in regard to personal finance. He’s helped thousands and thousands of people pay off their debt and reach much more stable financial footing. I wish he would give me 30 minutes to show him YNAB.
Anyway…
I received a newsletter from him yesterday: “Breaking News on the Government Bailout Plan”
It had steps each of us should take in regards to the plan. Before we get into it it, let me back up for just a second.
I’m no political scientist, economist, academic…but I’m becoming increasingly worried about the US debt load. I’m not nearly as smart as all of the people in all the rooms in Washington, but despite a lot of respected people telling me that we absolutely must get the $700B bailout plain through…it just doesn’t sit right with me. That $700B is all borrowed. We’re talking about more debt. A lot more.
A lot of families finally face their breaking point because their required obligations consume so much of their available funds. The US Government’s budget, for the most part, is not discretionary. It’s tied up in debt and other welfare obligations. We’re losing our “wiggle room”. We scream and holler about earmarks, and McCain says he’ll, “make them famous” when he vetoes the earmark spending…but that’s such a small amount compared to our much larger obligations!
Obama’s quick to point out just that. Yet at the same time he also seems very much in the direction of more overall spending, not less.
Either way, both of these guys, at least from what they’re saying right now, are not very budget-oriented.
Oh, how I wish they would all operate following Rule Two.
They’re not. And they haven’t for years. And the spending has simply skyrocketed — some of it perhaps justified — but then, as I type that I think about how you can justify pretty much anything these days.
My number one concern is the spending. Remember the family that finally can’t meet all of their required obligations? They declare bankruptcy. We don’t want to have to do that. What will happen when our creditors decide they don’t want to give us any more credit?
Why couldn’t we start allocating some funds toward paying down our national debt? I miss Ron Paul. Not that I was ever some huge supporter of Ron Paul, but his record in the house shows that he never once voted for a budget that included a deficit. That guy understands zero-based budgeting!
So there’s my brain dump on why I’ve just had this sick feeling regarding the $700B bailout plan. One side of me hears the doomsday (media) folk telling me the sky will truly fall, and my beautiful country will be destroyed, and that we absolutely must pass the bailout. It didn’t pass, so the parties started blaming each other. And I’m sure if it did pass and then didn’t work, they’d blame each other again.
The media leveraged the biggest point drop in the history of the DJIA to really toy with my emotions. Actually, I wish I would have had $3k in my brokerage account to drop in the market Monday evening, just like Flexo did (Well played Flexo! I hope you picked it up at the bottom and already pocketed profits. Annualize that return for me…it’s gotta be big).
To be honest though, the drop we saw Monday didn’t even rank as one of the top ten worst drops (percentage-wise, which is obviously a smarter benchmark) in history. But MAN! Everyone was talking about it! We were all in a frenzy. What did the market do the next day?

Now, the markets open in two minutes on the east coast, and who knows what will happen today, but did you notice the difference in media coverage on the big recovery the next day? I’m not saying the stock market has been some gleaming beacon of ROI in the past several years, but that swing down and then quite a ways back up is notable.
Why did the markets do that? They panicked, and then got about their senses, and realized they’d overreacted perhaps just a little bit.
But during that panic, we were all thinking the sky would fall and we’re thinking Oh my gosh, we have to act now or the country will crumble! and in that frame of mind, we’re supposed to decide how to fix things?
On the micro level, that’s why I tell people to have their Buffer (one month’s expenses) in place. That gives you some breathing room and prevents a panic attack when you’re right in the thick of some horrible event. In government, we like to think we have no breathing room (and in actuality, because elections are so close, the timing of all of this is great — politicians are forced to make a hard, hard decision with election right around the corner!).
But back to this spending…it’s just got to stop. We’re literally mortgaging away our capital one bite at a time. Warren Buffet said it best in his Annual Report in March of 2005:
As time passes, and as claims against us grow, we own less and less of what we produce. In effect, the rest of the world enjoys an ever-growing royalty on American output. Here, we are like a family that consistently overspends its income. As time passes, the family finds that it is working more and more for the “finance company” and less for itself.
I didn’t realize this post would be so long — it was supposed to just be about Dave Ramsey’s common sense approach to the bailout, and here I’m going on some tirade. Sorry. I only wanted to make clear what was rubbing me wrong about the bailout idea from the get-go.
As soon as I received this newsletter and read the plan, I sent it along to JLP to see what he had to say (I trust JLP’s opinion on these things and like that he doesn’t beat around the bush). He said (and I quote), “I LIKE it!”
Here’s the skinny, straight from Dave Ramsey’s newsletter:
- Read the Common Sense Fix
- Copy the text and
- Send it to your representatives and senators.
Someone please chime in here if you see a problem with this approach. I liked it. I’ll readily admit that our financial regulation system needs some serious updating, but I don’t think the time to do it is now when we’re all in panic mode. I don’t want to talk about parties or who’s to blame (as if this could all be pinned on one particular person or thing, I could name a dozen just off the top of my head).
I recognize this is probably my most political post I’ve ever written, but it honestly doesn’t feel very political at all. It’s about budgeting, right? I mean we’re talking about our money here and we want to make sure it’s doing the job we want it to do, right?
I do hope beyond hope that we can break away from the days of spending without regard to the future obligations we’ll owe — and I’m talking about it on both the individual and government level, including everyone in between. I do hope it doesn’t take another depression to teach us that lesson.
I wholeheartedly believe in the American Dream.
If you enjoyed this post, then make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!










Chad
October 1, 2008
I’m not an economist, either, but I think there are a few holes in Ramsey’s “common sense” fix.
First, by offering FHA-ish insurance on any loan issued by a bank, as long as the bank is willing to accept the two requirements, you’re basically issuing a blank check to the bank to issue any kind of loan it wants to for anyone regardless of credit-worthiness. The bank could then simply charge large fees for people with bad credit, ensuring that the bank gets their profit, then end up rewriting the loan as required to a 6% fixed rate after three missed payments, and eventually letting the government handle the default. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal for the banks. There are a reason that current FHA loans come with so many preconditions. Making any loan eligible for that insurance is not common sense.
Second, if my loan is at 7.5% and I’m paying it regularly, and I hear that my bank has accepted this government backing, you can bet I’ll miss my next three payments. I get a no questions asked rate drop to 6%, plus an extension back to 30 years presumably. I’d be a fool to keep paying my mortgage. While that proposal may appeal to the common man, I don’t think it qualifies as a common sense fix.
Third, dropping the capital gains tax does NOT cost the taxpayer nothing. The taxes that are no longer coming in from capital gains will have to come from somewhere else. Maybe Ramsey needs a little common sense on this one.
I have some other concerns that mostly stem from my ignorance.
How do you limit golden parachutes? I think businesses are quite adept at structuring corporate compensation around any existing laws, so you’d need someone extremely well versed in this to create the language to make it happen without loopholes. Plus, is the very fact that this company is taking this government-backed insurance evidence that the executives have been failing at their jobs? If so, you can bet they’ll take their golden parachute first and let the next guy apply for the government-backed insurance. They’ll be using their own common sense on that one.
I have no idea what mark to market is, or how eliminating it for certain loan types would help, or if it really would be no cost to the taxpayers or a stabilizing force in the market. That part isn’t common sense unless it can be explained in more common terms.
Where does he get the number of $50 billion for the FHA-ish insurance he proposes? That number is just as mysterious as the $700 billion amount the current plan is proposing.
Note that in principle, I’m opposed to the $700 billion bailout plan. But if the dire predictions are accurate (which I tend to doubt), I’d much rather sock it to the taxpayer than suffer through a 1930’s depression.
Jesse
October 1, 2008
Chad, great points. I’m sure the FHA thing could be hashed out as far as details that would probably plug some of the holes you mention (and they are holes unless we get some more detail).
The capital gains tax does not cost the taxpayer any more in taxes NOW, that’s certain. Your assumption that we’d run a deficit (no capital gains tax revenue) may be valid, which means we would have to eventually pay taxes to make up the deficit.
Then you have the supply-side camp that would say removing the capital gains tax would stimulate the economy and raise so much capital that we’d actually see the tax revenue increase overall. (In principle, I’m opposed to a capital gains taxes completely but that’s a discussion for another day).
Marking to market would basically be a break for the banks on paper and while we all admit that it’s hard to imagine why the paper results matters, there’s been a lot of research to show that the paper results do matter and that they affect stock price where it’s statistically significant. The banks would be allowed to not have to take the paper losses for these horrible, stupid loans they made and the market would reward them (eh, not punish them is probably a better way to put it).
I’m not sure where he got the $50B at all.
What I like about this plan is that we go into less debt (tax deficit possibly set aside as that’s kind of an unknown), and it doesn’t feel like nearly the knee-jerk reaction we’re at now.
Vincent
October 3, 2008
Just for you information,a similar intervention has just occurred in Ireland to that suggested here, with similar points - pro and against.
It did have some interesting side effects already particularly in the international aspect.
Further information can be found here
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1014875.shtml
or any Irish news site.
One of the suggested counters to the blank check policy is to have government appointed representatives on the Bank’s board to ensure the levels of risk engaged in is managed.
The reaction to the announcement saw the four main Irish banks share price rise by between 13% and 67% depending on the bank.
Jack
November 3, 2008
Hi Jesse,
First, I love your system and can’t wait to see the mac version.
I was reading this blog on the way into work on the train and then at lunch I saw this on cnbc.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27477819.
The author claims that budget deficits don’t matter and are what people should want out of government. While I believe the theory goes that some budget deficits are needed in times of economic stress to grow the economy, I also believe there seems to be some serious flawed logic to say that huge deficits are OK. Maybe I’m just surprised at the audacity of the argument but I would be interested to here your thoughts on Cliff Mason’s article.