The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Should We Tax GSEs? Yes

James Kwak at the Baseline Scenario has found a quote from Spectator contributor Stephen Moore that sounds like Moore should favor Pres. Obama's proposed bank tax:

“The user fee is a partial payment for the implicit guarantee it receives from Uncle Sam. The rationale behind such a fee is that since taxpayers are bearing an implicit risk on [the institution's] activities, it is reasonable that the federal government recoup fees to pay for that assumption of risk. The main advantage of such a fee is that it would help level the playing field between [the institution] and its fully private competitors.”

What is “[the institution]“? It’s Fannie Mae, and that’s Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute testifying before Congress in 2000 in support of “a ‘user fee’ of 10 to 20 basis points on [Fannie's and Freddie's] debt to level the playing field between Fannie and competitors.”

That’s from Representative Brad Miller’s op-ed pointing out that a small tax on debt issued by financial institutions that enjoy an implicit government guarantee is something that Republicans (and even the libertarians at Cato) used to be in favor of.

My guess is that Republicans and even the libertarians are still in favor of taxing debt issued by financial institutions that enjoy an implicit government guarantee. At this level of abstraction, 2000 Stephen Moore has it right; it's just common sense that the taxpayers should get something in return for backstopping that risk.

The problem is with the package deal. As Kwak seems to be acknowledging here, if you justify a tax on the big banks on the grounds that they enjoy an implicit government guarantee, you are codifying that they are too big to fail and that from that point on they will benefit from socialized losses and privatized gains.

You can quibble about the details and argue that it's possible to construct a tax that would recoup some of the taxpayers' money without institutionalizing too big to fail for the few banks in consideration. But from this big-picture view it seems like lemon socialism for the big banks in return for a bank tax is a bad deal. We'd be better off with banks that aren't GSEs.

Leave a comment

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/14/should-we-tax-gses-yes

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch | 5.25.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

ADVERTISEMENT