Early Show Recruits Chorus of Critics to Bash Bush Fed Plan

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.
By Mark Finkelstein | March 31, 2008 - 09:27 ET

When This Week assembled a round-table of four liberals versus one conservative yesterday, I kvetched. Maybe I should have cheered. ABC's idea of balance looks good compared to that of CBS. This morning's Early Show preview of the Bush admin's plan, to be announced later today, to regulate the financial industry was essentially conservative-free. OK, to be absolutely accurate, there was a brief clip of Treasury Secretary Paulson saying the plan would protect the Fed's balance sheet and US taxpayers.

But in her set-up piece, CBS's Kimberly Dozier emphasized the negative: "critics say it's win-win for banks, not the consumer. Less regulation, but no new legal limits to stop questionable lending practices or to stop the shell-game financial structures that led to the current mortgage debacle." The only expert she aired was University of Maryland economist Peter Morici who griped that under the plan: "[banks] can still engage in sharp practices that got them in trouble. There's no reason to believe that this regulatory format will keep the kind of crisis we just had from happening again. Nor will it get us out of this recession."

Co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez took the baton from there. She first interviewed Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), who claimed Congress had already given the Fed "massive" regulatory authority. Dodd predictably blamed the current situation on "a failure of leadership." Then it was on to Rodriguez's in-studio chat with CBS News biz correspondent Anthony Mason who--surprise!-- was also a critic of the plan.

View video here.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

ANTHONY MASON: There are a lot of things that we need to be clear that it won't do. As Senator Dodd says, it could streamline the system, that's what it's about. But it doesn't address many of the problems that caused this crisis. For example, many lenders will still be unregulated. Those complex financial securities that were used to chop up those bad loans and sell them off to investors, they're not regulated. This won't make it easier for you to get a loan, to get a house or a car loan, it doesn't address those problems.

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Quickly, do you think it will at least give the market a boost in the short term?

MASON: The markets will like this because as one economist said to me, las night this is the go-easy on Wall Street plan. It streamlines things but there's not a lot of new regulation.

Not a lot of new regulation? Oh no! Only those greedy Wall Street types will like it.

All in all, CBS's chorus of critics was enough to make you yearn for ABC's good old four-against-one idea of fair 'n balanced.

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I actually agree with the critics in this case

It's just that they don't go far enough. The underlying problem is that the FED is a PRIVATE organization that is run by a figurehead of a Board of which the Presdident gets to select some members and appoint the chairman. The members/owners of the FED (the other Central banks and financial institutions of the world) are the real beneficiaris of it's policies. Now the FED is going to be given oversight of not just Banks, but any financial institution whom the FED deems important enough that it can't be allowed to fail.

We saw how the FED protects the "people" in the Bear-Stearns debacle. Instead of Bear-Stearns being bought by an organization who was willing to take the risk, or being allowed to fail and just go away as a lesson to others, the FED loaned one of it's members (JP Morgan) $50 billion to "buy" Bear-Stearns which basicly took away all the risk. In order to free up that $50 billion, the FED announced that it would make $100 billion available to the markets to insure liquidity. In effect the FED finanaced the buy-out of Bear-Stearns with the devaluation of the dollar for the average american.

The FED is the single worst thing ever to happen to this great country. To fix the current debt/deficit and inflation situation, the FED should be abolished and the US Treasury go back to simply issuing it's own notes without having to sell bonds first.

 

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

You kvetched, I kvetched...

It's a lucky thing humanity is so-good at learning history's obvious lessons, amid all this multiflavored media bias, or the USA would probably be headed for real fiscal trouble.
JMR

A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.

Let me get this straight...

Mark,

Are we to assume it is okay to bail out those who decided to take a risk and failed? A free market allows this to happen? Hmmm...I'm trying to figure out the other governments who prop up their own financial institutions with taxpayer dollars. Should we allow our tax dollars to be spent on others who failed due to their own misfortunes in the marketplace? Interesting to say the least.

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Pull the plug on CBS - prevent a recession.

Kimberly Dozier's whinning of, "..Nor will it get us out of this recession,"  is just a wee bit out there. Next time she might wait until we are officially in a recession before she starts talking about ending a recession. Slowdown? yes. Feels like? perhaps. Actually one? we will see. 2 quarters of negative growth - and we have not officially had one quarter identified as negative as of yet.

And the best way to prevent a recession? Pull the plug on CBS!~

PS. Mark. You noted Dodd's .. "failure of leadership" comment. He went on to say that, in his view, congress gave the Fed broad regulatory power in 1994 -- that the Fed just didn't act. This is interesting, as their presentation was coming from the left, yet they never seem to report on the view from the left when it calls the Democrat leadership into question. One of the left's premier economic mouths, Dean Baker of CEPR, in March of 2000 called the financial leadership of the late 90's the worst since Herbert Hoover. Elsewhere in his musings, Baker set the roots of the current housing and monetary crisis also in the 90's. Not to imply that Baker gives the Bush administration a pass. Ha!  I'll still live for the day, that a single national MSM reporter ever gives a fair and balanced historical presentation of anything economic, as they continue to live in the all things said, must protect the Democrats at all cost.