...as to why JPM and Citigroup moved their earnings up and then BAC. It was probably by insistance of Henry Paulson et al. They needed some fodder to scare up the remainder of TarPoilet paper in Sentate before the new administration comes in just in time to craft another lovely piece of legislation. But this version will new-and-improved! I hear Barney Frank has bought him a brand new pen for this one. I'm also guessing they will not be able to attach the next one to the Mental Health bill like TARP I is. Yup, a mental health bill. Why?
Karl Denninger at Market Ticker explains:
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
What is a "revenue bill"?
Legally, it is a bill that obligates the taxpayer. This is why the TARP/EESA had to be attached to existing legislation in The Senate - it was not Constitutional for The Senate to originate that bill (the Senate CAN originate other sorts of bills) because under The Constitution all revenue bills must originate in The House. Because the EESA proposed to raise revenue (indirectly; it was a bill to spend and thus obligate the taxpayer for which revenue would have to be raised) it had to originate in The House of Representatives.
Thus the game-playing by the Senate, attaching it to an existing revenue bill (the "mental health" bill) that was languishing on The Senate floor.
There was a mad rush to get something done. That was evident when Paulson delivered his version of TARP on 4 printed pages (probably double-spaced too). CONgress believed it was necessary to do this end the crisis of confidence, stabailize the financial system and stop tanks and Marshall Law from rolling into town. But most importantly it was to save the 401k's from losing more value. ``We heard the stock market speak when the bill failed to pass, this is necessary. Constituents are now calling me saying their retirement accounts are losing value and now they support the bill'' - LOL
It's time to start the "stop the next TARP-ish bailout" efforts. Banks need another $800B I'm hearing? Gee, seems like a LOT of people were saying that initial $700B was just the buy-in to this high-stakes game of poker where only the house players win. By supporting bad banks you bring down the entire system with it. Now we are the one's getting poked... ``Bank of America...Bank of Opportunity'' - Nice one Kiefer
