Topsy-turvy politics of financial rescue

If the discussion of the range of responses to the banking crisis on This Week today is any indication, we are truly living in a topsy-turvy world.

Stephanopolous leads with a clip of President Obama addressing a question about the nationalization approach taken by Sweden to resolve a mortgage bubble driven financial crisis in 1991-1992.

Barack Obama:

Sweden has a different set of cultures in terms of how the government relates to markets. And America's different. We want to retain a strong sense of private capital fulfilling the core investment needs of this country.

Lindsey Graham:

I think if you put most of our major banks under a 'stress test,' they're going to fail...

This idea of nationalizing bank is not comfortable but I think we have got so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community throughout the world that we're going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes.   

To me banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. Government is going to have to...I would not take off [the table] the idea of nationalizing the banks.

Chuck Schumer:

I would not be for nationalizing. I think government's not good at making these decisions as to who gets loans, how this happens...

GOP Rep. Peter King joined Sen. Graham in speaking in favor of nationalizing some banks. Only Rep. Maxine Waters remained true to form. She, of course, has no fear of a government-based solution.

Needless to say, Schumer's remarks are disingenuous in the extreme. First, no one is talking about the government running the banks long-term and making "decisions as to who get loans", etc. Nationalization is merely a mechanism for an orderly disentanglement of failed banks, not dissimilar except in scale from what the FDIC does regularly. Second, Sen Schumer as usual neglects to mention that he is wholly a creature of the New York financial services industry. Schumer's opposition to nationalization is completely self-serving since step one of nationalization would be to wipeout the shareholders (his campaign contributors) and fire the executives (his friends) of any bank found to be insolvent.

On a purely partisan basis bankrupting Schumer's financial base would be good for the GOP since Schumer's ability to bring Wall Street money to the Democratic Party is a major if under publicized reason for his party's resurgence.

As a matter of policy, I agree with Sen. Graham that some of our major banks are indeed insolvent; their liabilities exceed their assets. It is only by clinging to the fiction that the face value of their toxic assets have any bearing on reality that these institutions can present a balance sheet that is not dripping red ink. As long as they insist on carrying on with that charade they will not have real assets to lend and that will mean the American economy will lack a robust financial intermediation function.

So here we are in a topsy-turvy world where within days of passing the gargantuan stimulus bill Democrats are lining up to preserve the zombie banks and Republicans are calling however modestly at this point for their nationalization. What a world!