Friday, September 26, 2008

My proposal

Paulson has a proposal. House Republicans have a proposal. They both have issues. At the end of the day, I think Paulson's is the one worth salvaging if for no other reason than I don't want the government getting into the mortgage backed securities insurance business. How any Republican can say with a straight face that the $700B bailout is "too socialist" but then support this other plan is beyond me. Here's my proposal.

Take the $700B and use it to fund the start-up of a new Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE). Yes, these are the same types of entities that Fannie and Freddie were but read on please. This company would do the following:

1) One share of stock would be issued to every taxpayer and dependent who filed return for 2007. Obviously this screws non-earners and there might need to be some mechanism for those that were unemployed for the entirety of 2007. Assuming 300 million people that works to a share price of roughly $2300M. This serves a dual purpose of functioning almost exactly like a $2300 tax rebate. The shares wouldn't be tradeable until 12/31/2008.

2) The company would be barred from lobbying congress or advertising. They will be permitted to have one congressional liason who will brief congress bi-annually on the needs of the company. This liason's contact with congress will be entirely and always open to the Freedom of Information Act. Congress will set an additional small sum aside to be used to advertise on its behalf for as long as they deem necessary.

3) Corporate salaries at the company will be limited to the salary of the highest ranking government official (~$440M the last time I checked).

4) The company would be barred from taking on liabilities in excess of 50% of it's capital. Some amount of leveraging is required for any business to function (Accounts Payable if nothing else) and I think it's better to place a low limit then to allow nothing and force them to sit on cash for operations.

5) The company's sole legal mandate is to buy and sell Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivatives, Collateralized Debt Obligations and other financial instruments. They are barred from owning common stock or preferred stock in any entity. They are barred from creating subsidiaries.

6) The board shall consist of a rolling membership of 11 people. 9 will have rolling 3 year terms with one renewal. One will be a congressional appointee and one will be an executive branch appointee. To be eligible for the board a person must own LESS than 5% and be unaffiliated with any member of management or any other board member (other then their dealings as it relates to the company). Salaries shall be one half of the corporate officer limit.

7) The company will be required to comply with all SEC and other regulatory filings. It's balance sheet will be examined for safety and soundness by the OCC on an annual basis.

This solution (I believe) solves all (or almost all) of the concerns that have been raised. Maybe someone smarter then me will see this and run with it.

--
Haikus are easy
Most make very little sense
Refrigerator

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Crazy ideas

Two crazy ideas... one political and one economic/political

Political:
What if congress had a jury? Randomly select 100 people (2 from each state) and send them to Washington and put them in a dorm for a year. Pay them $100,000 for their year of service. Keep their names secret (or at least don't advertise them). Give them the line item veto on all spending bills. If any 2 (3?, 10?) of them agree, the whole group must vote. If the majority votes against it that line item is removed from the bill pending an override by the senate (requiring 2/3rds majority). The whole thing would cost taxpayers $10 million plus room and board.

Economic/Political:
Clearly higher taxes are bad in the long run, but let's consider the behavioral response to higher tax rates in the short term. Particularly, Obama's suggestion of raising taxes on the top 5% by 2-3%.

What could the response be?
Nothing: No harm although a slight reduction in purchasing power (and therefore top end spending)
Move out of the country: Clearly negative but I think this is largely unlikely
Cheat on taxes: Always a possibility but I don't think the change being discussed is the margin at which we create a ton of law breakers.
Find ways to reduce taxable income:
  Buy real estate: This would certainly be good for the economy right now
  Buy municipal bonds: Hrmm... increased infrastructure investment? That would provide jobs
  Start new businesses: Businesses tend to have a rough 1-2 years. Particularly R&D heavy businesses. This would make those businesses slightly more affordable.

A small (<5%) tax increase on the high end MAY actually increase economic development in the short run. Particularly if there's an implicit expectation that it will be relatively short term (<5 years).

just some random thoughts.