Fox Fiction: "FOXfact[s]" perpetuate "bailout fund" falsehood

From Media Matters During Fox News host Gregg Jarrett's interview with Sen. Jim DeMint, on-screen text displayed two "FOXfact[s]" that falsely referred to a "$50 bil[lion] bailout fund" contained in financial regulatory reform legislation. Jarrett then asked DeMint if President Obama and others were "deliberately trying to mislead the American public" about the nature of the fund. In fact, the fund would provide for the orderly liquidation of failing firms, not bail them out.

Fox, Jarrett repeat "bailout fund" falsehood

"FOXfact[s]" reference "$50 bil[lion] bailout fund." The following on-screen graphics displayed during Jarrett's interview on the April 27 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:

Jarrett asks if Dems are "deliberately trying to mislead" about the "bailout fund." Later during the interview, Jarrett asked DeMint:

JARRETT: [Senator] Chris Dodd and the president and [Treasury Secretary] Tim Geithner, all three say this is not taxpayer bailouts ad nauseam, and yet, among the 1,336 pages I see in the Dodd bill, failed firms must repay any amounts owed to the United States, which invites the question: Why would a firm owe Uncle Sam money, unless of course it's been bailed out? Do you think the president and Dodd and Geithner are deliberately trying to mislead the American public?

Fund does not finance bailouts

Bill calls for orderly "liquidation" of failing financial companies, not bailout, funded by industry, not gov't. Senate Finance Committee chairman Dodd's bill calls for the government to have the "necessary authority to liquidate failing financial companies that pose a significant risk to the financial stability of the United States in a manner that mitigates such risk and minimizes moral hazard," including a $50 billion liquidation fund, paid for by industry assessments, to finance the orderly liquidation of large financial services firms. It further states of the fund:

The authority provided in this title shall be exercised in the manner that best fulfills such purpose, with the strong presumption that --

(1) creditors and shareholders will bear the losses of the financial company;

(2) management responsible for the condition of the financial company will not be retained; and

(3) the Corporation and other appropriate agencies will take all steps necessary and appropriate to assure that all parties, including management and third parties, having responsibility for the condition of the financial company bear losses consistent with their responsibility, including actions for damages, restitution, and recoupment of compensation and other gains not compatible with such responsibility.

PolitiFact: "[T]he bill makes it clear that the money must be used to liquidate -- not keep alive -- failing firms." In an analysis of Republican claims that the legislation establishes a $50 billion fund for future bailouts, PolitiFact.com called the claim false and stated, "The legislative language is pretty clear that the money must be used to dissolve -- meaning completely shut down -- failing firms." PolitiFact further stated, "The fund cannot be used to keep faltering institutions alive." From Politifact.com's analysis:

On March 22, 2010, the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Sens. Christopher Dodd and Shelby, approved the overhaul by a party-line vote of 13-10. Highlights include new government authority to regulate over-the-counter derivatives and hedge funds, a new consumer financial product regulator within the Federal Reserve, and a process for dissolving institutions that are teetering on collapse.

The "Orderly Liquidation Fund" is the technical term for the $50 billion pot of money Shelby is concerned about. Only the largest firms would be required to pay into the fund. If a "systematically significant" firm is teetering on collapse, the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Federal Reserve would have to agree to use the fund to liquidate the firm. A panel of three bankruptcy judges would have to convene and agree within 24 hours that the company is insolvent. The fund is not meant to replace the bankruptcy process, but rather to provide a sort of emergency mechanism for the government to deal with very large, economically significant institutions.

So, the bill provides quite a bit of structure around how the government would decide which firms should be dissolved.

[...]

The legislative language is pretty clear that the money must be used to dissolve -- meaning completely shut down -- failing firms. Here's what Sec. 206 of the bill says:

"In taking action under this title, the (FDIC) shall determine that such action is necessary for purposes of the financial stability of the United States, and not for the purpose of preserving the covered financial company; ensure that the shareholders of a covered financial company do not receive payment until after all other claims and the Fund are fully paid; ensure that unsecured creditors bear losses in accordance with the priority of claim provisions in section 210; ensure that management responsible for the failed condition of the covered financial company is removed (if such management has not already been removed at the time at which the FDIC is appointed receiver); and not take an equity interest in or become a shareholder of any covered financial company or any covered subsidiary."

The fund cannot be used to keep faltering institutions alive.

[...]

Shelby also implies that the fund comes at a cost to taxpayers, saying the fund "can only reinforce the expectation that the government stands ready to intervene on behalf of large and politically connected financial institutions at the expense of Main Street and the American taxpayer." But remember, the businesses would pay into the liquidation fund, not taxpayers. The bill is very specific about that. So his underlying point here is incorrect. [Politifact.com, 4/16/10]

Wash. Post's Klein: "The Dodd bill makes bailouts less likely." Addressing "the Republican attack" that the financial regulation bill creates a "permanent bailout," The Washington Post's Ezra Klein wrote:

The Dodd bill makes bailouts less likely by empowering regulators and increasing transparency, raises a $50 billion fund from banks to pay for future too-big-to-fail bankruptcies, and then makes the outcome a predictable punishment rather than a chaotic rescue. That last is known as "resolution authority" -- as bloodless a word as one could possibly imagine -- and it wipes out both shareholders and management. It's all there in Section 206 of the bill: "Mandatory Terms and Conditions for All Orderly Liquidation Actions." What we call "resolution" would better be described as "execution."

Krugman: "Bailout" claim is "possibly the most dishonest argument ever made in the history of politics." During the April 25 edition of ABC's This Week, economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman stated that the claim -- which has been repeatedly advanced by Sen. Mitch McConnell, among others, and echoes language recommended by Republican strategist Frank Luntz to derail the bill -- is "possibly the most dishonest argument ever made in the history of politics."

Goldman boss denies betting on housing collapse

By Raw Story

Sen. Levin accuses firm of 'trying to sell a shitty deal' to investors

Goldman Sachs denied reaping vast profits from the collapse of the US housing market as its top executive and a star trader faced a grilling Tuesday in Congress over the 2008 financial meltdown.

In angry exchanges before a Senate investigative committee, the storied Wall Street firm was accused of unbridled greed in a crisis that forced thousands of Americans from their homes.

Democratic Senator Carl Levin, the panel's chairman, assailed Goldman as representative of Wall Street's greed, linking them to a raging political fight over the most sweeping financial reforms in a generation.

Accusing Goldman of "trying to sell a shitty deal" to investors, Levin fumed that "as we speak, lobbyists fill the halls of Congress hoping to weaken or kill reforms that would end these abuses.

Newsweek's Michael Hirsh blogs,

Daniel Sparks, the former head of Goldman's mortgage department, repeatedly declined to utter the simple statement that he had acted in the clients' best interests, as did two other Goldman witnesses including Tourre (who took the opportunity to deny all the SEC charges against him). "You knew it was a s--tty deal," Levin told Sparks, repeating again and again a word seldom heard on the record from high public officials. "How much of that s--tty deal did you sell to your clients?"

Sparks refused to say. When Collins asked him whether he felt an obligation to "act in the best interest of your clients," Sparks couldn't answer that directly either. "I had a duty to act in a very straightforward way and very open way with my clients," he responded, prompting gasps of incredulity in the room.

In reporting the exchange, the conservative trash blog Drudge Report linked to a Breitbart video, using an all-caps banner: "DEM POTTY MOUTH: USE S-BOMB 11X IN PUBLIC HEARING."

This video is from C-SPAN 3, broadcast April 27, 2010.

Wall Street giants are ‘giving most of their campaign donations’ to the GOP.

By Ben Armbruster Throughout the past year, Republicans in Congress and top Wall Street banks have been working together in a symbiotic relationship in which the GOP works to water-down

financial regulatory reform in exchange for campaign cash. The Wall Street Journal reports that the pact seems to be paying off, at least for the GOP:

For the first time since 2004, the biggest Wall Street firms are now giving most of their campaign donations to Republicans.

A Wall Street Journal analysis of 12 large financial services companies, including J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. shows that they have collectively made $1.4 million in political donations, with 52% going to Republicans so far this year. That’s a reversal from last year, according to the most recent round of fund-raising reports covering January, February and March. [...]

The change of allegiance comes as Congress closes in on legislation that would overhaul financial services regulations. Democrats back an aggressive bill that has been so far blocked in the Senate by Republicans.

Since 1989, Goldman has never given more to the GOP than it has to Democrats, but this year, the company has given 52 percent of its PAC money to Republicans. Moreover, Wall Street firms “have also begun writing large checks to the Republican Party, while stiffing the Democratic Party,” the Journal writes, noting that “Goldman, KPMG, and FMR Corp. (the owner of Fidelity Investments) each gave $15,000 to the Republican Party in March.”

McConnell’s Faulty Logic: A Cloture Vote To Begin Senate Debate Actually Means A Vote To End It

By Faiz Shakir

Time and again, Republicans have urged Democrats to “slow down” and “start over” in the course of pursuing their agenda. In his role as chief obstructionist, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has used “his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down” and has forged unity among his caucus to filibuster the Democrats’ agenda. Today, McConnell will once again try to stop reform.

At 5 pm today, the Senate will hold a cloture vote on a Democratic plan to overhaul regulation of Wall Street. If the Democrats can muster the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster, it would begin a process of commencing a 30 hour debate, filing amendments, and ultimately holding a vote.

This past Sunday, McConnell pledged that his caucus would hang together to filibuster the vote. On the Senate floor earlier today, McConnell offered a backwards-logic explanation for the GOP’s obstruction:

MCCONNELL: A vote for cloture is a vote that says we’re done listening to the American people on this issue. And a vote against ending this debate is a vote for bipartisanship, for working out an iron-clad solution to the problem of Too Big to Fail. A vote against ending this debate tonight is a vote that says it’s no longer enough to tell our constituents to trust us. It’s a vote that says this time, we’ll prove it.

Watch it:

In fact, a vote for cloture simply means that the Senate is going to begin a final debate on the bill. As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said on the floor today, “This afternoon’s vote is a vote merely to begin debate. It’s not the end of the process, just the beginning.” Reid added that the debate would be “broadcast live” on C-Span.

The public is steadfastly on the side of concluding this debate. About two-thirds of respondents in a new Washington Post survey say they support “stricter regulations on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct their business.” Nevertheless, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) affirmed that “41 Republicans right now are going to stand together” to stop the debate from proceeding.

Matt Yglesias writes, “On financial regulation, over the months I’ve heard a number of Republican Senators say reasonablish things about the bill, or about problems with the bill. But it’s time to put up or shut up. If you’re concerned the bill doesn’t address something, then write an amendment to address it. If you think the bill is too tough in some respect, then write an amendment to weaken it. There’s no good reason to insist that everything be done in a secret Shelby-Dodd negotiating process.”

Krugman calls GOP's "bailouts" claim "possibly the most dishonest argument ever made in the history of politics"

McConnell predicts filibuster of financial reform

By David Edwards and Gavin Dahl

The Wall Street reform bill may eventually pass in the Senate but not before it faces a filibuster Monday, according to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Fox News' Chris Wallace pressed Sen. McConnell (R-KY) Sunday on whether he would have the 41 senators needed to filibuster the bill when it comes up for a floor vote Monday. "It's my expectation we will not go forward with the partisan bill," answered McConnell.

"We don't have a bipartisan compromise yet but I think there is a good chance we're going to get it. What I'd like to see is an opportunity to prevent the Democrats from doing to the financial services industry what they just did to the health care of this country," said McConnell. "And Ironically, Chris, my view is very similar to that bastion of conservatism and tool of Wall Street, The Washington Post editorial page, which said this morning that this bill needs to be improved."

"The fifty billion dollar bailout fund needs to come out," continued McConnell. "We need to have a system in there under which the creditors can expect that they're going to be treated fairly somewhat similar to the bankruptcy laws and we need to have enhanced capital requirements. None of that is currently in the bill that the Majority Leader would try to have us take up on Monday, which came out of committee on a strictly party-line vote."

To pass the bill as is, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would need the support of at least one Republican senator.

The Hill reports that eyes are trained on Maine's two moderate senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Neither one has so far declared they would support the bill.

Last week, Sen. Reid (D-NM) dared Republicans to block financial reform, assuming the American people support Congress taking on Wall Street.

The Washington Post editorial mentioned by McConnell ends with these words:

"Based on our reading of the bill that emerged from Mr. Dodd's committee, a bipartisan compromise on these points is well within reach. That is, unless Democrats and Republicans are more interested in scoring political points than fashioning policy."

This video is from Fox's Fox News Sunday, broadcast April 25, 2010.

GOP Warms To Breaking Up The Big Banks

By Ryan Grim With additional reporting by Sam Stein When it comes to opposing the Democratic Wall Street reform plan, Republican leadership has a logic problem: If the Democratic idea to wind down and liquidate banks that are currently deemed "too big to fail" is no good, then what's the alternative? The obvious answer, of course, is to break the banks down in size so that failure doesn't jeopardize the entire system. That might sound like an unusual position for the GOP to adopt but, slowly, Republican senators are beginning to embrace it. The GOP faces an uphill battle to defeat the plan -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) does not have the votes to block Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) from going to the floor with reform legislation next week, because Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is refusing to sign a letter committing to block any bill Reid puts forward, reports The Hill. A senior Senate Democratic aide confirmed the report to the Huffington Post. A top-ranking party strategist, meanwhile, relayed plans by the White House to make McConnell's position all the more untenable by launching a tough new attack accusing him of parroting talking points authored by noted GOP strategist Frank Luntz. "We're not about to let them get away with planting the seeds of these bogus claims with the public the way they did for a time on health reform," the source said. "McConnell's arguments that the Democrat's plan for Wall Street reform will perpetuate bailouts is pure fantasy cooked up by Frank Luntz in a right-wing focus group... If Mitch McConnell wants to look foolish and to look like the bag man for big banks that he and his colleagues are - we're glad to help." The first piece of "help" came Thursday evening when the Democratic National Committee put out a web ad titled "Luntz Led."

WATCH

Even earlier in the day, however, an onslaught against McConnell was taking place on the Senate floor, where Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) ripped Republicans who sign the Minority Leader's letter, saying they did so for purely political reasons without having read it.

Last week, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) met with 25 top Wall Street executives in New York City to hear their concerns regarding reform. Both say they oppose the Democratic plan as a perpetual bailout. "By creating a fund, that's an invitation to Congress to spend that money just as we have in the highway trust fund and the surplus in Social Security," Cornyn said.

HuffPost asked Cornyn what his alternative solution to the Democratic plan would be. "I think we need to look at the concentration of banking in just a handful of entities that threaten our economy if they go under," Cornyn said. "They need to be smaller in order to avoid that problem and I would support efforts to move in that direction."

At a press conference Wednesday afternoon, McConnell described it as "a permanent taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks," "an endless taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks" and "a perpetual taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks."

Making those banks smaller, said Cornyn, would reduce the risk. "Sixty percent of all the banking assets are concentrated in ten banks in the country," said Cornyn. HuffPost asked if he'd support what's known as the Volcker Rule, an administration plan to split off risky trading done by banks for their own gain from standard commercial banking activities.

"Yes," he said, "I think that's one approach."

Without prompting, he added: "Glass-Steagall, we need to look at that."

The repeal of Glass-Steagall in the late 1990s, which allowed banks to greatly expand in size and scope of operations, is often cited as a cause of the crisis, as banks used insured deposits for risky investments that went bad.

"We all -- I say we all, but almost all of us -- made the mistake of repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999," Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) told HuffPost. "Some of the problems of the big banks were brought about by the blurring of the restrictions on where they could go. And they went into brokerage and they went into derivatives they went into lots of other things. Maybe we need to look back to that, but it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle."

The suggestion to break up banks has been called "very radical," but it's embraced by mainstream economists, including three presidents of Federal Reserve regional banks. On Thursday, James Bullard, president and chief executive of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, joined Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig and Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher in pressing for a break-up of big banks.

The GOP, in pushing for tougher bank regulation, should be careful what they wish for, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Thursday. "He wants to toughen up the provisions so the taxpayer isn't on the hook? Good. We welcome it," said Schumer of McConnell's objections.

Sen. Richard Shelby, the highest-ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, was asked to explain this week just how it is that the Democratic plan amounts to a perpetual bailout. He said that regardless of how the bill is written, if there is a perception that a big bank will be bailed out, then the "too big to fail" problem continues.

"Well, I could sit down with you if we had a couple of hours and had the sheets spread out you know, a lot of pages, but I think any perception -- not just reality, but the perception -- that you're creating a fund here to be used, could be used or misused for bailouts is a mistake," said Shelby of Alabama.

How do you eliminate that possibility as long as big banks exist, Shelby was asked. "I think as Dr. Volcker has said, if they're too big to regulate properly, maybe they're too big to exist. I know there's a lot of talk on both sides of the Atlantic to deal with that. I never thought that being too big by itself was bad but I believe that being too big and believing that you're going to be bailed out is horrible. And you've got to remember, the government never bails out the small and medium-sized banks or companies, it's always the huge" banks, Shelby said.

Sensing news in the water, reporters continued to circle: Should they be broken up? "That is an argument and I think they're talking about it. Merv King has talked about it on the other side of the Atlantic," he said.

Is it an argument Shelby agrees with?

Shelby smiled broadly. "You're looking at somebody [who was] the only Republican who voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall," he said.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, said that McConnell objects specifically to the creation of a $50 billion fund that would be used to wind down big banks. "Rather than letting banks know that they'll be bailed out no matter what, they need to be disincentivized from getting themselves in that position in the first place -- part of that is taking away the potential of a bailout," he said.

Stewart cited testimony from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner a few months ago:

The third element of effective reform is making sure that taxpayers are not on the hook for any losses that might result from the failure and subsequent resolution of a large financial firm.

The government should have the authority to recoup any such losses by assessing a fee on large financial firms. These assessments should be stretched out over time, as necessary, to avoid adding to the pressure induced by the crisis.

Such an ex-post funding mechanism has several advantages over an ex-ante fund. Most notably, it would generate less moral hazard because a standing fund would create expectations that the government would step in to protect shareholders and creditors from losses. In essence, a standing fund would be viewed as a form of insurance for those stakeholders.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Ala), who, with Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), negotiated the provision that McConnell calls a permanent bailout, told HuffPost Thursday that he would be okay with eliminating the $50 billion pre-fund. "Whether it's a pre-fund or post-fund is not central to the resolution," he said. "What I've said is, 'Let's do away with it. Let's just post-fund everything if that's a problem, if that's what everybody thinks is problematic."

House Republicans, meanwhile, say their alternative to breaking up the banks is to make big institutions go through the bankruptcy code.

"Republicans are proposing a new chapter to the bankruptcy code to make it more efficient and better suited for resolving large non-bank financial institutions," said a spokeswoman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio.). "The proposed chapter will facilitate coordination between the regulators of these institutions and the bankruptcy system to allow regulators to provide technical assistance and specialized expertise about financial institutions. Bankruptcy judges would also have the power to stay claims by creditors and counterparties to prevent runs on troubled institutions."

While that may not be remarkably different than what Corker and Warner agreed to, it might not end the possibility of bailouts either.

"In ordinary bankruptcy you can get debtor-in-possession money if companies have assets, and through a bankruptcy court or through a resolution court, they can do that," Shelby noted.

Senate Republicans will find a receptive audience in Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) for their proposal to break up banks.

"Our hopes are that banks will be able to separate the risky aspects of what they do from the vulnerability [of the system]," Lincoln said Thursday, adding that she may have legislative language ready by Friday morning. Lincoln, chair of the Agriculture Committee, has jurisdiction over derivatives regulation. "I'm going to certainly make sure that people understand that when there's risky businessm, there's going to be regulation."

The White House is pushing hard. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, leaving the Capitol on Thursday, told HuffPost he is happy to have Republican support for a tougher bill.

"There's a bipartisan bill to be had here. And the fact is it's all about whether we're going to be comprehensive, even with the derivatives section," he said. "Warren Buffet spoke about it: 'This is where, in fact, future crises can occur.' And whether we're going to have a tough, comprehensive, transparent... section on derivatives, is where, in fact, the whole issue is at."

REPORT: A Closer Look At Consumer Protections In Dodd’s Financial Reform Bill

From think progress This post was co-written by David Min, Associate Director for Financial Markets Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and Pat Garofalo. After months of intractable negotiations with Republicans that went nowhere, and growing impatience from Americans irate that regulatory reforms for Wall Street still had not been completed, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) today introduced his latest financial reform bill. Consumer advocates are approaching the bill with caution, as the proposal lacks a stand-alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), such as was proposed by the Obama administration and passed by the House of Representatives. The Dodd bill instead creates a Bureau of Consumer Protection inside of the Federal Reserve, which has been heavily criticized for its past regulatory failures and for a culture that is seen as apathetic or even antagonistic to the concerns of consumer protection. Much like West Berlin during the Cold War, the Dodd Bureau would be surrounded by a hostile culture, and the loss of even one element of its independence could cause its downfall. So the key is whether the new Bureau will it be sufficiently empowered and isolated from that hostile culture to be effective. Longtime consumer protection advocate Elizabeth Warren has listed four criteria for an effective consumer financial protection regulator: 1) an independent director appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; 2) independent budget authority so it is not prone to the whims of the appropriation process; 3) independent rule-making authority; and 4) independent enforcement powers. A close reading of the Dodd bill shows that his Bureau largely meets these tests (and, in fact, Warren has cautiously praised the new bill). Here is how Dodd’s Bureau compares to the CFPA included in the financial reform bill passed by the House last year and the Obama administration’s initial financial reform proposal. Provision Senate Bureau of Consumer Protection House Consumer Financial Protection Agency Administration Consumer Financial Protection Agency Presidentially Appointed Director Yes, confirmed by the Senate. Yes, confirmed by the Senate. Yes, confirmed by the Senate. Independent source of funding Yes, from the Federal Reserve Board budget. Yes, from the Federal Reserve Board budget. Yes, with fees on “entities and transactions” within the financial system. Rule-making Authority Writes rules, but rules can be vetoed by a two-thirds vote of a newly created council of bank regulators. Full rule-making authority. Full rule-making authority. Covering Non-Bank Financial Firms Rules apply to all banks, non-bank home lenders, and other “significant” non-banks. Rules apply to all banks and non-banks, with some select exemptions (auto dealers, for example) Rules apply to all banks and non-banks Enforcement Authority Only enforces rules for banks with more than $10 billion in assets. All others are overseen by their current regulator. Only enforces rules for banks with more than $10 billion in assets. All others are overseen by their current regulator. Full enforcement responsibilities. Unfortunately, because the Bureau is going to be housed in the Fed, it is going to need every single one of those robust independence measures to ensure that it is not co-opted by a larger regulatory body that hasn’t historically been sympathetic to consumer concerns, and which is already dealing with a number of other major missions, including being designated the primary systemic risk regulator. In this environment, it is easy to see how a Fed-dominated Bureau would be ineffective. Dodd’s Bureau as currently constructed is a good one, but if any of its key features are watered down, even a tiny bit, it will quickly become a bad proposal. So why go through all of these bells and whistles to establish independence for a Bureau within the Fed? Why not just establish a stand alone agency? And at the end of the day, how many Republican votes have been won by putting the Bureau within the Fed? Update President Obama said Dodd’s bill “provides a strong foundation to build a safer financial system,” and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner called it a “strong bill.”