E!! The True Conservative Story™

 I keep reading commentary, even in respected conservative forums, that Paulson’s gigantic bailout plan is bad, and admittedly un-conservative, but that we must do “something” and the alternative is too dreadful to contemplate.

 As Colonel Potter used to say, “Horse-hockey!”  

  Protecting the long-term value of the American dollar is more important than a quick fix.  So is teaching our bankers, traders and lawmakers that the government is not going to bail them out of future messes.  If there’s a pot of government gold at the end of every financial rainbow, what’s to stop everyone from chasing the green leprechaun again?

  Federal action is warranted, but the focus should be less on debt and more on protecting present and future capital.  If we go about this rationally and take this opportunity to promote pro-growth policies and tax reform, investors will respond to the prospect of higher future returns.  It’s that simple.

  Conservatives:  we cannot abandon our principles in times of crisis. We must remain steady at the wheel.

The following letter was sent yesterday to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson:

September 24, 2008

The Honorable Henry Paulson
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20220

Dear Secretary Paulson:

As you continue to craft a financial stabilization plan with Congressional policymakers, I wanted to once again urge you to consider a move that could be executed unilaterally by the Treasury Department: indexing the basis of capital assets to inflation for purposes of calculating gain or loss.

There is a body of legal opinion which holds that the Treasury Department has the power to define “cost basis” when taxpayers calculate capital gain or loss. To date, Treasury secretaries of both parties have chosen to define “cost” as nominal purchase price.

This creates a situation whereby an asset held for many years and later sold may generate a capital gains tax liability when much or all of that gain is purely from inflation. For example, a stock purchased in 1990 for $1000 and sold today for $1676 would face a capital gains tax liability on the $676 “profit.” But in reality, 100% of that “gain” is attributable to inflation.

If the Treasury Department were to re-define “basis” to discount the effects of inflation, it would have a timely and pertinent effect on the current financial challenges. Households and businesses would be able to sell assets, unlock liquidity, and pay a much lower level of taxes. This liquidity is badly needed by capital markets. Best of all, this can be done by you unilaterally, substituting Congressional permission in favor of mere consultation.

Sincerely,
Grover Norquist

– E!! says:  This is better than nothing, but I’d like it much more if we eliminated the capital gains tax altogether.  (Yes, I realize that is probably a pipe dream.  That being the case, Grover’s suggestion is excellent.)

I had the honor of meeting and assisting Pat Toomey last week at the Conservative Leadership Conference here in Las Vegas.  This morning, Club for Growth says/releases the following (excerpted):

Eighteen months into the credit crunch, many largely capitalized financial services firms are experiencing serious difficulties but the overall economy continues to grow.  GDP growth over the past 12 months was 2.25 percent and 3.5 percent when excluding the drag imposed by the housing sector.  Even within the financial sector, many banks are doing well.  Regional bank indices had risen significantly since the lows of last July—prior to the bailout announcement—and thousands of community banks are thriving.  It is extraordinary that a massive government intervention in the economy is considered inevitable when the economy is not even in a recession.

Indeed it is.  On what is the panic of Wall Street types based?  Could it be fear that lack of liquidity and credit in the market will affect their own bank accounts?

At the same time, socializing economic risks come at a great cost to the American economy by misallocating capital, inviting political manipulation, and putting taxpayers on the hook for possibly a trillion dollars.  Such a large takeover by the government will surely be accompanied by adverse, unintended consequences.  Already, other companies and industries are lining up at government’s door asking for their own bailout.  And if the government incurs $700 billion in debt to finance the purchase of bad bank assets, the danger that it will eventually monetize that debt and trigger dramatic inflation is very worrisome.

“Unintended consequences.”  This concept is one of the great underlying tenets of conservative thought.  The idea is that when one makes broad, sweeping changes there are always unplanned effects, and they are often worse than the problem with which you began.

Our Do Nothing Congress should, in this case, do nothing (other than what Newt said yesterday).  We ought to free things up where we can, allow the market to self-correct, and let those who must (and should) take their proverbial Lumps. 

Access to unlimited cash and credit is not a “human right,” and we should stop behaving as if it is.

Since hearing word of widespread support (Paulson, Congress and the President) for the latest, greatest Bailout I’ve been feeling increasingly dejected.  And concerned.  And angry.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has a “plan” which will “shift” $700 billion in obligations from private companies to the American taxpayer.  Apparently he sees this as the only Way and has 9,000 wizards on stand-by to make it so.  (The same Wall Street wizards that got us into this mess, no doubt?)

And evidently most members of Congress are spellbound and preparing to waft more money New York’s way.

One can only imagine what Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (the largest beneficiary of political funds from Fannie & Freddie) will dream up as he joins hands and sings Tra La La La La with Reid and Pelosi.  I’m not sure how it ends, but I’m pretty sure the working title is Nightmare on Wall Street and that we are barely ten minutes in.

Setting the typically wrong-headed Paulson aside for a moment, how is it that Bush and Congress care so little about protecting the American taxpayer?

And why all the insistence on a quick solution?  This mess was not created in a week, yet Paulson and our illustrious Congressional geniuses think they can solve it by this Thursday?  Does it not occur to anyone that we need to take a deep breath, wade in, and calmly and pragmatically work our way through our many economic and financial problems in a careful and measured manner?

As Newt blogged today (thank God for Mr. Gingrich), between the crisis of liquidity on Wall Street, the crisis of bad energy policy that transfers $700 billion a year to foreign nations, the crisis of Sarbanes-Oxley that cripples entrepreneurs/start ups and drives banks and businesses from New York to London, and the crisis of a high corporate tax rate…we are in some very deep Doo Doo.

Newt proposes a ”non-bureaucratic solution that would stop the liquidity crisis almost overnight and do it using private capital rather than taxpayer money.”  He suggests four reforms that would do the trick without the bureaucracy and additional tax burden.  I suggest you read his blog post as it is well worth the time, but in summation they are:

#1  Stop the mark-to-market rule which is forcing companies into unnecessary bankruptcy. If short selling can be suspended on 799 stocks, the mark-to-market rule can be suspended for six months and then replaced with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market. 

#2  Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It failed with Freddy, Fannie, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG. It is crippling our entrepreneurial economy. One San Jose firm told Newt they would bring more than 20 companies public in the next year if the law was repealed. It’s Sarbanes-Oxley’s $3 million per startup annual accounting fee that is keeping these companies private.

#3  Go to a zero capital gains tax like China and Singapore.  Private capital will flood into Wall Street (at no cost to Joe Taxpayer) and lead to an increase in federal revenue through a larger, more prosperous economy.

#4  Pass an “all of the above” energy plan designed to bring home $500 billion of the $700 billion a year we are sending overseas. With that much energy income, our economy would boom.

E!! endorses these proposals (a fact I’m sure Newt is happy to hear) and strongly advises against implementation of the Paulson plan which by all reasoned accounts is going to be a total Mess.

In closing, I’ll be waiting to see what McCain says and does about all this.  If he doesn’t reject the Paulson/Bush/Congressional plan and closely align himself with much of what Newt said here, I may not be able to vote for him after all.

(Note:  To those who have heard me joke that I am going to “get drunk and vote for McCain,” consider this my semi-official back-peddle…pending the outcome of this mess and McCain’s stand on things.  Let’s see how Maverick-y the self-proclaimed maverick is when it really counts.)