106 pages... Ouch!
Alas, poor capitalism. I knew him well, Horatio.
Page 76, #12: ‘‘$11,315,000,000,000’’.
Our new national debt is to be $11.3 trillion dollars. We’re broke.
“Troubled Asset Relief Program”, TARP, is the name given to this program in general. TRAP would be better.
Can a Tax Person get down to Pg. 38-41 and try to make sense of what they are talking about where they are changing to tax code for Golden Parachutes, please.
Go to page 22. 20% of the profit of sale is being diverted as follows:
65% to the Housing Trust Fund
35% to the Federal Magnet Fund
Both of these are low-income housing grant entities. Gee, wonder what group will be getting its hands on this?????
The guy there told me his understanding was that there was NO MONEY for ACORN in the bill.
I told him about FREEPers concern (he claims to know about Free Republic) about the top of page 22, where 65% of monies are given to a "Housing Trust Fund", and he said he would check on it...
Re: Golden Parachutes
14 (C) a prohibition on the financial institu
15 tion making any golden parachute payment to
16 its senior executive officers during the period
17 that the Secretary holds an equity position in
18 the financial institution.
19 (b) AUCTION PURCHASES.—Where the Secretary de
20 termines that the purposes of this Act are best met
21 through auction purchases of troubled assets, and only
22 where such purchases in the aggregate exceed
23 $300,000,000, the Secretary shall prohibit any golden
24 parachute for any employee hired after the successful par
25 ticipation in such an auction who also qualifies as a cov
1 ered executive under section 162(m)(5)(D) of the Internal
2 Revenue Code of 1986.
16 (2) GOLDEN PARACHUTE RULE.—Section 280G
17 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—
18 (A) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub19
section (f), and
20 (B) by inserting after subsection (d) the
21 following new subsection:
22 ‘‘(e) SPECIAL RULE FOR APPLICATION TO EMPLOY23
ERS PARTICIPATING IN THE TROUBLED ASSETS RELIEF
24 PROGRAM.—
1 GENERAL.—In the case of the sever
2 ance from employment of a covered executive of an
3 applicable employer during any applicable taxable
4 year, this section shall be applied to payments to
5 such executive with the following modifications:
6 ‘‘(A) Any reference to a disqualified indi
7 vidual (other than in subsection (c)) shall be
8 treated as a reference to a covered executive.
9 ‘‘(B) Any reference to a change described
10 in subsection (b)(2)(A)(i) shall be treated as a
11 reference to an applicable severance from em
12 ployment of a covered executive, and any ref
13 erence to a payment contingent on such a
14 change shall be treated as a reference to any
15 payment made during an applicable taxable
16 year of the employer on account of such appli
17 cable severance from employment.
18 ‘‘(C) Any reference to a corporation shall
19 be treated as a reference to an applicable em
20 ployer.
21 ‘‘(D) The provisions of subsections
22 (b)(2)(C), (b)(4), (b)(5), and (d)(5) shall not
23 apply.
24 ‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—For
25 purposes of this subsection—
1 A) DEFINITIONS.—Any term used in
2 this subsection which is also used in section
3 162(m)(5) shall have the meaning given such
4 term by such section.
5 ‘‘(B) APPLICABLE SEVERANCE FROM EM
6 PLOYMENT.—The term ‘applicable severance
7 from employment’ means any severance from
8 employment of a covered executive by reason
9 of—
10 ‘‘(i) an involuntary termination of the
11 executive by the employer,
12 ‘‘(ii) any bankruptcy or liquidation of
13 the employer, or
14 ‘‘(iii) the placement of the employer in
15 receivership.
16 ‘‘(C) COORDINATION AND OTHER
17 RULES.—
18 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—If a payment
19 which is treated as a parachute payment
20 by reason of this subsection is also a para
21 chute payment determined without regard
22 to this subsection, this subsection shall not
23 apply to such payment.
1 REGULATORY AUTHORITY.—The
2 Secretary may prescribe such guidance,
3 rules, or regulations as are necessary—
4 ‘‘(I) to carry out the purposes of
5 this subsection and the Economic Re
6 covery and Corporate Accountability
7 Act of 2008, including the extent to
8 which this subsection applies in the
9 case of any acquisition, merger, or re
10 organization of an applicable em
11 ployer, and
12 ‘‘(II) to apply this section and
13 section 4999 in cases where one or
14 more payments with respect to any in
15 dividual are treated as parachute pay
16 ments by reason of this subsection,
17 and other payments with respect to
18 such individual are treated as para
19 chute payments under this section
20 without regard to this subsection.’’.
21 (3) EFFECTIVE DATES.—
22 (A) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made
23 by paragraph (1) shall apply to taxable years
24 ending on or after the date of the enactment of
25 this Act.
1 PARACHUTE RULE.—The
2 amendments made by paragraph (2) shall apply
3 to payments with respect to severances occur
4 ring during the period during which the au
5 thorities under section 101(a) are in effect (de
6 termined under section 120).
"Read my lips, NO NEW BAILOUTS"!--Bush41
"JUST SAY NO"!!--Nancy
"THIS MUST NOT STAND"!--Bush41
"The government is not the solution to our problems,,,,the government IS THE PROBLEM"!--the Gipper
Won’t use cnn. Any other sources?
Great; thanks for that link. I’ll be going over this with a fine-toothed comb. Cursory glance indicates that it’s not as bad as Paulson/Dodd; it has the insurance program which “shall” be established if a Troubled Assets Program is established. As I read it, the insurance is optional for banks, but if it is true that the assets are currently undervalued, and a push is all that is needed in the credit markets, then this may work. A few places will get bailed out, the markets will move, and the other investment institutions will feel that rather than sell the assets to the Feds, they can just get them insured and pay a premium. It may seem like few banks will do this, but in fact, I think there is a high likelihood that quite a few will take advantage of this option, depending on what happens in the early stages.
Looking at other provisions now...
Another good thing: only $50Bn is committed initially; any additional sums are predicated on the Secretary/Board providing appropriate reports on the actual estimated sums needed within 7 days of each $50bn allocation. So they’ve really reined in Treasury from the “King of the Universe” powers Paulson originally sought. There’s a de facto no-bid provision, but frankly, no bid service contracts are actually a much better deal for taxpayers (don’t get me started on how stupid most government procurement laws are).
Still reading...
PLEASE NOTE: This is a legislative draft; all language in brackets [] is deleted, assuming they are using standard legislative drafting markup. I’ve done enough of these at the state and local level to recognize it; it would not be clear to those who don’t read draft legislation.
ACORN is gone, people.
Rush Limbaugh noted on Friday, that a bill needs to be on the THOMAS system for 24 hours before it can be voted on. I've been unable to find a citation for that claim.
Bump for later reference