Friday, April 3, 2009

Litle: The AIG Connection – Far Worse Than You Think

[E]verything this administration has done, every last damn thing, has been favorable to one of Wall Street’s most entrenched interest groups: the bondholders.

The bondholders, the bondholders. It’s always been about them [....] to make sure that the connected financial interests in his Rolodex don’t lose their stakes, even in cases where they oh-so-richly deserve to.

This, by the way, is why the Obama administration ruled out the nationalization option for the banks from day one.

The cleanest option, and one we called for loudly in these pages – taking over the banks, throwing out current management, selling off the assets and starting over – was no-go because too many connected players would have taken a hit if their big bond positions went to zero. 

[ Too much good stuff to quote,  see the article and scroll down a couple of screens to the meat.

First see the excellent take from wbboei which I've inserted as a Comment to this post. ]

EASY POST comment form at the bottom; no login, few comments so far.


  1. From wbboei at

    For me this article answers a number of questions, e.g.:

    1. why does Obama embrace a program whereby banks win and taxpayers lose when the presidents lawful role is to represent all of the people, not just the plutocrats? (Note: this was the assessment of a number of people, most recently a Nobel Prize winning economist.)

    2. why does Obama promote such a program when there are alternatives which would not be as costly to taxpayers or as lucrative to major financial players? (Note: bankruptcy, nationalization, guarantees, etc).

    3. why does Obama limit the parties who can bid on this bid on these toxic assets to a few large firms only? (Note: according to a recent Wall Street Journal article).

    4. why does Obama force healthy banks to accept TARP funds they do not want, on penalty of public audit, when the real problem is confined to five major US banks only? (Note: according to the article written by Fox legal analyst Judge Neopolitiano).

    5. why does Obama block independent efforts to determine how taxpayer monies have been spent, horded or wasted by these firms? (Note: his lame excuse of the Paperwork Reduction Act).

    Each of these questions may have more than one answer, but the common answer to all of them, and the truthful one is that he has some discrete group of people he is trying to [serve] at great cost to the American People. The Taipan article provides a comprehensive answer to a question which legitimate news organizations have barely scratched the surface on, and corrupt news sources like NBC, MSNBC and CNN avoid like the plague. If Obama is prepared to loot the net worth of Americans, they should at least know who the beneficiaries are.
    wbboei Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    when I say a discreet group he wants to protect what I meant to say was “serve”.

  2. wbboei Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    Turndown: here is what I am sending to media people I trust. We have got to get them thinking about this.


    As usual I would say drop the whole intro and start with the meat. I"m not suggesting cutting the wordage of your numbered items, I'm just too lazy to retype them.

    Maybe something like:

    Cui bono? Follow the bonds.

    According to Justice Litle,
    "[E]verything this administration has done, every last damn thing, has been favorable to one of Wall Street’s most entrenched interest groups: the bondholders."

    The attached article by Litle answers a number of questions, e.g.:

    1. why force healthy banks to take TARP
    2. why limit bidding to large co's
    3. why block investigation by Paperwork Act
    4. why disregard alternatives (currently your 2)

    Your current 1 seems opinion and nothing new except the Nobel prize winners. Could they be moved to "disregard alternatives" plus some mention of specific alternatives?

    Your closing summary sounds fine.