This post by DeLong places Paulson as more independent of the Bush Administration:
This deal seems to me to be motivated by five things:
Paulson's desire to make sure that there is no way in hell that either Fannie or Freddie can ever be adjudged insolvent according to GAAP--which would trigger all kinds of bond-market unpleasantness.
Palson's desire to make sure that there is no way in hell that either Fannie or Freddie will wind up illiquid--out of cash.
Paulson's desire to make sure that there is no way in hell that Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's stockholders profit substantially out of this.
Paulson's desire to make sure that there is no way in hell that the CBO can calculate that this deal is likely to cost the government money--if CBO threatens to so conclude, he can always up the commitment fee.
Paulson's desire to keep the options open for his successor to shape the long-term debate about how to restructure these GSEs.
'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.
I think it's worth remembering Paulson was appointed fairly late in the administration after Bush's ratings were through the floor. He is a former CEO of Goldman, and looks like a non-controversial technocrat appointment ala John Roberts on the Supreme Court, rather than the partisan specials we have become more familiar with at the Bush court. None of this is policy he set.
And now gets to be the best paid janitor in the Whitehouse, cleaning up the credit mess. He's not doing too bad. I'm a bit more critical of Bernanke because I think loose money exacerbated this whole crisis.
Give me utilitiy or give me something slightly better!
Comments