posted April 14, 2010 11:06 PM         

bank bailouts, lobbyist loopholes, and additional layers of complicated government bureaucracy.

Oh, there are defiantly problems cannily decoded here_> by Robert Reich:

Rob

here is a PDF Senate Summary:
Senate PDF Financial Reform Summary

Over-site committee Chair:

Elizabeth Warren's over- site panel reports:
http://cop.senate.gov/reports/

April 14 Committee Report: http://cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-041410-report.pdf

I am a real fan of Warren, she has been working hard on this for a year, finally the focus is off healthcare.

None of the points I heard today from Boehner et al frames correctly what is actually in the reform. Sound familiar?

Original Feb article about the Memo

It is hard enough to keep track without the stupefying obstructive train blurring what is and what isn't in legislation. I am past

over it.

Instead of a new script for every chess move, why not spend the time constructively?
One would imagine all of that energy could accomplish allot. I know, dream on.
What will happen is that the gyrations will water this bill down too, which is the GOP intent. The public welfare, the public good? Last thought on their collective brains.

If the talking points you heard on C-Span or in MSM sound familiar here is the new script.

The new Luntz script PDF

I cannot wait for the circus with the new SCourt Justice Hearings.

posted April 19, 2010 09:55 AM         

First, this legislation is being sold as a prevention against financial institutions getting too big to let fail and having to be bailed out by taxpayers.

This is baloney.

Within this bill is authorization for $50 Billion...to bail out financial institutions...which have gotten to big to let fail.

Second, this bill fails to address the financial institutions which were the linchpins of the implosion of the financial system in the first place.

That's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...which are totally excluded from any of the provisions of this legislation. Surprise, surprise.

This is not serious legislation...if the objective is to remove the possibility that taxpayers will ever again be called on to bail out financial institutions which have taken extreme risks.

Let me propose a different path.

No corporation, no city, no county and no states are too important to let fail. We adjust and adapt. We vote corrupt and inept politicians out of office and elect those with common sense and experience in business, finance and economics. We end the "know nothing".... "political class".

In the case of financial institutions, we investigate CEO's, high level managers and board members to see if they've broken the law in any particular. If so, they don't get fined, they don't get bailed out; they get indicted, prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison. There's a whole army of prosecutors at the Justice Department who we pay to do their jobs.

Perhaps some here will remember "all those friends" of George W Bush whom the Bush Justice Dept...investigated, indicted, prosecuted, convicted...and put in jail.

We already have plenty of laws on the books to deal with the corrupt...in business and government. We just need to apply the laws and stop the wrist slap fines and hot air rhetoric.

posted April 21, 2010 04:35 AM         

They've been touting the financial institutions reform bill as "protecting the public" against ever having to bail out Wall Street again with taxpayer money.

This is flat out lying rhetoric.

In fact, this so called reform of Wall Street puts in place a permanent authority to....Bail Out Wall Street using taxpayer funds to do so. Worse, this legislation gives sole authority to the executive branch to determine who is to be bailed out with taxpayer money, how much to give Wall Street firms and bypasses any control or oversight by the Congress of the United States.

So, it's even worse than the $50 Billion bailout fund I mentioned before.

This legislation authorizes an almost unlimited expenditure of taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street firms in the future.

It's not lost on people who can actually think that Wall Street firms gave O'Bomber in excess of $15 Million in the 2008 election for campaign contributions and this is their payback from the O'Bomber administration.

They can't lose no matter how corrupt, no matter how incompetently they run their businesses, no matter how much money they lose.

Only the taxpaying public can..and will..lose with this so called "reform bill".

The Wall Street firm which is supposedly in O'Bomber's cross-hairs is Goldman Sachs..which has already been bailed out.

It just so happens that Goldman Sachs was O'Bomber's biggest campaign contributor from Wall Street.

Now, we find Goldman Sachs has just been sued in civil court by the SEC for fraud in dealings with their clients. The SEC is an Executive Branch agency under O'Bomber's control.

Notice, I said sued in "Civil Court", not indicted in a criminal prosecution by the Justice Department.

Not only is O'Bomber paying back Wall Street with a permanent and almost unlimited bail out authority at taxpayer expense; O'Bomber is also protecting Goldman Sachs from a criminal prosecution for defrauding their clients.

That's some real Wall Street reform Wall Street can get behind and believe in. That's real "Hope and Change". But what's coming out of O'Bomber's mouth on this subject are flat out lies.

President Obama’s Wall Street Friends All Benefit From The Democrats’ Bailout Bill

Washington, Apr 20 -

President Obama likes to say we need to clean up Wall Street. But let’s be clear: He is pushing a job-killing bailout bill for Wall Street that benefits his top financial contributor from the 2008 campaign – a firm that just happens to be under investigation by the SEC for defrauding investors.

Despite the President’s rhetoric, his support for the Democrats’ bailout bills gives big Wall Street banks a permanent, taxpayer-funded safety net by designating them “too big to fail.” Just whose side is President Obama on? Here are the facts:

WALL STREET GIVES GENEROUSLY TO THEN-CANDIDATE OBAMA:

• Goldman Sachs, recently charged with defrauding investors, was President Obama’s top Wall Street contributor during the 2008 election cycle, donating nearly $1 million to his campaign.
• Securities & investment firms in general were the fifth largest contributor to President Obama’s 2008 campaign, donating nearly $15 million.
• Big banks also donated more than $3 million to Obama during the 2008 election cycle.

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S RHETORIC SAYS “GET TOUGH ON WALL STREET”:

“We will hold Wall Street accountable. We will protect and empower consumers in our financial system. That’s what reform is all about. That’s what we’re fighting for.” (Weekly Address, 4/17/10)

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ACTIONS PUSH PERMANENT BAILOUTS FOR HIS WALL STREET FRIENDS:

• The Dodd (Bill) Gives Wall Street a Pre-Existing $50 Billion Bailout Slush Fund. Sen. Dodd’s financial bailout bill would create a $50 billion ‘orderly resolution fund’ ($150 billion in Rep. Barney Frank’s bill) that could be repeatedly replenished from industry assessment.
• The Dodd Bill Gives Wall Street a Treasury-Backed Credit Line. The FDIC would be authorized to borrow from Treasury up to the amount of cash left in the ‘resolution fund’ plus 90 percent of the value of the assets of any and all too-big-to-fail firms in its control.
• The Dodd Bill Provides a Government-Guaranteed to Wall Street Debt. The FDIC would be authorized to guarantee the debt of any solvent bank, bank holding company, or affiliate in any amount subject only to an aggregate debt limit set by the Treasury Department.
• The Dodd Bill Institutionalizes Unlimited Wall Street Bailouts. The FDIC, as the resolution agency for too-big-to-fail firms, would be given wide latitude to use resources to make payments to anyone in any amounts, at their own discretion.
• The Dodd Bill Gives Wall Street Bridge Bank Authority. The FDIC would be authorized to create a bridge institution as part of resolving a covered institution and vest the FDIC with broad authority to use the orderly resolution fund in connection with the bridge institution.

posted April 21, 2010 05:14 AM         

Nah, it must all be coincidence that with O'Bomber running into a buzz saw in trying to permanently bail out Wall Street firms with unlimited taxpayer funds...that news of the SEC suit against Goldman Sachs broke at just the right time to stampede Congress and the public into passing his crappy legislation.

"See how corrupt Wall Street is"! "See how they defraud their investors". We're going to fix all that...just vote for our legislation".

If ever there was a group of intellectual pygmies in the Congress and White House, this is it. How could they possibly believe no one would catch on to their scam?

Bill Clinton...aka Kommander Corruption was and still is a serial liar. But with Clinton, it sometimes took years to find out he lied through his teeth.

With this current crop of liars...including the lying O'Bomber, the lies are evident almost as they are uttered.

GOP seeks SEC records on Goldman
By MIKE ALLEN
4/20/10 2:25 PM EDT
Updated: 4/20/10 3:40 PM EDT

Darrell Issa's letter demands to know if the commission had any contact about the case, prior to its public release, with a variety of individuals.

Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight committee, is demanding a slew of documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission, asserting that the timing of civil charges against Goldman Sachs raises “serious questions about the commission’s independence and impartiality.”

Issa’s letter, addressed to SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro and signed by eight other House Republicans, asks whether the commission had any contact about the case, prior to its public release, with White House aides, Democratic Party committee officials, or members of Congress or their staff.

“[W]e are concerned that politics have unduly influenced the decision and timing of the commission’s controversial enforcement action against Goldman,” Issa writes.

Issa implied that the timing was a bit too convenient, saying President Barack Obama’s push on Wall Street reform “neatly coincided with the commission’s announcement of the suit.”...............

“The Goldman litigation … has been widely cited by Democrats in support of the financial regulatory legislation currently before the United States Senate,” Issa writes. “The American people have a right to know whether the commission, or any of its officers or employees, may have violated federal law by using the resources of an independent regulatory agency to promote a partisan political agenda."

--The Commission approved the Goldman suit in a vote that spit along party lines – a rare occurrence for approvals of enforcement litigation.

--Before the Commission had released its announcement, the New York Times published on its website a story describing the suit.

--Less than half an hour after the Times story’s publication, Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America and now a project of the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”), sent millions of supporters an e-mail message from President Obama urging support for “Wall Street Reform.”

--Within hours, the Democratic National Committee had purchased AdWords advertising from Google, Inc. The DNC’s Google campaign fundraising advertisement, headed “Fight Wall Street Greed,” appeared whenever a user ran a Google search for the phrase “Goldman Sachs SEC.” It read, “Help Pres. Obama Reform Wall Street and Create Jobs. Families First!” and included a link to www.BarackObama.com, the website of Organizing for America."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36097.html#ixzz0liqvihv2

posted April 21, 2010 12:04 PM         

Creates an orderly liquidation mechanism for the FDIC to unwind failing systemically significant financial companies. Shareholders and unsecured creditors will bear losses and management be removed.

COSTS TO FIRMS NOT TAXPAYERS. Charges the largest financial firms $50billion for an upfront fund built up over time that will be used if needed for any liquidation. Industry not taxpayers will take the hit for liquidating large interconnected financial companies...FDIC to borrow from the Treasury only for working capital that it expects to be repaid from the assets of the company being liquidated. - pg 4 from the convenient link in node's post to the actual document.

in other words no there is NO provision for bailing them out, but for creating a fund from within the companies to cover the costs if they DO FAIL.

of course if you think it makes more sense that we keep goldman in the business of selling rotten product we should just try a few people who will get off because they, having checked all the legal loopholes, will get off. and even if a few people go to jail the company will continue to make money out of the money of the unsuspecting and sock it away in another country that turns a blind eye for a chunk of cash (or gold).

and if you think reading someone's summation of a bill (when you know that person is against the present administration) is doing your due diligence, then you will get what you deserve. slanted propaganda.

posted April 21, 2010 01:03 PM         

Here's an example of what Puffington Post is putting forth "as the bill" and you are asked to "READ THE BILL".

Later, you find out that Puffington is putting together a crack team to research THE BILL so they can load up Puffington readers with their talking points of the day.

"Dodd's Wall Street Reform: READ THE BILL"................

"But what does the bill itself say? The Huffington Post is recruiting a team to read through Dodd's legislation, identify weak points and highlight important passages."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/15/dodds-wall-st-reform-legi_n_499051.html

As for me, I'll stick with the fact this is not intended to be a Wall Street reform bill but rather an unlimited bail out authority for Wall Street firms which pumped millions of dollars into O'Bomber's campaign coffers.

While it's true the firms would contribute to a $50 Billion bail out slush fund, that's not the main objections to this piece of crap.

It fails to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...a dumping ground for demoscat operatives to make them a lot of money...which they totally abused. Total liabilities (bad loans) of Fannie and Freddie approach $370 Billion dollars.

And

It authorizes the FDIC to continue to bail out Wall Street with almost unlimited taxpayer funds....up to the limits of FDIC authorized funds...which can be replenished at taxpayer expense... PLUS 90% of the hard assets of the firm(s) being bailed out AND these firms can go through this process over and over WITHOUT any authorization from the Congress.

posted April 21, 2010 11:00 PM         

However, the very language of the bill specifies money TO BAIL OUT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

Further, there is bail out money in addition to the $50 Billion...which has now been withdrawn from consideration in the bill.

Now, FDIC funds are to be used up to the limit of FDIC authority to draw taxpayer money from the treasury...and to replenish those funds if or rather WHEN they run out.

The most egregious part of this mess is O'Bomber and demoscats castigating financial institutions in public...when in private meetings they've agreed to pay them back for the campaign contributions they gave to O'Bomber and leftist demoscats.

Further, O'Bomber's administration is loaded with former high level officers of financial institutions...including Goldman Sachs which is now being sued by the SEC.

This is a gigantic con job.

posted April 22, 2010 01:35 AM         

quote:

---

As Obama speaks in New York, senators in Washington will continue to hammer out a deal on a Wall Street reform bill that can win at least some Republican support. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House adviser Larry Summers have been reaching out to Republicans daily, and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said Wednesday that bipartisan progress has been made. "We're not there yet, but we're closer than we've ever been," Shelby said in the Capitol. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/21/obama-in-nyc-will-pitch-wall-street-reform/

---

posted April 22, 2010 11:32 AM         

WASHINGTON — While Goldman Sachs' lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman's chief executive visited the White House at least four times.

White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman's political action committee, its employees and their relatives. He also met twice with Obama's top economic adviser, Larry Summers.

No evidence has surfaced to suggest that Blankfein or any other Goldman executive raised the SEC case with the president or his aides. SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in a statement Wednesday that the SEC doesn't coordinate enforcement actions with the White House or other political bodies.

Meanwhile, however, Goldman is retaining former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig as a member of its legal team. In addition, when he worked as an investment banker in Chicago a decade ago, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advised one client who also retained Goldman as an adviser on the same $8.2 billion deal.

Goldman's connections to the White House and the Obama administration are raising eyebrows at a time when Washington and Wall Street are dueling over how to overhaul regulation of the financial world.

Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist, said that "almost everything that the White House has done has been haunted by the personnel and the money of Goldman . . . as well as the suspicion that the White House, particularly early on, was pulling its punches out of deference to Goldman and its war chest.

"There's now kind of a magnifying glass on the administration for any sign of interference or conversations with the regulators and the judiciary," Jacobs said.

The SEC investigation of Goldman's dealings lasted 18 months and culminated with the SEC filing civil fraud charges against the investment bank last week.

According to White House visitor logs, Blankfein was among the business leaders who attended an Obama speech on Feb. 13, 2009, and he also joined more than a dozen bank CEOs in a meeting with Obama on March 27, 2009.

Blankfein also was supposed be among the CEOs who met with Obama in December, but he and two others phoned in from New York, blaming inclement weather.

He and his wife, Laura, were listed on the logs among 438 presidential guests at the Kennedy Center Honors the previous week.

The logs also indicate that Blankfein met twice in 2009, on Feb. 4 and Sept. 30, with Summers, who was undersecretary of the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration when it was headed by Robert Rubin, a former Goldman CEO.

Asked whether Goldman executives had talked to administration officials about the SEC inquiry, Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally said that the firm doesn't discuss "what conversations we may or may not have had with government officials."

Schapiro's statement said that she's "disappointed" by Republican rhetoric suggesting that the SEC case against Goldman might have been timed to boost legislative prospects for a financial regulation overhaul bill, which Obama plans to pitch in a speech in New York Thursday.

"We do not coordinate our enforcement actions with the White House, Congress or political committees," Schapiro said. "We do not time our cases around political events or the legislative calendar . . . We will neither bring cases, nor refrain from bringing them, because of the political consequences."

Obama dismissed any such suggestion as "completely false" Wednesday, saying in a CNBC television interview that the SEC "never discussed with us anything with respect to the charges that would be brought."

While describing Craig, his former counsel, as "one of the top lawyers in the country," Obama also said that he'd imposed "the toughest ethics rules that any president's ever had."

"One thing he (Craig) knows is that he cannot talk to the White House," Obama said. "He cannot lobby the White House. He cannot in any way use his former position to have any influence on us."

Goldman's chief spokesman, Lucas van Praag, said the firm "wanted Craig . . . for his wisdom and insight."

Craig, now an attorney with the Washington law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagre & Flom, said: "I am a lawyer, not a lobbyist. Goldman Sachs has hired me to provide legal advice and to assist in its legal representation."

Goldman's nearly $1 million in campaign contributions to Obama's presidential campaign were the most from any single employer except the University of California. Still, they represented only a fraction of the more than $700 million that the campaign raised.

"The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country," Obama told CNBC. "Moreover, anybody who gave me money during the course of my campaign knew that I was on record in 2007 and 2008 pushing very strongly that we needed to reform how Wall Street did business."

One White House insider who knows something about how Wall Street does business is chief of staff Emanuel, who earned millions of dollars in investment banking after he left the Clinton White House. His work for the Chicago-based financial services firm Wasserstein Perella & Co. intersected with Goldman in at least one deal.

In 1999, Emanuel was a key player representing Unicom Corp., the parent of Commonwealth Edison, in forging its merger with Peco Energy Co. to create utility giant Exelon Corp. Goldman was also advising Unicom.

The White House declined immediate comment on that connection.

Several former Goldman executives hold senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist who is chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Robert Hormats, the undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs.

Jacobs of the University of Minnesota said that the administration now risks "kind of a feeding frenzy."

"The administration has to be very careful," he said, "because . . . they're seen as the ones who bailed out Wall Street. If there are indications that the administration was talking to regulators or to Justice Department people about when and how Goldman or other firms would be investigated, I think that's going to create almost a mob scene."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/21/92637/goldmans-connections-to-white.html

posted April 22, 2010 01:28 PM         

i'm still not seeing any evidence from the actual document in question, but yet another biassed interpretation of it? thanks for nothing. there is no having a debate with you when all you do is repeat your equivalent of name and serial number over and over like a prisoner of war.

there is provision for BORROWING - that means it has to be paid back - money to facilitate the dismantling of companies who run themselves into the ground. where is your evidence that money is being set aside for bailouts?

BUSH's bailout was gratis. obama's came with conditions - which i know you don't like but there you go - and some of THAT money is already being paid back as mentioned somewhere here awhile ago. the bill provides for liquidation funds to be built up by the companies themselves and i don't see anywhere mention of bailout funds to be paid by the taxpayer.

once again, jwhop, show me the goods. i am not an unreasonable person but i do like my facts. you on the other hand seem to prefer the mirror reflection of the facts as spouted by your preferred blogs and 1000-person polls.

posted April 22, 2010 02:57 PM         

The TARP money...which was the financial institutions bailout at the end of the Bush administration HAS mostly been PAID BACK. So, your nonsense that the Bush bailout was gratis to the banks and financial institutions is Bunk.

"there is provision for BORROWING"...katatonic

What do you think bailouts actually are katatonic...if not using the taxpayer's money as their own institutional piggy-bank?

The real question is....why should the American taxpayer be put into the position of Lender of last resort for financial institutions which have mismanaged their own finances?

This is what O'Bomber is trying to do by giving permanent bailout authority to the federal government....underwritten by the American taxpayer.

The O'Bomber nonsense that this bill is about restricting financial institutions so they don't become..."Too Big to Fail" is nothing more than lying rhetoric when the bill contains provisions to bail out financial institutions in perpetuity.

posted April 22, 2010 03:02 PM         

quote:

---

This is what O'Bomber is trying to do by giving permanent bailout authority to the federal government....underwritten by the American taxpayer.

---

posted April 22, 2010 04:08 PM         

"you can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time...."

posted April 22, 2010 04:59 PM         

No wonder financial institution CEOs are not howling. The bill which was to make sure financial institutions don't get "too big to fail" makes sure, via bailout authority that financial institutions won't fail...with taxpayer money.

Further, this bill gives pre-authorization to draw funds from the federal treasury from time to time without any further Congressional authorization. It's therefore Unconstitutional on it's face.

posted April 22, 2010 11:30 PM         

The Prez gives a speech ripping Wall Street institutions AND....their stocks GO UP.

"Stocks Rise as Goldman, Other Banks Gain"

U.S. stocks rose, erasing the biggest drop since Goldman Sachs Group Inc. was sued by the government, as investors speculated the bank will prevail and concern about financial regulation eased......

Obama called on the financial industry to drop its “furious efforts” to fight his regulation plan, saying a failure to impose tougher rules on the market will put the economy at risk. His speech at New York’s Cooper Union college was intended to build momentum for legislation to overhaul U.S. financial regulations and offered no new policy proposals to crack down on the industry.

Goldman Sachs erased a loss of as much 1.7 percent and rose 0.1 percent to $159.05....

PNC Financial Services Group Inc. rose 5.4 percent to $68.82.
http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-22/stocks-in-u-s-drop-on-qualcomm-ebay-earnings-euro-area-budget-deficits.html

posted April 23, 2010 09:39 AM         

we will have to wait and see. in the meantime, let me remind you you predicted stocks would go down if the healthcare law passed and that didn't happen so sorry, i am not buying your predictions on the market either. in fact you have poopoohed every rise in the market as bogus....could it be that investors are hopeful that this sort of scam and crash might be prevented (as it was in the wake of the last market disaster which was also due to similar shenanigans) and the days of unregulated cowboy finance might be numbered (again)?

the bulk of investors, as you should know, ARE taxpayers...despite the offshore outlets for those with "enough" to avail themselves of them. and many, obviously, are willing to bet either way and even on a sure loss.

posted April 23, 2010 12:25 PM         

quote:

---

His speech at New York’s Cooper Union college was intended to build momentum for legislation to overhaul U.S. financial regulations and offered no new policy proposals to crack down on the industry.

---

I don't see how that's possible. The journalist needs to qualify that statement. Is the writer suggesting that the policies/regulations contained in the bill are simply old policy ideas?

quote:

---

This is all thinking people need to know to determine the so called Wall Street reform is really a scam. Investors are not concerned about the reform and they would be if it wasn't wired to protect the institutions with permanent bailouts at taxpayer expense.

---

posted April 23, 2010 12:56 PM         

O'Bomber rips financial institutions...and their stocks go UP. People who make their money investing on Wall Street are not fooled by O'Bomber's rhetoric. They've looked at the permanent bail out authority given to the FDIC and concluded there's no way the feds are going to let big financial institutions fail. With the full faith and credit of the United States...and taxpayer money too backing financial institutions, they're a good investment again.

This reminds me of an incident in the early 1900s. The Progressive Socialist Woodrow Wilson wanted a Central Bank...to get the US in line with the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx.

Of course, large banks saw this as manna from heaven; actual control of the issuing of the money of the United States which they could manipulate for their fun and profit.

To complete that con job, large banks came out with vigorous opposition to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The more they opposed, the more Wilson lashed them with his Socialist Progressive rhetoric.

A carefully crafted vote was taken in Congress when many opponents of the ACT were out of town. Those who were in on the Con were there and there was a quorum present.

That's how we got the Federal Reserve System which is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. Bankers were simply thrilled that the con job worked and a PRIVATE CORPORATION WAS PUT IN CHARGE OF THE ISSUANCE AND MANIPULATION OF THE US MONEY SUPPLY....in violation of the US Constitution:

Article 1, Section 8

"The Congress shall have power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin....

posted April 23, 2010 02:19 PM         

where's the quote from the bill? you know, the one that shows provision for a bailout fund paid for by taxpayers?