Time is limited - Let's collaborate to read the 106 page Discussion Draft

My own (limited) take on this:

http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/09/analysis-of-bailou...

Part II may not happen now if this stays dead.

Overstock CEO Comments on President Bush's Speech Outlining Bailout Plan
Wednesday September 24, 10:56 pm ET
'
Is Something Not Worth Doing Worth Doing Well?' asks Byrne

SALT LAKE CITY, Sept. 24 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Overstock.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: OSTK - News) chairman and CEO Patrick M. Byrne comments on President Bush's September 24, 2008 speech outlining the President's market rescue plan.

Dr. Byrne commented: "This bailout is necessary to save the bacchanal that is our US financial system. However, at the core of the administration's plan is the assumption that Wall Street is worth saving. It is not. For years Wall Street has bossed Washington, DC around like they're hired flunkies, while preying on Main Street businesses and investors. The federal government should use this opportunity to extract from Wall Street concessions that could never be extracted were Washington in its customary subordinate position.

"If American taxpayers are to bailout the Power Elite, they should attach conditions. Taxpayers should share in any upside, and gaping flaws in the current system should be fixed. Towards that end, I believe that any bailout legislation should include at least the following protections:

1. Taxpayers need to share in the upside if the bailout works, to compensate them for the risk that the administration is forcing them to take. This could be accomplished through warrants on shares in the firms being bailed out, such as those Mr. Buffett extracted from Goldman Sachs.

2. The government should impose a tax on those that benefit most from bailout -- Wall Street itself. Perhaps a 0.25% transaction tax on all securities trades is in order? Such a tax would be insignificant to investors, while be largely borne by those that are merely speculators - including those that churn trades in an attempt to manipulate the markets.

3. Bailout or none, the government must fix underlying problems in our capital market. The fixes includes:

a. Reforming our stock settlement system so that trades actually settle promptly, precisely as Congress stipulated in 1934. This can be accomplished by putting in place a market-wide mandatory pre-borrow requirement (like the SEC did in the 30-day July 15, 2008 emergency order that protected the 19 financial institutions);

b. Creating the obligation that if a naked short seller fails to deliver a share, the broker-dealer must force a mandatory buy-in (as is done in civilized countries, such as Canada);

c. Tracking trades cradle-to-grave (rather than net blocks of trades against each other), so that it is obvious who the naked short sellers are and the total amounts they are stealing;

d. Providing regular, timely disclosure of when and how many shares have failed to deliver;

e. Enforcing the rules, including significant monetary penalties and jail time.

"Keynes said that an ocean of productivity can support a bubble of speculation, but an ocean of speculation cannot support a bubble of productivity. Washington has been captured by speculators at the expense of producers. I have long been talking about systemic risk and potential financial crisis (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIHw7C73s3E for a three- minute video from as early as October 2005). I am proposing specific steps to fix the system. For those that agree with these fixes which protect Main Street Americans, I ask you to sign the electronic petition at http://mainstreetamericans.info."

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080924/law106.html?.v=98

Below is after a second read through. I have to go to bed, and will give analysis in the morning. Some areas for further research are noted if someone wants to take them up...

Questionable terms which may be defined in the bill or elsewhere in law are placed in " "

Special notes of importance that sound fishy or outrageous or are otherwise too important to miss are denoted by one or more *

Questions for further research and/or comments are in ()

SUMMARY:

The first section (125) establishs a new legislative bureaucracy with an unlimited budget, which anyone, including Wall Street CEO's can be appointed to in order to provide Congressional oversight of the Secretary. There is potential for rogue members to act alone, and they can recommend EXPANDING current regulations to ANYONE who 'participates' in the 'financial system.'

The second section (126) makes it illegal to falsely advertise a product as FDIC insured, or that it is insured for more than it really is, and gives the FDIC and other agencies enforcement powers. The language is so bad, that potentially ANY business, even if no FDIC related claim is made, could be construed as breaking this law. (you have to read it to believe it) The FDIC is apparently also given jurisdiction over ANYONE not already under jurisdiction of another federal agency. (very strange, need some definitions there - please read and research)

Page 69 line 12 section 125

Establishes a new entity within the Legislative Branch called the Congressional Oversight Panel

Duties
Review current state of “financial markets” and “regulatory system”
Submit Reports to Congress
Regularly Reports (w/in 30 days of 1st section 101(a) or 102 use, and every 30 days thereafter)
Each use by Sec. of the Act *including contracting and admin
Impact of purchases on “financial markets” and “financial institutions”
Degree of “market transparency” from info on transactions made under Act
Effectiveness of foreclosure mitigation efforts
Effectiveness of minimizing long term costs to taxpayers
Effectiveness of maximizing benefits to taxpayers

Special Report (no later than Jan 20, 2009)
Regulatory Reform
Current state of “regulatory system”
Effectiveness of "regulatory system" overseeing “participants” in the "financial system"
Effectiveness of “regulatory system” protecting consumers
Recommendations for improvement
***including if “participants” currently outside the “regulatory system” should be subject to the “regulatory system”
Rationale for such a recommendation of new inclusion
Gaps in existing consumer protections

5 members, chosen by the Senate and House minority/majority leaders.
4 is a quorum, any number, ***even ONE, can hold a hearing
Chair or majority can call a meeting

**Can appoint and set pay of any employees it wants
Can ‘borrow’ employees from ANY federal department or agency
**Can hire/contract for professional services

Pay - equal to daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay for Level I of the Executive Schedule for each day actually worked on the panel. *including travel time

(can someone look up the figures from that pay schedule so we have a firm dollar amount?)

Full-time Federal workers, Congress cannot be paid, given allowances, or benefits for serving on Panel.

(says nothing of part-time emplyees or WHO can be selected to this panel, it is POSSIBLE that Congress could choose the CEO's or other such knuckleheads as members of this Oversight Panel)

Paid travel expenses *including per diem

(see USC 5: ch 57 sub ch 1)

Powers:

as the Panel considers appropriate:

Hold hearings
“sit and act at times and places”
Take testimony
Receive evidence
Administer oaths and affirmations to witnesses

of members AND agents:

anything the Panel can do IF the Panel authorizes them to

**not a specific authorization for a specific act, but a blanket “acting as or in the name of”

to demand AND receive:

**ANY information from ANY other department or agency they deem necessary to carry out section 125. (this section)

to receive and consider all reports submitted to it.

Panel will terminate 6 months after date in section 120.

Funding:

**Any amount necessary - ½ from the House account and ½ from the Senate contingent fund.

(that's right, ANY amount necessary, the Panel can hire ex Wall Street CEO's at millions of dollars to provide 'expert' advice if they choose)

Secretary must reimburse both accounts from the other funds made available to the Secretary by the Act.

Page 76 line 14 section 126

FDIC Authority

Prohibition of falsely advertising any deposit, liability, obligation, certificate, or share as FDIC insured if it is not.

*by using the terms:

“Federal Deposit”
“Federal Deposit Insurance”
“Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation”
and/or
“FDIC” as part of the business name or firm name (person, corporation, partnership, business trust, association, or other business entity)
** OR any combination of "such" terms listed above.

(presumably, no business entity may ever use two or more of the words "Federal", "Deposit", "Insurance", or "Corporation" in its name - for example: "State Farm Insurance Corporation" appears to be illegal now)

*by using any such terms **** “or any other terms, sign, or symbol” as part of an advertisement, solicitation, or other document.

(the way this is worded, ANY term, sign or symbol, FDIC related or not, would be a violation of this section!!!)

No “person” may misrepresent any deposit, liability, obligation, certificate, or share as insured if it is not.

Also prohibited: if above is not insured to the extent claimed

Enforcement authority to appropriate federal banking agency with respect to the violator or any “institution-affiliated party”

If such agency fails to act, FDIC can recommend they act using anything from section 8.

If such agency fails to act within 30 days of receipt of FDIC recommendation, or
provide an acceptable response plan, then FDIC can take the action itself.

FDIC has jurisdiction over:

****“any person other than a person for which another agency is the appropriate Federal banking agency or any institution-affiliated party thereof; and any person that aids or abets a violation of this paragraph by a person described above:

(so if a "person" is not under the authority already of another Federal Banking Agency, then they are under the jurisdiction of the FDIC by default - we need a contextual definition of "person" here. Is this ANY natural individual, or just related to financial institutions and their officers/agents?)

FDIC has authority to:

conduct investigations under section 10(c)
Enforcement actions under subsections (b),(c), (d) and (i)

None of this restricts powers given other agencies or individuals by other laws.

end of page 80 deals with new enforcement order authority under the Act and continues into other pages.

send your congressman to see what the treasury thinks and how the treasury plans on ignoring so many parts of the Bill

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/mussolini-style-corpo...

You know what I discovered? I have the uncanny ability to read something and then forget everything that I just read. Amazing huh? What I did come to realize is that this has been sitting on the shelf for years. Theatre is what the last few days have been. A big orchestrated drama. Who amongst public servants after reading this would pass this? Corporate whores and idiots. It is plain to me that this is not good for the people. I say that, but then again, I'm poor and insignificant.

bump

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

They have no authority to purchase private securities to enhance the stability of anything.

They will all be impeached and recalled.

I'm going offline for a bit, but will be back later to continue the compilation. So keep them reviews coming, folks!

There are still sections missing!

Take a look at the Consolidation thread and see what items still need to be covered. Then, come back here, pick a section, read, and post -- it'll be included in the consolidation.

Let's finish 'er up!