Forum

Un peu long mais tellement d’actualité

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=276

Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy
By Robert Kagan
Foreign Affairs, July/August 1996
William Kristol and Robert Kagan
July/August 1996

THE TEPID CONSENSUS

IN FOREIGN policy, conservatives are adrift. They disdain the Wilsonian multilateralism of the Clinton administration; they are tempted by, but so far have resisted, the neoisolationism of Patrick Buchanan; for now, they lean uncertainly on some version of the conservative “realism” of Henry Kissinger and his disciples. Thus, in this year’s election campaign, they speak vaguely of replacing Clinton’s vacillation with a steady, “adult” foreign policy under Robert Dole. But Clinton has not vacillated that much recently, and Dole was reduced a few weeks ago to asserting, in what was heralded as a major address, that there really are differences in foreign policy between him and the president, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. But the fault is not Dole’s; in truth, there has been little attempt to set forth the outlines of a conservative view of the world and America’s proper role in it.

Is such an attempt necessary, or even possible? For the past few years, Americans, from the foreign policy big-thinker to the man on the street, have assumed it is not. Rather, this is supposed to be a time for unshouldering the vast responsibilities the United States acquired at the end of the Second World War and for concentrating its energies at home. The collapse of the Soviet Empire has made possible a “return to normalcy” in American foreign and defense policy, allowing the adoption of a more limited definition of the national interest, with a commensurate reduction in overseas involvement and defense spending.

Republicans and conservatives at first tended to be wary of this new post-Cold War consensus. But they joined it rapidly after 1992, in the wake of the defeat of the quintessential “foreign policy president” by a candidate who promised to focus “like a laser” on the domestic economy. Now conservatives tailor their foreign and defense policies to fit the presumed new political reality: an American public that is indifferent, if not hostile, to foreign policy and commitments abroad, more interested in balancing the budget than in leading the world, and more intent on cashing in the “peace dividend” than on spending to deter and fight future wars. Most conservatives have chosen to acquiesce in rather than challenge this public mood.

In a way, the current situation is reminiscent of the mid-1970s. But Ronald Reagan mounted a bold challenge to the tepid consensus of that era – a consensus that favored accommodation to and coexistence with the Soviet Union, accepted the inevitability of America’s declining power, and considered any change in the status quo either too frightening or too expensive. Proposing a controversial vision of ideological and strategic victory over the forces of international communism, Reagan called for an end to complacency in the face of the Soviet threat, large increases in defense spending, resistance to communist advances in the Third World, and greater moral clarity and purpose in U.S. foreign policy. He championed American exceptionalism when it was deeply unfashionable. Perhaps most significant, he refused to accept the limits on American power imposed by the domestic political realities that others assumed were fixed.

Many smart people regarded Reagan with scorn or alarm. Liberal Democrats still reeling from the Vietnam War were, of course, appalled by his zealotry. So were many of Reagan’s fellow Republicans, especially the Kissingerian realists then dominant in foreign affairs. Reagan declared war on his own party, took on Gerald Ford for the 1976 Republican presidential nomination (primarily over issues of foreign policy), and trained his guns on Kissinger, whose stewardship of U.S. foreign policy, he charged, had “coincided precisely with the loss of U.S. military supremacy.” Although Reagan lost the battle to unseat Ford, he won the fight at the Republican convention for a platform plank on “morality in foreign policy.” Ultimately, he succeeded in transforming the Republican party, the conservative movement in America, and, after his election to the presidency in 1980, the country and the world.

BENEVOLENT HEGEMONY

TWENTY YEARS later, it is time once again to challenge an indifferent America and a confused American conservatism. Today’s lukewarm consensus about America’s reduced role in a post-Cold War world is wrong. Conservatives should not accede to it; it is bad for the country and, incidentally, bad for conservatism. Conservatives will not be able to govern America over the long term if they fail to offer a more elevated vision of America’s international role.

What should that role be? Benevolent global hegemony. Having defeated the “evil empire,” the United States enjoys strategic and ideological predominance. The first objective of U.S. foreign policy should be to preserve and enhance that predominance by strengthening America’s security, supporting its friends, advancing its interests, and standing up for its principles around the world.

The aspiration to benevolent hegemony might strike some as either hubristic or morally suspect. But a hegemon is nothing more or less than a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain. That is America’s position in the world today. The leaders of Russia and China understand this. At their April summit meeting, Boris Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin joined in denouncing “hegemonism” in the post-Cold War world. They meant this as a complaint about the United States. It should be taken as a compliment and a guide to action.

Consider the events of just the past six months, a period that few observers would consider remarkable for its drama on the world stage. In East Asia, the carrier task forces of the U.S. Seventh Fleet helped deter Chinese aggression against democratic Taiwan, and the 35,000 American troops stationed in South Korea helped deter a possible invasion by the rulers in Pyongyang. In Europe, the United States sent 20,000 ground troops to implement a peace agreement in the former Yugoslavia, maintained 100,000 in Western Europe as a symbolic commitment to European stability and security, and intervened diplomatically to prevent the escalation of a conflict between Greece and Turkey. In the Middle East, the United States maintained the deployment of thousands of soldiers and a strong naval presence in the Persian Gulf region to deter possible aggression by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran, and it mediated in the conflict between Israel and Syria in Lebanon. In the Western Hemisphere, the United States completed the withdrawal of 15,000 soldiers after restoring a semblance of democratic government in Haiti and, almost without public notice, prevented a military coup in Paraguay. In Africa, a U.S. expeditionary force rescued Americans and others trapped in the Liberian civil conflict.

These were just the most visible American actions of the past six months, and just those of a military or diplomatic nature. During the same period, the United States made a thousand decisions in international economic forums, both as a government and as an amalgam of large corporations and individual entrepreneurs, that shaped the lives and fortunes of billions around the globe. America influenced both the external and internal behavior of other countries through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Through the United Nations, it maintained sanctions on rogue states such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq. Through aid programs, the United States tried to shore up friendly democratic regimes in developing nations. The enormous web of the global economic system, with the United States at the center, combined with the pervasive influence of American ideas and culture, allowed Americans to wield influence in many other ways of which they were entirely unconscious. The simple truth of this era was stated last year by a Serb leader trying to explain Slobodan Milosevic’s decision to finally seek rapprochement with Washington. “As a pragmatist,” the Serbian politician said, “Milosevic knows that all satellites of the United States are in a better position than those that are not satellites.”

And America’s allies are in a better position than those who are not its allies. Most of the world’s major powers welcome U.S. global involvement and prefer America’s benevolent hegemony to the alternatives. Instead of having to compete for dominant global influence with many other powers, therefore, the United States finds both the Europeans and the Japanese—after the United States, the two most powerful forces in the world—supportive of its world leadership role. Those who anticipated the dissolution of these alliances once the common threat of the Soviet Union disappeared have been proved wrong. The principal concern of America’s allies these days is not that it will be too dominant but that it will withdraw.

Somehow most Americans have failed to notice that they have never had it so good. They have never lived in a world more conducive to their fundamental interests in a liberal international order, the spread of freedom and democratic governance, an international economic system of free-market capitalism and free trade, and the security of Americans not only to live within their own borders but to travel and do business safely and without encumbrance almost anywhere in the world. Americans have taken these remarkable benefits of the post-Cold War era for granted, partly because it has all seemed so easy. Despite misguided warnings of imperial overstretch, the United States has so far exercised its hegemony without any noticeable strain, and it has done so despite the fact that Americans appear to be in a more insular mood than at any time since before the Second World War. The events of the last six months have excited no particular interest among Americans and, indeed, seem to have been regarded with the same routine indifference as breathing and eating.

And that is the problem. The most difficult thing to preserve is that which does not appear to need preserving. The dominant strategic and ideological position the United States now enjoys is the product of foreign policies and defense strategies that are no longer being pursued. Americans have come to take the fruits of their hegemonic power for granted. During the Cold War, the strategies of deterrence and containment worked so well in checking the ambitions of America’s adversaries that many American liberals denied that our adversaries had ambitions or even, for that matter, that America had adversaries. Today the lack of a visible threat to U.S. vital interests or to world peace has tempted Americans to absentmindedly dismantle the material and spiritual foundations on which their national well-being has been based. They do not notice that potential challengers are deterred before even contemplating confrontation by their overwhelming power and influence.

The ubiquitous post-Cold War question—where is the threat?—is thus misconceived. In a world in which peace and American security depend on American power and the will to use it, the main threat the United States faces now and in the future is its own weakness. American hegemony is the only reliable defense against a breakdown of peace and international order. The appropriate goal of American foreign policy, therefore, is to preserve that hegemony as far into the future as possible. To achieve this goal, the United States needs a neo-Reaganite foreign policy of military supremacy and moral confidence.

THREE IMPERATIVES

SETTING FORTH the broad outlines of such a foreign policy is more important for the moment than deciding the best way to handle all the individual issues that have preoccupied U.S. policymakers and analysts. Whether or not the United States continues to grant most-favored-nation status to China is less important than whether it has an overall strategy for containing, influencing, and ultimately seeking to change the regime in Beijing. Whether NATO expands this year or five years from now is less important than whether NATO remains strong, active, cohesive, and under decisive American leadership. Whether America builds 20 B-2 bombers or 3 is less important than giving its military planners enough money to make intelligent choices that are driven more by strategic than by budget requirements. But it is clear that a neo-Reaganite foreign policy would have several implications.

The defense budget. Republicans declared victory last year when they added $ 7 billion to President Clinton’s defense budget. But the hard truth is that Washington—now spending about $ 260 billion per year on defense—probably needs to spend about $ 60-$ 80 billion more each year in order to preserve America’s role as global hegemon. The United States currently devotes about three percent of its GNP to defense. U.S. defense planners, who must make guesses about a future that is impossible to predict with confidence, are increasingly being forced to place all their chips on one guess or another. They are being asked to predict whether the future is likely to bring more conflicts like the Gulf War or peacekeeping operations like those in Bosnia and Haiti, or more great-power confrontations similar to the Cold War. The best answer to these questions is: who can tell? The odds are that in the coming decades America may face all these kinds of conflict, as well as some that have yet to be imagined.

For the past few years, American military supremacy has been living off a legacy, specifically, the legacy of Ronald Reagan. As former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell once noted, it was Reagan’s military, built in the 1980s to deter the Soviet Union, that won the war against Iraq. No serious analyst of American military capabilities today doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America’s responsibilities to itself and to world peace. The United States may no longer have the wherewithal to defend against threats to America’s vital interests in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, much less to extend America’s current global preeminence well into the future.

The current readiness of U.S. forces is in decline, but so is their ability to maintain an advantage in high-technology weapons over the coming decades. In the search for some way to meet extensive strategic requirements with inadequate resources, defense planners have engaged in strategic fratricide. Those who favor current readiness have been pitted against those who favor high-tech research and development; those who favor maintaining American forward deployment at bases around the world have been arrayed against those who insist that for the sake of economizing the job be accomplished at long range without bases. The military is forced to choose between army combat divisions and the next generation of bombers, between lift capacities and force projection, between short-range and long-range deterrence. Constructing a military force appropriate to a nation’s commitments and its resources is never an easy task, and there are always limits that compel difficult choices. But today’s limits are far too severe; the choices they compel are too dramatic; and because military strategy and planning are far from exact sciences, the United States is dangerously cutting its margin for error.

The defense budget crisis is now at hand. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General John Shalikashvili has complained that the weapons procurement budget has been reduced to perilously low levels, and he has understated the problem. Since 1985, the research and development budget has been cut by 57 percent; the procurement budget has been cut 71 percent. Both the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress have achieved budget savings over the next few years by pushing necessary procurement decisions into the next century. The Clinton administration’s so-called “Bottom-Up Review” of U.S. defense strategy has been rightly dismissed by Democrats like Senate Armed Services Committee member Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) as “already inadequate to the present and certainly to the future.” Both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office have projected a shortfall of $ 50 billion to $ 100 billion over the next five years in funding just for existing force levels and procurement plans.

These shortfalls do not even take into account the development of new weapons, like a missile defense system capable of protecting American territory against missiles launched from rogue states such as North Korea or shielding, say, Los Angeles from nuclear intimidation by the Chinese during the next crisis in the Taiwan Strait. Deployment of such a system could cost more than $ 10 billion a year.

Add together the needed increases in the procurement budget called for by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the justifiable increases in funding for existing forces to make up the shortfalls identified by the GAO and the CBO, and it becomes obvious that an increase in defense spending by $ 60 billion to $ 80 billion is not a radical proposal. It is simply what the United States will require to keep the peace and defend its interests over the coming decades. If this number sounds like a budget-buster, it should not. Today, defense spending is less than 20 percent of the total federal budget. In 1962, before the Vietnam War, defense spending ran at almost 50 percent of the overall budget. In 1978, before the Carter-Reagan defense buildup, it was about 23 percent. Increases of the size required to pursue a neo-Reaganite foreign policy today would require returning to about that level of defense spending—still less than one-quarter of the federal budget.

These days, some critics complain about the fact that the United States spends more on defense than the next six major powers combined. But the enormous disparity between U.S. military strength and that of any potential challenger is a good thing for America and the world. After all, America’s world role is entirely different from that of the other powers. The more Washington is able to make clear that it is futile to compete with American power, either in size of forces or in technological capabilities, the less chance there is that countries like China or Iran will entertain ambitions of upsetting the present world order. And that means the United States will be able to save money in the long run, for it is much cheaper to deter a war than to fight one. Americans should be glad that their defense capabilities are as great as the next six powers combined. Indeed, they may even want to enshrine this disparity in U.S. defense strategy. Great Britain in the late 19th century maintained a “two-power standard” for its navy, insisting that at all times the British navy should be as large as the next two naval powers combined, whoever they might be. Perhaps the United States should inaugurate such a two- (or three-, or four-) power standard of its own, which would preserve its military supremacy regardless of the near-term global threats.

Citizen involvement. A gap is growing, meanwhile, between America’s professional military, uncomfortable with some of the missions that the new American role requires, and a civilian population increasingly unaware of or indifferent to the importance of its military’s efforts abroad. U.S. military leaders harbor justifiable suspicions that while they serve as a kind of foreign legion, doing the hard work of American-style “empire management,” American civilians at home, preoccupied with the distribution of tax breaks and government benefits, will not come to their support when the going gets tough. Weak political leadership and a poor job of educating the citizenry to the responsibilities of global hegemony have created an increasingly distinct and alienated military culture. Ask any mechanic or mess boy on an aircraft carrier why he is patrolling the oceans, and he can give a more sophisticated explanation of power projection than 99 percent of American college graduates. It is foolish to imagine that the United States can lead the world effectively while the overwhelming majority of the population neither understands nor is involved, in any real way, with its international mission.

The president and other political leaders can take steps to close the growing separation of civilian and military cultures in our society. They can remind civilians of the sacrifices being made by U.S. forces overseas and explain what those sacrifices are for. A clear statement of America’s global mission can help the public understand why U.S. troops are deployed overseas and can help reassure military leaders of public support in difficult circumstances. It could also lay the groundwork for reasserting more comprehensive civilian control over the military.

There could be further efforts to involve more citizens in military service. Perhaps the United States has reached the point where a return to the draft is not feasible because of the high degree of professionalization of the military services. But there are other ways to lower the barriers between civilian and military life. Expanded forms of reserve service could give many more Americans experience of the military and an appreciation of military virtues. Conservatives preach that citizenship is not only about rights but also about responsibilities. There is no more profound responsibility than the defense of the nation and its principles.

Moral clarity. Finally, American foreign policy should be informed with a clear moral purpose, based on the understanding that its moral goals and its fundamental national interests are almost always in harmony. The United States achieved its present position of strength not by practicing a foreign policy of live and let live, nor by passively waiting for threats to arise, but by actively promoting American principles of governance abroad—democracy, free markets, respect for liberty. During the Reagan years, the United States pressed for changes in right-wing and left-wing dictatorships alike, among both friends and foes—in the Philippines, South Korea, Eastern Europe and even the Soviet Union. The purpose was not Wilsonian idealistic whimsy. The policy of putting pressure on authoritarian and totalitarian regimes had practical aims and, in the end, delivered strategic benefits. Support for American principles around the world can be sustained only by the continuing exertion of American influence. Some of that influence comes from the aid provided to friendly regimes that are trying to carry out democratic and free market reforms. However strong the case for reform of foreign aid programs, such programs deserve to be maintained as a useful way of exerting American influence abroad. And sometimes that means not just supporting U.S. friends and gently pressuring other nations but actively pursuing policies in Iran, Cuba, or China, for instance—ultimately intended to bring about a change of regime. In any case, the United States should not blindly “do business” with every nation, no matter its regime. Armand Hammerism should not be a tenet of conservative foreign policy.

FROM NSC-68 TO 1996

THIS SWEEPING, neo-Reaganite foreign policy agenda may seem ambitious for these tepid times. Politicians in both parties will protest that the American people will not support the burdens of such a policy. There are two answers to this criticism.

First, it is already clear that, on the present course, Washington will find it increasingly impossible to fulfill even the less ambitious foreign policies of the realists, including the defense of so-called “vital” interests in Europe and Asia. Without a broad, sustaining foreign policy vision, the American people will be inclined to withdraw from the world and will lose sight of their abiding interest in vigorous world leadership. Without a sense of mission, they will seek deeper and deeper cuts in the defense and foreign affairs budgets and gradually decimate the tools of U.S. hegemony.

Consider what has happened in only the past few years. Ronald Reagan’s exceptionalist appeal did not survive the presidency of George Bush, where self-proclaimed pragmatists like James Baker found it easier to justify the Gulf War to the American people in terms of “jobs” than as a defense of a world order shaped to suit American interests and principles. Then, having discarded the overarching Reaganite vision that had sustained a globally active foreign policy through the last decade of the Cold War, the Bush administration in 1992 saw its own prodigious foreign policy successes swept into the dustbin by Clinton political adviser James Carville’s campaign logic: “It’s the economy, stupid.” By the time conservatives took their seats as the congressional opposition in 1993, they had abandoned not only Reaganism but to some degree foreign policy itself.

Now the common wisdom holds that Dole’s solid victory over Buchanan in the primaries constituted a triumphant reassertion of conservative internationalism over neoisolationism. But the common wisdom may prove wrong. On the stump during the Republican primaries this year, what little passion and energy there was on foreign policy issues came from Buchanan and his followers. Over the past four years Buchanan’s fiery “America First” rhetoric has filled the vacuum among conservatives created by the abandonment of Reagan’s very different kind of patriotic mission. It is now an open question how long the beleaguered conservative realists will be able to resist the combined assault of Buchanan’s “isolationism of the heart” and the Republican budget hawks on Capitol Hill.

History also shows, however, that the American people can be summoned to meet the challenges of global leadership if statesmen make the case loudly, cogently, and persistently. As troubles arise and the need to act becomes clear, those who have laid the foundation for a necessary shift in policy have a chance to lead Americans onto a new course. In 1950, Paul Nitze and other Truman administration officials drafted the famous planning document NSC-68, a call for an all-out effort to meet the Soviet challenge that included a full-scale ideological confrontation and massive increases in defense spending. At first, their proposals languished. President Truman, worried about angering a hostile, budget-conscious Congress and an American public which was enjoying an era of peace and prosperity, for months refused to approve the defense spending proposals. It took the North Korean invasion of South Korea to allow the administration to rally support for the prescriptions of NSC-68. Before the Korean War, American politicians were fighting over whether the defense budget ought to be $ 15 billion or $ 16 billion; most believed more defense spending would bankrupt the nation. The next year, the defense budget was over $ 50 billion.

A similar sequence of events unfolded in the 1970s. When Reagan and the “Scoop” Jackson Democrats began sounding the alarm about the Soviet danger, the American public was not ready to listen. Then came the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the seizure of American hostages in Iran. By the time Jimmy Carter professed to have learned more about the Soviet Union than he had ever known before, Reagan and his fellow conservatives in both parties had laid the intellectual foundation for the military buildup of the 1980s.

AN ELEVATED PATRIOTISM

IN THEORY, either party could lay the groundwork for a neo-Reaganite foreign policy over the next decade. The Democrats, after all, led the nation to assume its new global responsibilities in the late 1940s and early 1950s under President Truman and Secretary of State Dean Acheson. It is unlikely, however, that they are prepared to pursue such a course today. Republicans may have lost their way in the last few years, but the Democrats are still recovering from their post-Vietnam trauma of two decades ago. President Clinton has proved a better manager of foreign policy than many expected, but he has not been up to the larger task of preparing and inspiring the nation to embrace the role of global leadership. He, too, has tailored his internationalist activism to fit the constraints of a popular mood that White House pollsters believe is disinclined to sacrifice blood and treasure in the name of overseas commitments. His Pentagon officials talk more about exit strategies than about national objectives. His administration has promised global leadership on the cheap, refusing to seek the levels of defense spending needed to meet the broad goals it claims to want to achieve in the world. Even Clinton’s boldest overseas adventures, in Bosnia and Haiti, have come only after strenuous and prolonged efforts to avoid intervention.

Republicans are surely the genuine heirs to the Reagan tradition. The 1994 election is often said to have represented one last victory for Ronald Reagan’s domestic agenda. But Reagan’s earlier successes rested as much on foreign as on domestic policy. Over the long term, victory for American conservatives depends on recapturing the spirit of Reagan’s foreign policy as well. Indeed, American conservatism cannot govern by domestic policy alone. In the 1990s conservatives have built their agenda on two pillars of Reaganism: relimiting government to curtail the most intrusive and counterproductive aspects of the modern welfare state, and reversing the widespread collapse of morals and standards in American society. But it is hard to imagine conservatives achieving a lasting political realignment in this country without the third pillar: a coherent set of foreign policy principles that at least bear some resemblance to those propounded by Reagan. The remoralization of America at home ultimately requires the remoralization of American foreign policy. For both follow from Americans’ belief that the principles of the Declaration of Independence are not merely the choices of a particular culture but are universal, enduring, “self-evident” truths. That has been, after all, the main point of the conservatives’ war against a relativistic multiculturalism. For conservatives to preach the importance of upholding the core elements of the Western tradition at home, but to profess indifference to the fate of American principles abroad, is an inconsistency that cannot help but gnaw at the heart of conservatism.

Conservatives these days succumb easily to the charming old metaphor of the United States as a “city on a hill.” They hark back, as George Kennan did in these pages not long ago, to the admonition of John Quincy Adams that America ought not go “abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” But why not? The alternative is to leave monsters on the loose, ravaging and pillaging to their hearts’ content, as Americans stand by and watch. What may have been wise counsel in 1823, when America was a small, isolated power in a world of European giants, is no longer so, when America is the giant. Because America has the capacity to contain or destroy many of the world’s monsters, most of which can be found without much searching, and because the responsibility for the peace and security of the international order rests so heavily on America’s shoulders, a policy of sitting atop a hill and leading by example becomes in practice a policy of cowardice and dishonor.

And more is at stake than honor. Without a broader, more enlightened understanding of America’s interests, conservatism will too easily degenerate into the pinched nationalism of Buchanan’s “America First,” where the appeal to narrow stir-interest masks a deeper form of stir-loathing. A true “conservatism of the heart” ought to emphasize both personal and national responsibility, relish the opportunity for national engagement, embrace the possibility of national greatness, and restore a sense of the heroic, which has been sorely lacking in American foreign policy—and American conservatism in recent years. George Kennan was right 50 years ago in his famous “X” article: the American people ought to feel a “certain gratitude to a Providence, which by providing [them] with this implacable challenge, has made their entire security as a nation dependent on pulling themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history plainly intended them to bear.” This is as true today—if less obviously so—as it was at the beginning of the Cold War.

A neo-Reaganite foreign policy would be good for conservatives, good for America, and good for the world. It is worth recalling that the most successful Republican presidents of this century, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, both inspired Americans to assume cheerfully the new international responsibilities that went with increased power and influence. Both celebrated American exceptionalism. Both made Americans proud of their leading role in world affairs. Deprived of the support of an elevated patriotism, bereft of the ability to appeal to national honor, conservatives will ultimately fail in their effort to govern America. And Americans will fail in their responsibility to lead the world.

Copyright 1996 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.

Un sacré “coup”
lire:
...“David I. Levine, a professor of economics at University of California-Berkeley, says the current plan being discussed has the wrong structure.

Erik Brynjolfsson, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School, said his main objection “is the breathtaking amount of unchecked discretion it gives to the Secretary of the Treasury. It is unprecedented in a modern democracy.”

“I suspect that part of what we’re seeing in the freezing up of lending markets is strategic behavior on the part of big financial players who stand to benefit from the bailout,” said David K. Levine, an economist at Washington University in St. Louis, who studies liquidity constraints and game theory.
Strategic Game Playing At Taxpayer Expense

Read that last paragraph above carefully. It is critical so I will repeat it “I suspect that part of what we’re seeing in the freezing up of lending markets is strategic behavior on the part of big financial players who stand to benefit from the bailout,” said David K. Levine, an economist at Washington University in St. Louis, who studies liquidity constraints and game theory.

Tonight Washington Mutual went under. There have been 7 bank failures announce this year, all of them on a Friday. This one is on a Thursday. Game playing to create a sense of urgency? You tell me. What I will tell you is there is no need to rush into a $700 billion package when 190 economists, a current Fed governor, and a former Fed Governor all perceive the bailout for what it is: A bailout of Wall Street that will cost at a bare minimum $2,000 for every man woman and child in the United States.”

C’est dans :
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

Careful historical analysis reveals a pattern to Bush’s presidential vacuity.

There’s an algorithm at work here: the level of intelligence he displays is always in inverse proportion to the grand vileness of the plot he is hatching. The greater the evil, the dumberer he acts. I’m saying that George W. Bush may be stupid, but he’s no fool. In a humble, folksy twist on Machiavelli, he uses his stupidity for political gain. And that’s precisely what’s going on right now.

... There’s always a plan behind the W dumb-show. So what is this telltale spike in presidential tomfoolery telling us this time?
Simple. It’s the Republicans trying to buy a nice big set of handcuffs for President Obama—or anyone else, for a long time to come. When the funds transfers are complete, be it in installments or one spectacular $700 billion tranche, there will be virtually no new social spending possible. There will be no way to lower taxes on the middle class. There will be no way to enact health care reform. There will be no means for the federal government to effectively run many existing programs, which will lend luster to the Republican calls for privatization of Social Security. All of the potential good that could come from finally jettisoning the anti-New Deal Party (because, let’s face it, that’s all the Republican platforms have amounted to from Goldwater to Reagan to Gingrich to W) will be lost in the tranches of capital diverted to those who need it least. The Gilded Age will come to look like Sweden by comparison. Tranche Warfare—the elite vs. everyone else. That, my fellow Americans, is the Plan. Bush is playing dumb so we won’t notice that his final stroke in office will be to make the Republican Revolution permanent and impossible to repeal for decades to come.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-cenedella/bush-may-be-stupid-but-he_b_129228.html

The Bubble: A Poem by Jonathan Swift, January 1721
“victime” de l’éclatement de la bulle de la “South Sea Company” à Londres ... comme Isaac Newton.

Cette société capitalisée par la meilleure société anglicane,
monopolisait le traffic des “nègres” vers la côte est des colonies d’amérique.
Cette bulle a ruiné une majorité, mais enrichi les gerfauts politico-financiers.

Je n’ai “traduit” que les premier et dernier quatrains de ce long poème en vieil anglais.

Ye wise Philosophers explain             Nous les malins Raisonneurs expliquons
What Magick makes our Money rise,    Quelle magie fait se multiplier notre argent,
When dropt into the Southern Main;      Quand il est jeté dans les Mers du sud; (Southern Main : avenue de Trinidad & Tobaggo)
Or do these Juglers cheat our Eyes?      Ou ces Passe-passes ont ils abusés nos yeux ? 

... 59 quatrains ...

The Nation too too late will find,          La nation ne découvrira que bien trop tard,
Computing all their Cost and Trouble,    En compilant tous ses coûts et problèmes,
Directors Promises but Wind,            Que les promesses des managers ne sont que du vent,
South-Sea at best a mighty Bubble.      La Cie des Mers du Sud n’était au mieux qu’une gigantesque bulle.

http://www.networkers.org/userfiles/Jonathan%20Swift%20The%20Bubble.doc

“The additional rise above the true capital will only be imaginary; one added to one, by any stretch of vulgar arithmetic will never make three and a half, consequently all fictitious value must be a loss to some person or other first or last. The only way to prevent it to oneself must be to sell out betimes (sic), and so let the Devil take the hindmost.”

Bush Calls Bailout Vital to Economy, Will Meet With McCain and Obama
Proposal Takes Shape in Congress, but Broad Support Is Lacking
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 25, 2008; A01
President Bush said yesterday that the credit crisis that has seized world markets could devastate the U.S. economy unless Congress acts quickly to approve a $700 billion bailout plan for the nation’s financial system, a message aimed at reluctant lawmakers as much as a deeply skeptical public.
“Our entire economy is in danger,” Bush said in an address from the White House, emphasizing that the massive bailout was not targeted at “any individual company or industry. It is aimed at preserving America’s overall economy.”
Warning that “America could slip into a financial panic,” Bush blamed the crisis on “easy credit” in the housing market and “the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise.” As mortgage loans went bad and borrowers defaulted, he said, investors have succumbed to a “widespread loss of confidence” that threatens to shut down consumer lending, decimate the stock market, cause businesses and banks to fail—and cost millions of Americans their jobs.
“Ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession,” Bush said. “Fellow citizens, we must not let this happen.”
Bush delivered the prime-time speech, his first in over a year, after a clamor on Capitol Hill for him to acknowledge the most serious financial crisis in decades and to personally make the case for the government intervention his administration has proposed.
Five days after unveiling the bailout plan, which seeks to purchase troubled assets from faltering financial institutions, administration officials were still struggling to line up support among lawmakers appalled by its cost, doubtful of its methods and outraged by the speed with which they were being pushed to act. While the usually fractious Senate seemed to be coming together behind a version of the proposal, the administration had big trouble in the House, particularly among mistrustful Republicans who said the White House had failed to make a case for the bailout in terms ordinary people could understand.
“I’m seeking answers to two fundamental questions: Why this? And why now?” Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) said before Bush delivered his remarks. “You can’t make a move this large without the approval of the American people. And we don’t have it, yet.”
Despite such skepticism, top members of the House Financial Services and Senate Banking committees are slated to sit down this morning in an effort to draft the final details of a bipartisan bill. Bush also invited congressional leaders as well as presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama to meet with him at the White House today.
The president’s top economic advisers were lobbying hard yesterday for passage of the bill. In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said the White House would drop its resistance to lawmakers’ demands for limits on executive compensation at companies that accept taxpayer money. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the committee’s chairman, called that a “big step forward” and said he would push next year to apply those limits more broadly.
Frank said Democrats in the House and Senate had reached agreement on a bill that would include an oversight board to monitor the bailout program, requirements that taxpayers share in future profits of companies that seek assistance and new powers for bankruptcy judges to modify home mortgages for distressed borrowers. Lawmakers also discussed doling out the money in segments, Frank said, adding, “It’s not going to be a straight $700 billion.”
Democrats will present that bill this morning to Republican lawmakers in hopes of reaching a final agreement, Frank said. He said the biggest sticking points are likely to be the bankruptcy provision and a proposal by Senate Democrats to dedicate to affordable housing some of the proceeds from the eventual sale of the assets.
Hours before Bush’s speech, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) issued a joint statement saying they were “working in a bipartisan manner” and had “made progress” on a bill. But even as the substance of a deal began to take shape, the politics were in turmoil. McCain declared that he did “not believe that the plan on the table will pass” and announced he was leaving the campaign trail to return to Capitol Hill to lead negotiations, a move panned by Democrats as a political stunt. Meanwhile, with less than six weeks until the November election, Democratic leaders said they would approve the plan only if a majority of Republicans in both chambers endorsed it as well.
House Republicans have emerged as the most difficult bloc of votes, with moderates fearful of the price tag and conservatives opposed to the rejection of free-market principles implicit in the plan. A meeting Tuesday morning with Vice President Cheney only increased their defiance.
“The Paulson proposal has not gotten the traction required to complete this process by the end of the week,” said Rep. Adam H. Putnam (R-Fla.), the third-ranking Republican in the House.
Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke tried to change that yesterday during appearances before two congressional committees. But the former Wall Street dealmaker and the former economics professor struggled to paint a vivid picture of the harm that would befall the economy if the bailout was not approved.
At one point, Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio) pleaded with them to explain the crisis in terms a factory worker relaxing on his couch could understand.
“In order to accept this plan, he needs to be more scared,” LaTourette said. If Congress doesn’t act, “I need you to tell this guy on the couch what happens to him. Is he going to be out of a job? Is his credit card going to work? Can he buy a car? Is his daughter going to go to college?”
Paulson replied that the guy on the couch should be scared. “But I think right now he’s angrier than he is scared.
“It puts us in a difficult position,” Paulson continued, “because no one likes to be painting an overly dire picture and scaring people. But the fact is, the financial markets are not stable, and the situation can be very severe as it relates not just to his current situation, but to keeping his job” and preserving his retirement accounts.
By midday, it became clear that Paulson and Bernanke were not getting the job done; the president would have to deliver the message in person.
In his national address, Bush used the sort of everyday terms that lawmakers had been seeking to describe the potential collapse.
He warned that community “banks could fail,” that another stock market plunge would “reduce the value of your retirement account,” that farmers would not get credit and that parents would not be able to “send your children to college.”
In addition to easy credit, the president blamed mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for contributing to the crisis by borrowing “enormous sums of money” and fueling the market for questionable investments.
“With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice: to step in with dramatic government action or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions of some to undermine the financial security of all,” Bush said, noting that under usual circumstances his conservative ideology would have allowed markets to work their will.
“These are not normal circumstances,” he said.
Staff writers Michael Abramowitz and Neil Irwin contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092400771.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=new
—-
NYTIMES

September 25, 2008
President Issues Warning to Americans
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — President Bush appealed to the nation Wednesday night to support a $700 billion plan to avert a widespread financial meltdown, and signaled that he is willing to accept tougher controls over how the money is spent.
As Democrats and the administration negotiated details of the package late into the night, the presidential candidates of both major parties planned to meet Mr. Bush at the White House on Thursday, along with leaders of Congress. The president said he hoped the session would “speed our discussions toward a bipartisan bill.”
Mr. Bush used a prime-time address to warn Americans that “a long and painful recession” could occur if Congress does not act quickly.
“Our entire economy is in danger,” he said.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats said that progress toward a deal had come after the White House had offered two major concessions: a plan to limit pay of executives whose firms seek government assistance, and a provision that would give taxpayers an equity stake in some of the firms so that the government can profit if the companies prosper in the future. Details of those provisions, and many others, were still under discussion.
Mr. Bush’s televised address, and his extraordinary offer to bring together Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, and Senator John McCain, the Republican, just weeks before the election underscored a growing sense of urgency on the part of the administration that Congress must act to avert an economic collapse.
It was the first time in Mr. Bush’s presidency that he delivered a prime-time speech devoted exclusively to the economy. It came at a time when deep public unease about shaky financial markets and the demise of Wall Street icons such as Lehman Brothers has been coupled with skepticism and anger directed at a government bailout that could become the most expensive in American history.
The administration’s plan seeks to restore liquidity to the market and restore the economy by buying up distressed securities, many of them tied to mortgages, from struggling financial firms.
The address capped a fast-moving and chaotic day, in Washington, on the presidential campaign trail and on Wall Street.
On Capitol Hill, delicate negotiations between Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Congressional leaders were complicated by resistance from rank-and-file lawmakers, who were fielding torrents of complaints from constituents furious that their tax money was going to be spent to clean up a mess created by high-paid financial executives.
On Wall Street, financial markets continued to struggle. The cost of borrowing for banks, businesses and consumers shot up and investors rushed to safe havens like Treasury bills — a reminder that credit markets, which had recovered somewhat after Mr. Paulson announced the broad outlines of the bailout plan last week, remain under severe stress, with many investors still skittish.
Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the banking committee, said a deal could come together as early as Thursday. “Working in a bipartisan manner, we have made progress,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Representative John A. Boehner, the Republican leader, said in a joint statement.
“We agree that key changes should be made to the administration’s proposal. It must include basic good-government principles, including rigorous and independent oversight, strong executive compensation standards and protections for taxpayers.”
Mr. Bush used his speech to signal that he was willing to address lawmakers’ concerns, including fears that tax dollars will be used to pay Wall Street executives and that the plan would put too much authority in the hands of the Treasury secretary without sufficient oversight.
“Any rescue plan should also be designed to ensure that taxpayers are protected,” Mr. Bush said. “It should welcome the participation of financial institutions, large and small. It should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars. It should establish a bipartisan board to oversee the plan’s implementation. And it should be enacted as soon as possible.”
The speech came after the White House, under pressure from Republican lawmakers, opened an aggressive effort to portray the financial rescue package as crucial not just to stabilize Wall Street but to protect the livelihoods of all Americans.
But the White House gave careful thought to the timing; aides to Mr. Bush said they did not want to appear to have the president forcing a solution on Congress.
On Capitol Hill, Mr. Paulson, facing a second day of questioning by lawmakers, this time before the House Financial Services Committee, tried to focus as much on Main Street as Wall Street.
“This entire proposal is about benefiting the American people because today’s fragile financial system puts their economic well being at risk,” Mr. Paulson said. Without action, he added: “Americans’ personal savings and the ability of consumers and business to finance spending, investment and job creation are threatened.”
But it was the comments of Mr. Paulson, a former chief of Goldman Sachs, about limiting the pay of executives that signaled the biggest shift in the White House position and the urgency that the administration has placed in winning Congressional approval as quickly as possible.
“The American people are angry about executive compensation, and rightly so,” he said. “No one understands pay for failure.”
Officials said the legislation would almost certainly include a ban on so-called golden parachutes, the generous severance packages that many executives receive on their way out the door, for firms that seek government help. The measure also is likely to include a mechanism for firms to recover any bonus or incentive pay based on corporate earnings or other results that later turn out to have been overstated.
Democrats were also working to include tax provisions that would cap the amount of an executive’s salary that a company could deduct to $400,000 — the amount earned by the president.
At the same time, Congressional Democrats said they were prepared to drop one of their most contentious demands: new authority for bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of first mortgages. That provision was heavily opposed by Senate Republicans.
In addition, Democrats also are leaning toward authorizing the entire $700 billion that Mr. Paulson is seeking but disbursing a smaller amount, perhaps only $150 billion, to start the program, with future funds dependent on how well it is working.
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the lead negotiator for Congressional Democrats, said they also planned to insert a tax break to aid community banks that have suffered steep losses on preferred stock that they own in the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
That change is in addition to others that already have been accepted by Mr. Paulson that would create an independent oversight board and require the government to do more to prevent foreclosures.
Mark Landler and Carl Hulse contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/business/economy/25bush.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1222336998-e6kR6n75KL+ftXME3LCOXw

—-

Les Etats-Unis à la recherche de l’union sacrée pour faire face à la crise
LE MONDE | 25.09.08 | 08h53 •  Mis à jour le 25.09.08 | 09h25
Washington, correspondante

Dans une atmosphère d’urgence nationale, le président George Bush s’est adressé aux Américains, mercredi 24 septembre, pour les avertir que “l’économie entière est en danger”. Il a convié en même temps les chefs de la majorité et de l’opposition, dont les candidats démocrate, Barack Obama, et républicain, John McCain, jeudi à la Maison Blanche pour mettre au point un plan d’action susceptible d’épargner à l’économie américaine une “récession longue et douloureuse”. Les deux rivaux de l’élection présidentielle ont publié un communiqué commun et accepté la proposition.

“Sans une action immédiate du Congrès, l’Amérique pourrait plonger dans une panique majeure”, a mis en garde M. Bush, dans une allocution retransmise par les chaînes de télévision. M. Bush avait jusqu’à présent évité d’apparaître en première ligne. Selon ses conseillers, il ne voulait pas risquer de renvoyer des signaux alarmistes aux marchés.
Il ne voulait probablement pas non plus insister sur la situation de l’économie alors que les démocrates bénéficient d’un avantage électoral dans ce domaine. Selon les sondages, la crise financière est en train de permettre à M. Obama de creuser l’écart. Le dernier sondage Washington Post/ABC News, publié mercredi, lui donne neuf points d’avance (52 % à 43 %) sur M. McCain.
Les réserves de la Maison Blanche ont été balayées au deuxième jour des auditions au Congrès des deux architectes du plan de “bail out” - renflouage - des banques, le secrétaire au Trésor, Henry Paulson, et le président de la Réserve fédérale, Ben Bernanke.
“LES AMÉRICAINS SONT FURIEUX”
Comme la veille, il est apparu que les parlementaires, notamment républicains, étaient plus que sceptiques sur le plan de stabilisation de 700 milliards de dollars (476 milliards d’euros) présenté par l’administration, l’intervention la plus massive de l’Etat depuis les années 1930.
Les élus ont indiqué être inondés de coups de téléphone de leurs administrés en colère. “Soyons clairs, a dit le sénateur démocrate Charles Schumer. Les Américains sont furieux.”
Dans son intervention à la Maison Blanche, la première de cette nature depuis plus d’un an, M. Bush a été contraint d’expliquer que, bien que son “instinct naturel” de républicain soit de “s’opposer à l’intervention du gouvernement”, il avait décidé de ne pas laisser “les actes irresponsables de quelques-uns compromettre la sécurité financière de tous”.
Il a décrit en termes très explicites les conséquences potentielles d’une crise qui reste très immatérielle pour la plupart des Américains, même si le sénateur républicain Judd Greg l’a comparée au 11 septembre 2001 et à l’ouragan Katrina : “D’autres banques pourraient faire faillite, la Bourse plonger encore, ce qui réduirait la valeur de votre retraite. Des entreprises fermeraient leurs portes et des millions d’Américains pourraient perdre leur emploi”.
La journée a été une succession de rebondissements. Avant le discours de George Bush, John McCain a tenté un nouveau “coup”. Comme il l’avait fait avec le choix de Sarah Palin pour son “ticket”, ou l’annulation de la première journée de la convention républicaine pour cause de cyclone, il a annoncé qu’il suspendait sa campagne pour retourner au Sénat et tenter d’arracher un compromis sur le plan Paulson.
Cette initiative a été immédiatement décriée par les démocrates, qui y ont vu une “politisation” des négociations sur les modalités du plan, lesquelles d’ailleurs n’étaient pas, selon eux, au point mort comme M. McCain le prétendait.
HENRY PAULSON DÉCRIÉ
Le candidat républicain a aussi annoncé qu’il ne se rendrait pas au débat de vendredi avec Barack Obama, le premier des trois débats officiels de la campagne, tant que le sauvetage des marchés financiers ne serait pas assuré. M. Obama a fait savoir qu’un président était censé pouvoir “mener deux tâches à la fois” et qu’il ne voyait pas la nécessité de reporter le débat – prévu sur la politique étrangère – alors que les Américains avaient plus que jamais besoin de connaître les positions des candidats.
Plus que la panique, l’atmosphère dans le pays est à la rébellion populiste. “Respect est le mot qui manque le plus”, a dit le promoteur Donald Trump, qui, après avoir soutenu Hillary Clinton, penche maintenant du côté de John McCain. Henry Paulson est largement décrié (il a été transformé en Frankenstein par l’humoriste Jon Stewart). “Il a perdu toute crédibilité”, a jugé le sénateur républicain Jim Demint.
Il lui est reproché de réclamer les “pouvoirs spéciaux” par le biais de la clause 8 du plan de sauvetage, qui stipule que “les décisions du secrétaire ne sont pas révisables ni susceptibles d’être revues par une cour de justice ou une agence administrative”. Ce que la gauche s’est mis à appeler le “Patriot Act financier”, en référence à la loi antiterroriste de 2001. Pour l’analyste démocrate Steve Clemons, George Bush utilise une nouvelle fois “la politique de la peur”.

Corine Lesnes
http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2008/09/25/les-etats-unis-a-la-recherche-de-l-union-sacree-pour-faire-face-a-la-crise_1099216_829254.html

Bush: «Toute l’économie américaine est en danger»
(Reuters)
Le président américain a tenté de convaincre cette nuit le Congrès d’adopter son plan de sauvetage. Il reçoit aujourd’hui à la Maison Blanche les deux candidats à sa succession, une première.
AFP
LIBERATION.FR : jeudi 25 septembre 2008
Le président américain George W. Bush a averti mercredi soir, dans une de ses rares allocutions télévisées consacrées à la crise financière, que “toute notre économie est en danger”. “Nous sommes au milieu d’une crise financière grave”, a-t-il dit depuis la Maison Blanche, insistant sur cette “période sans précédent pour l’économie américaine”.
Toute notre économie est en danger”, a déclaré M. Bush d’un ton solennel, appelant les élus du Congrès à adopter le plan de sauvetage du système financier proposé par son administration.
Pour ce faire, le président américain a annoncé avoir invité, jeudi à la Maison Blanche, les candidats à la présidentielle Barack Obama et John McCain à “se joindre aux responsables parlementaires des deux partis (...) afin d’aider à accélérer nos discussions vers une loi sans esprit partisan”.
“Il y a un esprit de coopération entre les démocrates et les républicains et entre le Congrès et cette administration”, s’est-il félicité au cours de cette allocution d’un quart d’heure.
Il a souligné que le plan, présenté par le secrétaire au Trésor Henry Paulson, était “assez ambitieux pour résoudre un problème grave”, rappelant que le gouvernement fédéral verserait 700 milliards de dollars pour racheter “les actifs douteux qui encrassent le système financier”.
“Cet effort de sauvetage ne vise pas à préserver les sociétés ou les industries de certains individus. Il vise à préserver l’économie américaine en général”, a-t-il encore déclaré.
Le président américain s’est présenté comme “un fervent partisan de la libre entreprise”. “Donc mon instinct naturel est de m’opposer à une intervention du gouvernement”, a-t-il dit, “je crois qu’on devrait laisser les entreprises qui prennent de mauvaises décisions s’éteindre”.
“Dans des circonstances normales, j’aurais suivi cette inclinaison. Mais nous ne sommes pas dans des circonstances normales”, a-t-il martelé. “Le marché ne fonctionne pas bien, il y a une importante perte de confiance et des secteurs majeurs du système financier américain risquent de tomber”, a-t-il poursuivi.
“Sans action immédiate du Congrès, l’Amérique pourrait glisser dans une panique financière et un scénario douloureux”, a encore prévenu Bush, sur la foi des prévisions des experts.
“Davantage de banques pourraient faire faillite, la Bourse pourrait chuter encore plus, ce qui réduirait la valeur de vos retraites”, a-t-il dit aux Américains, “plus d’entreprises pourraient fermer leurs portes et des millions d’Américains perdre leurs emplois (...) et finalement, notre pays pourrait vivre une récession longue et douloureuse”.
“Nous ne devons pas laisser cela arriver”, a-t-il scandé. “Notre économie est confrontée à un défi immense, mais nous avons déjà surmonté des défis difficiles auparavant, et nous allons surmonter celui-là”, a-t-il promis.
•
Accéder au forum «Obama-McCain, dernière ligne droite»

http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/economie_terre/354293.FR.php

—-
Bush : « L’économie américaine en danger »
Rédaction en ligne
jeudi 25 septembre 2008, 09:37
Le président américain George W. Bush a averti mercredi soir, dans une de ses rares allocutions télévisées consacrées à la crise financière, que « toute notre économie est en danger ».
Lire aussi l’édito de Jurek Kuczkiewicz: “Citoyens cherchent leaders désespérément” / Bush invite McCain et Obama à la Maison blanche / La crise financière s’immisce entre McCain et Obama
AP

« Nous sommes au milieu d’une crise financière grave », a-t-il dit depuis la Maison Blanche, insistant sur cette « période sans précédent pour l’économie américaine ».
« Toute notre économie est en danger », a déclaré M. Bush d’un ton solennel, appelant les élus du Congrès à adopter le plan de sauvetage du système financier proposé par son administration.
Pour ce faire, le président américain a annoncé avoir invité, jeudi à la Maison Blanche, les candidats à la présidentielle Barack Obama et John McCain à « se joindre aux responsables parlementaires des deux partis (…) afin d’aider à accélérer nos discussions vers une loi sans esprit partisan ».
« Il y a un esprit de coopération entre les démocrates et les républicains et entre le Congrès et cette administration », s’est-il félicité au cours de cette allocution d’un quart d’heure.
Il a souligné que le plan, présenté par le secrétaire au Trésor Henry Paulson, était « assez ambitieux pour résoudre un problème grave », rappelant que le gouvernement fédéral verserait 700 milliards de dollars pour racheter « les actifs douteux qui encrassent le système financier ».
« Cet effort de sauvetage ne vise pas à préserver les sociétés ou les industries de certains individus. Il vise à préserver l’économie américaine en général », a-t-il encore déclaré.
Le président américain s’est présenté comme « un fervent partisan de la libre entreprise ». « Donc mon instinct naturel est de m’opposer à une intervention du gouvernement », a-t-il dit, « je crois qu’on devrait laisser les entreprises qui prennent de mauvaises décisions s’éteindre ».
« Dans des circonstances normales, j’aurais suivi cette inclinaison. Mais nous ne sommes pas dans des circonstances normales », a-t-il martelé. « Le marché ne fonctionne pas bien, il y a une importante perte de confiance et des secteurs majeurs du système financier américain risquent de tomber », a-t-il poursuivi.
« Sans action immédiate du Congrès, l’Amérique pourrait glisser dans une panique financière et un scénario douloureux », a encore prévenu M. Bush, sur la foi des prévisions des experts.
« Davantage de banques pourraient faire faillite, la Bourse pourrait chuter encore plus, ce qui réduirait la valeur de vos retraites », a-t-il dit aux Américains, « plus d’entreprises pourraient fermer leurs portes et des millions d’Américains perdre leurs emplois (…) et finalement, notre pays pourrait vivre une récession longue et douloureuse ».
« Nous ne devons pas laisser cela arriver », a-t-il scandé. « Notre économie est confrontée à un défi immense, mais nous avons déjà surmonté des défis difficiles auparavant, et nous allons surmonter celui-là », a-t-il promis.
(d’après AFP)
http://www.lesoir.be/actualite/monde/bush-toute-l-economie-2008-09-25-642285.shtml

Bush Calls Bailout Vital to Economy, Will Meet With McCain and Obama
Proposal Takes Shape in Congress, but Broad Support Is Lacking
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 25, 2008; A01
President Bush said yesterday that the credit crisis that has seized world markets could devastate the U.S. economy unless Congress acts quickly to approve a $700 billion bailout plan for the nation’s financial system, a message aimed at reluctant lawmakers as much as a deeply skeptical public.
“Our entire economy is in danger,” Bush said in an address from the White House, emphasizing that the massive bailout was not targeted at “any individual company or industry. It is aimed at preserving America’s overall economy.”
Warning that “America could slip into a financial panic,” Bush blamed the crisis on “easy credit” in the housing market and “the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise.” As mortgage loans went bad and borrowers defaulted, he said, investors have succumbed to a “widespread loss of confidence” that threatens to shut down consumer lending, decimate the stock market, cause businesses and banks to fail—and cost millions of Americans their jobs.
“Ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession,” Bush said. “Fellow citizens, we must not let this happen.”
Bush delivered the prime-time speech, his first in over a year, after a clamor on Capitol Hill for him to acknowledge the most serious financial crisis in decades and to personally make the case for the government intervention his administration has proposed.
Five days after unveiling the bailout plan, which seeks to purchase troubled assets from faltering financial institutions, administration officials were still struggling to line up support among lawmakers appalled by its cost, doubtful of its methods and outraged by the speed with which they were being pushed to act. While the usually fractious Senate seemed to be coming together behind a version of the proposal, the administration had big trouble in the House, particularly among mistrustful Republicans who said the White House had failed to make a case for the bailout in terms ordinary people could understand.
“I’m seeking answers to two fundamental questions: Why this? And why now?” Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) said before Bush delivered his remarks. “You can’t make a move this large without the approval of the American people. And we don’t have it, yet.”
Despite such skepticism, top members of the House Financial Services and Senate Banking committees are slated to sit down this morning in an effort to draft the final details of a bipartisan bill. Bush also invited congressional leaders as well as presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama to meet with him at the White House today.
The president’s top economic advisers were lobbying hard yesterday for passage of the bill. In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said the White House would drop its resistance to lawmakers’ demands for limits on executive compensation at companies that accept taxpayer money. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the committee’s chairman, called that a “big step forward” and said he would push next year to apply those limits more broadly.
Frank said Democrats in the House and Senate had reached agreement on a bill that would include an oversight board to monitor the bailout program, requirements that taxpayers share in future profits of companies that seek assistance and new powers for bankruptcy judges to modify home mortgages for distressed borrowers. Lawmakers also discussed doling out the money in segments, Frank said, adding, “It’s not going to be a straight $700 billion.”
Democrats will present that bill this morning to Republican lawmakers in hopes of reaching a final agreement, Frank said. He said the biggest sticking points are likely to be the bankruptcy provision and a proposal by Senate Democrats to dedicate to affordable housing some of the proceeds from the eventual sale of the assets.
Hours before Bush’s speech, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) issued a joint statement saying they were “working in a bipartisan manner” and had “made progress” on a bill. But even as the substance of a deal began to take shape, the politics were in turmoil. McCain declared that he did “not believe that the plan on the table will pass” and announced he was leaving the campaign trail to return to Capitol Hill to lead negotiations, a move panned by Democrats as a political stunt. Meanwhile, with less than six weeks until the November election, Democratic leaders said they would approve the plan only if a majority of Republicans in both chambers endorsed it as well.
House Republicans have emerged as the most difficult bloc of votes, with moderates fearful of the price tag and conservatives opposed to the rejection of free-market principles implicit in the plan. A meeting Tuesday morning with Vice President Cheney only increased their defiance.
“The Paulson proposal has not gotten the traction required to complete this process by the end of the week,” said Rep. Adam H. Putnam (R-Fla.), the third-ranking Republican in the House.
Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke tried to change that yesterday during appearances before two congressional committees. But the former Wall Street dealmaker and the former economics professor struggled to paint a vivid picture of the harm that would befall the economy if the bailout was not approved.
At one point, Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio) pleaded with them to explain the crisis in terms a factory worker relaxing on his couch could understand.
“In order to accept this plan, he needs to be more scared,” LaTourette said. If Congress doesn’t act, “I need you to tell this guy on the couch what happens to him. Is he going to be out of a job? Is his credit card going to work? Can he buy a car? Is his daughter going to go to college?”
Paulson replied that the guy on the couch should be scared. “But I think right now he’s angrier than he is scared.
“It puts us in a difficult position,” Paulson continued, “because no one likes to be painting an overly dire picture and scaring people. But the fact is, the financial markets are not stable, and the situation can be very severe as it relates not just to his current situation, but to keeping his job” and preserving his retirement accounts.
By midday, it became clear that Paulson and Bernanke were not getting the job done; the president would have to deliver the message in person.
In his national address, Bush used the sort of everyday terms that lawmakers had been seeking to describe the potential collapse.
He warned that community “banks could fail,” that another stock market plunge would “reduce the value of your retirement account,” that farmers would not get credit and that parents would not be able to “send your children to college.”
In addition to easy credit, the president blamed mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for contributing to the crisis by borrowing “enormous sums of money” and fueling the market for questionable investments.
“With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice: to step in with dramatic government action or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions of some to undermine the financial security of all,” Bush said, noting that under usual circumstances his conservative ideology would have allowed markets to work their will.
“These are not normal circumstances,” he said.
Staff writers Michael Abramowitz and Neil Irwin contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092400771.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=new
—-
NYTIMES

September 25, 2008
President Issues Warning to Americans
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — President Bush appealed to the nation Wednesday night to support a $700 billion plan to avert a widespread financial meltdown, and signaled that he is willing to accept tougher controls over how the money is spent.
As Democrats and the administration negotiated details of the package late into the night, the presidential candidates of both major parties planned to meet Mr. Bush at the White House on Thursday, along with leaders of Congress. The president said he hoped the session would “speed our discussions toward a bipartisan bill.”
Mr. Bush used a prime-time address to warn Americans that “a long and painful recession” could occur if Congress does not act quickly.
“Our entire economy is in danger,” he said.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats said that progress toward a deal had come after the White House had offered two major concessions: a plan to limit pay of executives whose firms seek government assistance, and a provision that would give taxpayers an equity stake in some of the firms so that the government can profit if the companies prosper in the future. Details of those provisions, and many others, were still under discussion.
Mr. Bush’s televised address, and his extraordinary offer to bring together Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, and Senator John McCain, the Republican, just weeks before the election underscored a growing sense of urgency on the part of the administration that Congress must act to avert an economic collapse.
It was the first time in Mr. Bush’s presidency that he delivered a prime-time speech devoted exclusively to the economy. It came at a time when deep public unease about shaky financial markets and the demise of Wall Street icons such as Lehman Brothers has been coupled with skepticism and anger directed at a government bailout that could become the most expensive in American history.
The administration’s plan seeks to restore liquidity to the market and restore the economy by buying up distressed securities, many of them tied to mortgages, from struggling financial firms.
The address capped a fast-moving and chaotic day, in Washington, on the presidential campaign trail and on Wall Street.
On Capitol Hill, delicate negotiations between Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Congressional leaders were complicated by resistance from rank-and-file lawmakers, who were fielding torrents of complaints from constituents furious that their tax money was going to be spent to clean up a mess created by high-paid financial executives.
On Wall Street, financial markets continued to struggle. The cost of borrowing for banks, businesses and consumers shot up and investors rushed to safe havens like Treasury bills — a reminder that credit markets, which had recovered somewhat after Mr. Paulson announced the broad outlines of the bailout plan last week, remain under severe stress, with many investors still skittish.
Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the banking committee, said a deal could come together as early as Thursday. “Working in a bipartisan manner, we have made progress,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Representative John A. Boehner, the Republican leader, said in a joint statement.
“We agree that key changes should be made to the administration’s proposal. It must include basic good-government principles, including rigorous and independent oversight, strong executive compensation standards and protections for taxpayers.”
Mr. Bush used his speech to signal that he was willing to address lawmakers’ concerns, including fears that tax dollars will be used to pay Wall Street executives and that the plan would put too much authority in the hands of the Treasury secretary without sufficient oversight.
“Any rescue plan should also be designed to ensure that taxpayers are protected,” Mr. Bush said. “It should welcome the participation of financial institutions, large and small. It should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars. It should establish a bipartisan board to oversee the plan’s implementation. And it should be enacted as soon as possible.”
The speech came after the White House, under pressure from Republican lawmakers, opened an aggressive effort to portray the financial rescue package as crucial not just to stabilize Wall Street but to protect the livelihoods of all Americans.
But the White House gave careful thought to the timing; aides to Mr. Bush said they did not want to appear to have the president forcing a solution on Congress.
On Capitol Hill, Mr. Paulson, facing a second day of questioning by lawmakers, this time before the House Financial Services Committee, tried to focus as much on Main Street as Wall Street.
“This entire proposal is about benefiting the American people because today’s fragile financial system puts their economic well being at risk,” Mr. Paulson said. Without action, he added: “Americans’ personal savings and the ability of consumers and business to finance spending, investment and job creation are threatened.”
But it was the comments of Mr. Paulson, a former chief of Goldman Sachs, about limiting the pay of executives that signaled the biggest shift in the White House position and the urgency that the administration has placed in winning Congressional approval as quickly as possible.
“The American people are angry about executive compensation, and rightly so,” he said. “No one understands pay for failure.”
Officials said the legislation would almost certainly include a ban on so-called golden parachutes, the generous severance packages that many executives receive on their way out the door, for firms that seek government help. The measure also is likely to include a mechanism for firms to recover any bonus or incentive pay based on corporate earnings or other results that later turn out to have been overstated.
Democrats were also working to include tax provisions that would cap the amount of an executive’s salary that a company could deduct to $400,000 — the amount earned by the president.
At the same time, Congressional Democrats said they were prepared to drop one of their most contentious demands: new authority for bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of first mortgages. That provision was heavily opposed by Senate Republicans.
In addition, Democrats also are leaning toward authorizing the entire $700 billion that Mr. Paulson is seeking but disbursing a smaller amount, perhaps only $150 billion, to start the program, with future funds dependent on how well it is working.
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the lead negotiator for Congressional Democrats, said they also planned to insert a tax break to aid community banks that have suffered steep losses on preferred stock that they own in the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
That change is in addition to others that already have been accepted by Mr. Paulson that would create an independent oversight board and require the government to do more to prevent foreclosures.
Mark Landler and Carl Hulse contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/business/economy/25bush.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1222336998-e6kR6n75KL+ftXME3LCOXw

—-

Les Etats-Unis à la recherche de l’union sacrée pour faire face à la crise
LE MONDE | 25.09.08 | 08h53 •  Mis à jour le 25.09.08 | 09h25
Washington, correspondante

Dans une atmosphère d’urgence nationale, le président George Bush s’est adressé aux Américains, mercredi 24 septembre, pour les avertir que “l’économie entière est en danger”. Il a convié en même temps les chefs de la majorité et de l’opposition, dont les candidats démocrate, Barack Obama, et républicain, John McCain, jeudi à la Maison Blanche pour mettre au point un plan d’action susceptible d’épargner à l’économie américaine une “récession longue et douloureuse”. Les deux rivaux de l’élection présidentielle ont publié un communiqué commun et accepté la proposition.

“Sans une action immédiate du Congrès, l’Amérique pourrait plonger dans une panique majeure”, a mis en garde M. Bush, dans une allocution retransmise par les chaînes de télévision. M. Bush avait jusqu’à présent évité d’apparaître en première ligne. Selon ses conseillers, il ne voulait pas risquer de renvoyer des signaux alarmistes aux marchés.
Il ne voulait probablement pas non plus insister sur la situation de l’économie alors que les démocrates bénéficient d’un avantage électoral dans ce domaine. Selon les sondages, la crise financière est en train de permettre à M. Obama de creuser l’écart. Le dernier sondage Washington Post/ABC News, publié mercredi, lui donne neuf points d’avance (52 % à 43 %) sur M. McCain.
Les réserves de la Maison Blanche ont été balayées au deuxième jour des auditions au Congrès des deux architectes du plan de “bail out” - renflouage - des banques, le secrétaire au Trésor, Henry Paulson, et le président de la Réserve fédérale, Ben Bernanke.
“LES AMÉRICAINS SONT FURIEUX”
Comme la veille, il est apparu que les parlementaires, notamment républicains, étaient plus que sceptiques sur le plan de stabilisation de 700 milliards de dollars (476 milliards d’euros) présenté par l’administration, l’intervention la plus massive de l’Etat depuis les années 1930.
Les élus ont indiqué être inondés de coups de téléphone de leurs administrés en colère. “Soyons clairs, a dit le sénateur démocrate Charles Schumer. Les Américains sont furieux.”
Dans son intervention à la Maison Blanche, la première de cette nature depuis plus d’un an, M. Bush a été contraint d’expliquer que, bien que son “instinct naturel” de républicain soit de “s’opposer à l’intervention du gouvernement”, il avait décidé de ne pas laisser “les actes irresponsables de quelques-uns compromettre la sécurité financière de tous”.
Il a décrit en termes très explicites les conséquences potentielles d’une crise qui reste très immatérielle pour la plupart des Américains, même si le sénateur républicain Judd Greg l’a comparée au 11 septembre 2001 et à l’ouragan Katrina : “D’autres banques pourraient faire faillite, la Bourse plonger encore, ce qui réduirait la valeur de votre retraite. Des entreprises fermeraient leurs portes et des millions d’Américains pourraient perdre leur emploi”.
La journée a été une succession de rebondissements. Avant le discours de George Bush, John McCain a tenté un nouveau “coup”. Comme il l’avait fait avec le choix de Sarah Palin pour son “ticket”, ou l’annulation de la première journée de la convention républicaine pour cause de cyclone, il a annoncé qu’il suspendait sa campagne pour retourner au Sénat et tenter d’arracher un compromis sur le plan Paulson.
Cette initiative a été immédiatement décriée par les démocrates, qui y ont vu une “politisation” des négociations sur les modalités du plan, lesquelles d’ailleurs n’étaient pas, selon eux, au point mort comme M. McCain le prétendait.
HENRY PAULSON DÉCRIÉ
Le candidat républicain a aussi annoncé qu’il ne se rendrait pas au débat de vendredi avec Barack Obama, le premier des trois débats officiels de la campagne, tant que le sauvetage des marchés financiers ne serait pas assuré. M. Obama a fait savoir qu’un président était censé pouvoir “mener deux tâches à la fois” et qu’il ne voyait pas la nécessité de reporter le débat – prévu sur la politique étrangère – alors que les Américains avaient plus que jamais besoin de connaître les positions des candidats.
Plus que la panique, l’atmosphère dans le pays est à la rébellion populiste. “Respect est le mot qui manque le plus”, a dit le promoteur Donald Trump, qui, après avoir soutenu Hillary Clinton, penche maintenant du côté de John McCain. Henry Paulson est largement décrié (il a été transformé en Frankenstein par l’humoriste Jon Stewart). “Il a perdu toute crédibilité”, a jugé le sénateur républicain Jim Demint.
Il lui est reproché de réclamer les “pouvoirs spéciaux” par le biais de la clause 8 du plan de sauvetage, qui stipule que “les décisions du secrétaire ne sont pas révisables ni susceptibles d’être revues par une cour de justice ou une agence administrative”. Ce que la gauche s’est mis à appeler le “Patriot Act financier”, en référence à la loi antiterroriste de 2001. Pour l’analyste démocrate Steve Clemons, George Bush utilise une nouvelle fois “la politique de la peur”.

Corine Lesnes
http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2008/09/25/les-etats-unis-a-la-recherche-de-l-union-sacree-pour-faire-face-a-la-crise_1099216_829254.html

Bush: «Toute l’économie américaine est en danger»
(Reuters)
Le président américain a tenté de convaincre cette nuit le Congrès d’adopter son plan de sauvetage. Il reçoit aujourd’hui à la Maison Blanche les deux candidats à sa succession, une première.
AFP
LIBERATION.FR : jeudi 25 septembre 2008
Le président américain George W. Bush a averti mercredi soir, dans une de ses rares allocutions télévisées consacrées à la crise financière, que “toute notre économie est en danger”. “Nous sommes au milieu d’une crise financière grave”, a-t-il dit depuis la Maison Blanche, insistant sur cette “période sans précédent pour l’économie américaine”.
Toute notre économie est en danger”, a déclaré M. Bush d’un ton solennel, appelant les élus du Congrès à adopter le plan de sauvetage du système financier proposé par son administration.
Pour ce faire, le président américain a annoncé avoir invité, jeudi à la Maison Blanche, les candidats à la présidentielle Barack Obama et John McCain à “se joindre aux responsables parlementaires des deux partis (...) afin d’aider à accélérer nos discussions vers une loi sans esprit partisan”.
“Il y a un esprit de coopération entre les démocrates et les républicains et entre le Congrès et cette administration”, s’est-il félicité au cours de cette allocution d’un quart d’heure.
Il a souligné que le plan, présenté par le secrétaire au Trésor Henry Paulson, était “assez ambitieux pour résoudre un problème grave”, rappelant que le gouvernement fédéral verserait 700 milliards de dollars pour racheter “les actifs douteux qui encrassent le système financier”.
“Cet effort de sauvetage ne vise pas à préserver les sociétés ou les industries de certains individus. Il vise à préserver l’économie américaine en général”, a-t-il encore déclaré.
Le président américain s’est présenté comme “un fervent partisan de la libre entreprise”. “Donc mon instinct naturel est de m’opposer à une intervention du gouvernement”, a-t-il dit, “je crois qu’on devrait laisser les entreprises qui prennent de mauvaises décisions s’éteindre”.
“Dans des circonstances normales, j’aurais suivi cette inclinaison. Mais nous ne sommes pas dans des circonstances normales”, a-t-il martelé. “Le marché ne fonctionne pas bien, il y a une importante perte de confiance et des secteurs majeurs du système financier américain risquent de tomber”, a-t-il poursuivi.
“Sans action immédiate du Congrès, l’Amérique pourrait glisser dans une panique financière et un scénario douloureux”, a encore prévenu Bush, sur la foi des prévisions des experts.
“Davantage de banques pourraient faire faillite, la Bourse pourrait chuter encore plus, ce qui réduirait la valeur de vos retraites”, a-t-il dit aux Américains, “plus d’entreprises pourraient fermer leurs portes et des millions d’Américains perdre leurs emplois (...) et finalement, notre pays pourrait vivre une récession longue et douloureuse”.
“Nous ne devons pas laisser cela arriver”, a-t-il scandé. “Notre économie est confrontée à un défi immense, mais nous avons déjà surmonté des défis difficiles auparavant, et nous allons surmonter celui-là”, a-t-il promis.
•
Accéder au forum «Obama-McCain, dernière ligne droite»

http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/economie_terre/354293.FR.php

—-
Bush : « L’économie américaine en danger »
Rédaction en ligne
jeudi 25 septembre 2008, 09:37
Le président américain George W. Bush a averti mercredi soir, dans une de ses rares allocutions télévisées consacrées à la crise financière, que « toute notre économie est en danger ».
Lire aussi l’édito de Jurek Kuczkiewicz: “Citoyens cherchent leaders désespérément” / Bush invite McCain et Obama à la Maison blanche / La crise financière s’immisce entre McCain et Obama
AP

« Nous sommes au milieu d’une crise financière grave », a-t-il dit depuis la Maison Blanche, insistant sur cette « période sans précédent pour l’économie américaine ».
« Toute notre économie est en danger », a déclaré M. Bush d’un ton solennel, appelant les élus du Congrès à adopter le plan de sauvetage du système financier proposé par son administration.
Pour ce faire, le président américain a annoncé avoir invité, jeudi à la Maison Blanche, les candidats à la présidentielle Barack Obama et John McCain à « se joindre aux responsables parlementaires des deux partis (…) afin d’aider à accélérer nos discussions vers une loi sans esprit partisan ».
« Il y a un esprit de coopération entre les démocrates et les républicains et entre le Congrès et cette administration », s’est-il félicité au cours de cette allocution d’un quart d’heure.
Il a souligné que le plan, présenté par le secrétaire au Trésor Henry Paulson, était « assez ambitieux pour résoudre un problème grave », rappelant que le gouvernement fédéral verserait 700 milliards de dollars pour racheter « les actifs douteux qui encrassent le système financier ».
« Cet effort de sauvetage ne vise pas à préserver les sociétés ou les industries de certains individus. Il vise à préserver l’économie américaine en général », a-t-il encore déclaré.
Le président américain s’est présenté comme « un fervent partisan de la libre entreprise ». « Donc mon instinct naturel est de m’opposer à une intervention du gouvernement », a-t-il dit, « je crois qu’on devrait laisser les entreprises qui prennent de mauvaises décisions s’éteindre ».
« Dans des circonstances normales, j’aurais suivi cette inclinaison. Mais nous ne sommes pas dans des circonstances normales », a-t-il martelé. « Le marché ne fonctionne pas bien, il y a une importante perte de confiance et des secteurs majeurs du système financier américain risquent de tomber », a-t-il poursuivi.
« Sans action immédiate du Congrès, l’Amérique pourrait glisser dans une panique financière et un scénario douloureux », a encore prévenu M. Bush, sur la foi des prévisions des experts.
« Davantage de banques pourraient faire faillite, la Bourse pourrait chuter encore plus, ce qui réduirait la valeur de vos retraites », a-t-il dit aux Américains, « plus d’entreprises pourraient fermer leurs portes et des millions d’Américains perdre leurs emplois (…) et finalement, notre pays pourrait vivre une récession longue et douloureuse ».
« Nous ne devons pas laisser cela arriver », a-t-il scandé. « Notre économie est confrontée à un défi immense, mais nous avons déjà surmonté des défis difficiles auparavant, et nous allons surmonter celui-là », a-t-il promis.
(d’après AFP)
http://www.lesoir.be/actualite/monde/bush-toute-l-economie-2008-09-25-642285.shtml

Que ce passe t-il?
Civil unrests - à quoi s’attend le gouvernement?....

Army deploys combat unit in US for possible civil unrest

By Bill Van Auken
25 September 2008
For the first time ever, the US military is deploying an active duty regular Army combat unit for full-time use inside the United States to deal with emergencies, including potential civil unrest.
Beginning on October 1, the First Brigade Combat Team of the Third Division will be placed under the command of US Army North, the Army’s component of the Pentagon’s Northern Command (NorthCom), which was created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with the stated mission of defending the US “homeland” and aiding federal, state and local authorities.
The unit—known as the “Raiders”—is among the Army’s most “blooded.” It has spent nearly three out of the last five years deployed in Iraq, leading the assault on Baghdad in 2003 and carrying out house-to-house combat in the suppression of resistance in the city of Ramadi. It was the first brigade combat team to be sent to Iraq three times.
While active-duty units previously have been used in temporary assignments, such as the combat-equipped troops deployed in New Orleans, which was effectively placed under martial law in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, this marks the first time that an Army combat unit has been given a dedicated assignment in which US soil constitutes its “battle zone.”
The Pentagon’s official pronouncements have stressed the role of specialized units in a potential response to terrorist attack within the US. Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, attended a training exercise last week for about 250 members of the unit at Fort Stewart, Georgia. The focus of the exercise, according to the Army’s public affairs office, was how troops “might fly search and rescue missions, extract casualties and decontaminate people following a catastrophic nuclear attack in the nation’s heartland.”
“We are at war with a global extremist network that is not going away,” Casey told the soldiers. “I hope we don’t have to use it, but we need the capability.”
However, the mission assigned to the nearly 4,000 troops of the First Brigade Combat Team does not consist merely of rescuing victims of terrorist attacks. An article that appeared earlier this month in the Army Times (“Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1”), a publication that is widely read within the military, paints a different and far more ominous picture.
“They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control,” the paper reports. It quotes the unit’s commander, Col. Robert Cloutier, as saying that the 1st BCT’s soldiers are being trained in the use of “the first ever nonlethal package the Army has fielded.” The weapons, the paper reported, are “designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.” The equipment includes beanbag bullets, shields and batons and equipment for erecting roadblocks.
It appears that as part of the training for deployment within the US, the soldiers have been ordered to test some of this non-lethal equipment on each other.
“I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered,” Cloutier told the Army Times. He described the effects of the electroshock weapon as “your worst muscle cramp ever—times 10 throughout your whole body.”
The colonel’s remark suggests that, in preparation for their “homefront” duties, rank-and-file troops are also being routinely Tasered. The brutalizing effect and intent of such a macabre training exercise is to inure troops against sympathy for the pain and suffering they may be called upon to inflict on the civilian population using these same “non-lethal” weapons.
According to military officials quoted by the Army Times, the deployment of regular Army troops in the US begun with the First Brigade Combat Team is to become permanent, with different units rotated into the assignment on an annual basis.
In an online interview with reporters earlier this month, NorthCom officers were asked about the implications of the new deployment for the Posse Comitatus Act, the 230-year-old legal statute that bars the use of US military forces for law enforcement purposes within the US itself.
Col. Lou Volger, NorthCom’s chief of future operations, tried to downplay any enforcement role, but added, “We will integrate with law enforcement to understand the situation and make sure we’re aware of any threats.”
Volger acknowledged the obvious, that the Brigade Combat Team is a military force, while attempting to dismiss the likelihood that it would play any military role. It “has forces for security,” he said, “but that’s really—they call them security forces, but that’s really just to establish our own footprint and make sure that we can operate and run our own bases.”
Lt. Col. James Shores, another NorthCom officer, chimed in, “Let’s say even if there was a scenario that developed into a branch of a civil disturbance—even at that point it would take a presidential directive to even get it close to anything that you’re suggesting.”
Whatever is required to trigger such an intervention, clearly Col. Cloutier and his troops are preparing for it with their hands-on training in the use of “non-lethal” means of repression.
The extreme sensitivity of the military brass on this issue notwithstanding, the reality is that the intervention of the military in domestic affairs has grown sharply over the last period under conditions in which its involvement in two colonial-style wars abroad has given it a far more prominent role in American political life.
The Bush administration has worked to tear down any barriers to the use of the military in domestic repression. Thus, in the 2007 Pentagon spending bill it inserted a measure to amend the Posse Comitatus Act to clear the way for the domestic deployment of the military in the event of natural disaster, terrorist attack or “other conditions in which the president determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order.”
The provision granted the president sweeping new powers to impose martial law by declaring a “public emergency” for virtually any reason, allowing him to deploy troops anywhere in the US and to take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of state governors in order to “suppress public disorder.”
The provision was subsequently repealed by Congress as part of the 2008 military appropriations legislation, but the intent remains. Given the sweeping powers claimed by the White House in the name of the “commander in chief” in a global war on terror—powers to suspend habeas corpus, carry out wholesale domestic spying and conduct torture—there is no reason to believe it would respect legal restrictions against the use of military force at home.
It is noteworthy that the deployment of US combat troops “as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters”—in the words of the Army Times—coincides with the eruption of the greatest economic emergency and financial disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Justified as a response to terrorist threats, the real source of the growing preparations for the use of US military force within America’s borders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the danger that they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to the growing threat to political stability.
Under conditions of deepening economic crisis, the unprecedented social chasm separating the country’s working people from the obscenely wealthy financial elite becomes unsustainable within the existing political framework.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/mili-s25.shtml

Bush Calls Bailout Vital to Economy, Will Meet With McCain and Obama
Proposal Takes Shape in Congress, but Broad Support Is Lacking
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 25, 2008; A01
President Bush said yesterday that the credit crisis that has seized world markets could devastate the U.S. economy unless Congress acts quickly to approve a $700 billion bailout plan for the nation’s financial system, a message aimed at reluctant lawmakers as much as a deeply skeptical public.
“Our entire economy is in danger,” Bush said in an address from the White House, emphasizing that the massive bailout was not targeted at “any individual company or industry. It is aimed at preserving America’s overall economy.”
Warning that “America could slip into a financial panic,” Bush blamed the crisis on “easy credit” in the housing market and “the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise.” As mortgage loans went bad and borrowers defaulted, he said, investors have succumbed to a “widespread loss of confidence” that threatens to shut down consumer lending, decimate the stock market, cause businesses and banks to fail—and cost millions of Americans their jobs.
“Ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession,” Bush said. “Fellow citizens, we must not let this happen.”
Bush delivered the prime-time speech, his first in over a year, after a clamor on Capitol Hill for him to acknowledge the most serious financial crisis in decades and to personally make the case for the government intervention his administration has proposed.
Five days after unveiling the bailout plan, which seeks to purchase troubled assets from faltering financial institutions, administration officials were still struggling to line up support among lawmakers appalled by its cost, doubtful of its methods and outraged by the speed with which they were being pushed to act. While the usually fractious Senate seemed to be coming together behind a version of the proposal, the administration had big trouble in the House, particularly among mistrustful Republicans who said the White House had failed to make a case for the bailout in terms ordinary people could understand.
“I’m seeking answers to two fundamental questions: Why this? And why now?” Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) said before Bush delivered his remarks. “You can’t make a move this large without the approval of the American people. And we don’t have it, yet.”
Despite such skepticism, top members of the House Financial Services and Senate Banking committees are slated to sit down this morning in an effort to draft the final details of a bipartisan bill. Bush also invited congressional leaders as well as presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama to meet with him at the White House today.
The president’s top economic advisers were lobbying hard yesterday for passage of the bill. In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said the White House would drop its resistance to lawmakers’ demands for limits on executive compensation at companies that accept taxpayer money. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the committee’s chairman, called that a “big step forward” and said he would push next year to apply those limits more broadly.
Frank said Democrats in the House and Senate had reached agreement on a bill that would include an oversight board to monitor the bailout program, requirements that taxpayers share in future profits of companies that seek assistance and new powers for bankruptcy judges to modify home mortgages for distressed borrowers. Lawmakers also discussed doling out the money in segments, Frank said, adding, “It’s not going to be a straight $700 billion.”
Democrats will present that bill this morning to Republican lawmakers in hopes of reaching a final agreement, Frank said. He said the biggest sticking points are likely to be the bankruptcy provision and a proposal by Senate Democrats to dedicate to affordable housing some of the proceeds from the eventual sale of the assets.
Hours before Bush’s speech, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) issued a joint statement saying they were “working in a bipartisan manner” and had “made progress” on a bill. But even as the substance of a deal began to take shape, the politics were in turmoil. McCain declared that he did “not believe that the plan on the table will pass” and announced he was leaving the campaign trail to return to Capitol Hill to lead negotiations, a move panned by Democrats as a political stunt. Meanwhile, with less than six weeks until the November election, Democratic leaders said they would approve the plan only if a majority of Republicans in both chambers endorsed it as well.
House Republicans have emerged as the most difficult bloc of votes, with moderates fearful of the price tag and conservatives opposed to the rejection of free-market principles implicit in the plan. A meeting Tuesday morning with Vice President Cheney only increased their defiance.
“The Paulson proposal has not gotten the traction required to complete this process by the end of the week,” said Rep. Adam H. Putnam (R-Fla.), the third-ranking Republican in the House.
Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke tried to change that yesterday during appearances before two congressional committees. But the former Wall Street dealmaker and the former economics professor struggled to paint a vivid picture of the harm that would befall the economy if the bailout was not approved.
At one point, Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio) pleaded with them to explain the crisis in terms a factory worker relaxing on his couch could understand.
“In order to accept this plan, he needs to be more scared,” LaTourette said. If Congress doesn’t act, “I need you to tell this guy on the couch what happens to him. Is he going to be out of a job? Is his credit card going to work? Can he buy a car? Is his daughter going to go to college?”
Paulson replied that the guy on the couch should be scared. “But I think right now he’s angrier than he is scared.
“It puts us in a difficult position,” Paulson continued, “because no one likes to be painting an overly dire picture and scaring people. But the fact is, the financial markets are not stable, and the situation can be very severe as it relates not just to his current situation, but to keeping his job” and preserving his retirement accounts.
By midday, it became clear that Paulson and Bernanke were not getting the job done; the president would have to deliver the message in person.
In his national address, Bush used the sort of everyday terms that lawmakers had been seeking to describe the potential collapse.
He warned that community “banks could fail,” that another stock market plunge would “reduce the value of your retirement account,” that farmers would not get credit and that parents would not be able to “send your children to college.”
In addition to easy credit, the president blamed mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for contributing to the crisis by borrowing “enormous sums of money” and fueling the market for questionable investments.
“With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice: to step in with dramatic government action or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions of some to undermine the financial security of all,” Bush said, noting that under usual circumstances his conservative ideology would have allowed markets to work their will.
“These are not normal circumstances,” he said.
Staff writers Michael Abramowitz and Neil Irwin contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092400771.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=new
—-
NYTIMES

September 25, 2008
President Issues Warning to Americans
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — President Bush appealed to the nation Wednesday night to support a $700 billion plan to avert a widespread financial meltdown, and signaled that he is willing to accept tougher controls over how the money is spent.
As Democrats and the administration negotiated details of the package late into the night, the presidential candidates of both major parties planned to meet Mr. Bush at the White House on Thursday, along with leaders of Congress. The president said he hoped the session would “speed our discussions toward a bipartisan bill.”
Mr. Bush used a prime-time address to warn Americans that “a long and painful recession” could occur if Congress does not act quickly.
“Our entire economy is in danger,” he said.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats said that progress toward a deal had come after the White House had offered two major concessions: a plan to limit pay of executives whose firms seek government assistance, and a provision that would give taxpayers an equity stake in some of the firms so that the government can profit if the companies prosper in the future. Details of those provisions, and many others, were still under discussion.
Mr. Bush’s televised address, and his extraordinary offer to bring together Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, and Senator John McCain, the Republican, just weeks before the election underscored a growing sense of urgency on the part of the administration that Congress must act to avert an economic collapse.
It was the first time in Mr. Bush’s presidency that he delivered a prime-time speech devoted exclusively to the economy. It came at a time when deep public unease about shaky financial markets and the demise of Wall Street icons such as Lehman Brothers has been coupled with skepticism and anger directed at a government bailout that could become the most expensive in American history.
The administration’s plan seeks to restore liquidity to the market and restore the economy by buying up distressed securities, many of them tied to mortgages, from struggling financial firms.
The address capped a fast-moving and chaotic day, in Washington, on the presidential campaign trail and on Wall Street.
On Capitol Hill, delicate negotiations between Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Congressional leaders were complicated by resistance from rank-and-file lawmakers, who were fielding torrents of complaints from constituents furious that their tax money was going to be spent to clean up a mess created by high-paid financial executives.
On Wall Street, financial markets continued to struggle. The cost of borrowing for banks, businesses and consumers shot up and investors rushed to safe havens like Treasury bills — a reminder that credit markets, which had recovered somewhat after Mr. Paulson announced the broad outlines of the bailout plan last week, remain under severe stress, with many investors still skittish.
Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the banking committee, said a deal could come together as early as Thursday. “Working in a bipartisan manner, we have made progress,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Representative John A. Boehner, the Republican leader, said in a joint statement.
“We agree that key changes should be made to the administration’s proposal. It must include basic good-government principles, including rigorous and independent oversight, strong executive compensation standards and protections for taxpayers.”
Mr. Bush used his speech to signal that he was willing to address lawmakers’ concerns, including fears that tax dollars will be used to pay Wall Street executives and that the plan would put too much authority in the hands of the Treasury secretary without sufficient oversight.
“Any rescue plan should also be designed to ensure that taxpayers are protected,” Mr. Bush said. “It should welcome the participation of financial institutions, large and small. It should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars. It should establish a bipartisan board to oversee the plan’s implementation. And it should be enacted as soon as possible.”
The speech came after the White House, under pressure from Republican lawmakers, opened an aggressive effort to portray the financial rescue package as crucial not just to stabilize Wall Street but to protect the livelihoods of all Americans.
But the White House gave careful thought to the timing; aides to Mr. Bush said they did not want to appear to have the president forcing a solution on Congress.
On Capitol Hill, Mr. Paulson, facing a second day of questioning by lawmakers, this time before the House Financial Services Committee, tried to focus as much on Main Street as Wall Street.
“This entire proposal is about benefiting the American people because today’s fragile financial system puts their economic well being at risk,” Mr. Paulson said. Without action, he added: “Americans’ personal savings and the ability of consumers and business to finance spending, investment and job creation are threatened.”
But it was the comments of Mr. Paulson, a former chief of Goldman Sachs, about limiting the pay of executives that signaled the biggest shift in the White House position and the urgency that the administration has placed in winning Congressional approval as quickly as possible.
“The American people are angry about executive compensation, and rightly so,” he said. “No one understands pay for failure.”
Officials said the legislation would almost certainly include a ban on so-called golden parachutes, the generous severance packages that many executives receive on their way out the door, for firms that seek government help. The measure also is likely to include a mechanism for firms to recover any bonus or incentive pay based on corporate earnings or other results that later turn out to have been overstated.
Democrats were also working to include tax provisions that would cap the amount of an executive’s salary that a company could deduct to $400,000 — the amount earned by the president.
At the same time, Congressional Democrats said they were prepared to drop one of their most contentious demands: new authority for bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of first mortgages. That provision was heavily opposed by Senate Republicans.
In addition, Democrats also are leaning toward authorizing the entire $700 billion that Mr. Paulson is seeking but disbursing a smaller amount, perhaps only $150 billion, to start the program, with future funds dependent on how well it is working.
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the lead negotiator for Congressional Democrats, said they also planned to insert a tax break to aid community banks that have suffered steep losses on preferred stock that they own in the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
That change is in addition to others that already have been accepted by Mr. Paulson that would create an independent oversight board and require the government to do more to prevent foreclosures.
Mark Landler and Carl Hulse contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/business/economy/25bush.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1222336998-e6kR6n75KL+ftXME3LCOXw

—-

Les Etats-Unis à la recherche de l’union sacrée pour faire face à la crise
LE MONDE | 25.09.08 | 08h53 •  Mis à jour le 25.09.08 | 09h25
Washington, correspondante

Dans une atmosphère d’urgence nationale, le président George Bush s’est adressé aux Américains, mercredi 24 septembre, pour les avertir que “l’économie entière est en danger”. Il a convié en même temps les chefs de la majorité et de l’opposition, dont les candidats démocrate, Barack Obama, et républicain, John McCain, jeudi à la Maison Blanche pour mettre au point un plan d’action susceptible d’épargner à l’économie américaine une “récession longue et douloureuse”. Les deux rivaux de l’élection présidentielle ont publié un communiqué commun et accepté la proposition.

“Sans une action immédiate du Congrès, l’Amérique pourrait plonger dans une panique majeure”, a mis en garde M. Bush, dans une allocution retransmise par les chaînes de télévision. M. Bush avait jusqu’à présent évité d’apparaître en première ligne. Selon ses conseillers, il ne voulait pas risquer de renvoyer des signaux alarmistes aux marchés.
Il ne voulait probablement pas non plus insister sur la situation de l’économie alors que les démocrates bénéficient d’un avantage électoral dans ce domaine. Selon les sondages, la crise financière est en train de permettre à M. Obama de creuser l’écart. Le dernier sondage Washington Post/ABC News, publié mercredi, lui donne neuf points d’avance (52 % à 43 %) sur M. McCain.
Les réserves de la Maison Blanche ont été balayées au deuxième jour des auditions au Congrès des deux architectes du plan de “bail out” - renflouage - des banques, le secrétaire au Trésor, Henry Paulson, et le président de la Réserve fédérale, Ben Bernanke.
“LES AMÉRICAINS SONT FURIEUX”
Comme la veille, il est apparu que les parlementaires, notamment républicains, étaient plus que sceptiques sur le plan de stabilisation de 700 milliards de dollars (476 milliards d’euros) présenté par l’administration, l’intervention la plus massive de l’Etat depuis les années 1930.
Les élus ont indiqué être inondés de coups de téléphone de leurs administrés en colère. “Soyons clairs, a dit le sénateur démocrate Charles Schumer. Les Américains sont furieux.”
Dans son intervention à la Maison Blanche, la première de cette nature depuis plus d’un an, M. Bush a été contraint d’expliquer que, bien que son “instinct naturel” de républicain soit de “s’opposer à l’intervention du gouvernement”, il avait décidé de ne pas laisser “les actes irresponsables de quelques-uns compromettre la sécurité financière de tous”.
Il a décrit en termes très explicites les conséquences potentielles d’une crise qui reste très immatérielle pour la plupart des Américains, même si le sénateur républicain Judd Greg l’a comparée au 11 septembre 2001 et à l’ouragan Katrina : “D’autres banques pourraient faire faillite, la Bourse plonger encore, ce qui réduirait la valeur de votre retraite. Des entreprises fermeraient leurs portes et des millions d’Américains pourraient perdre leur emploi”.
La journée a été une succession de rebondissements. Avant le discours de George Bush, John McCain a tenté un nouveau “coup”. Comme il l’avait fait avec le choix de Sarah Palin pour son “ticket”, ou l’annulation de la première journée de la convention républicaine pour cause de cyclone, il a annoncé qu’il suspendait sa campagne pour retourner au Sénat et tenter d’arracher un compromis sur le plan Paulson.
Cette initiative a été immédiatement décriée par les démocrates, qui y ont vu une “politisation” des négociations sur les modalités du plan, lesquelles d’ailleurs n’étaient pas, selon eux, au point mort comme M. McCain le prétendait.
HENRY PAULSON DÉCRIÉ
Le candidat républicain a aussi annoncé qu’il ne se rendrait pas au débat de vendredi avec Barack Obama, le premier des trois débats officiels de la campagne, tant que le sauvetage des marchés financiers ne serait pas assuré. M. Obama a fait savoir qu’un président était censé pouvoir “mener deux tâches à la fois” et qu’il ne voyait pas la nécessité de reporter le débat – prévu sur la politique étrangère – alors que les Américains avaient plus que jamais besoin de connaître les positions des candidats.
Plus que la panique, l’atmosphère dans le pays est à la rébellion populiste. “Respect est le mot qui manque le plus”, a dit le promoteur Donald Trump, qui, après avoir soutenu Hillary Clinton, penche maintenant du côté de John McCain. Henry Paulson est largement décrié (il a été transformé en Frankenstein par l’humoriste Jon Stewart). “Il a perdu toute crédibilité”, a jugé le sénateur républicain Jim Demint.
Il lui est reproché de réclamer les “pouvoirs spéciaux” par le biais de la clause 8 du plan de sauvetage, qui stipule que “les décisions du secrétaire ne sont pas révisables ni susceptibles d’être revues par une cour de justice ou une agence administrative”. Ce que la gauche s’est mis à appeler le “Patriot Act financier”, en référence à la loi antiterroriste de 2001. Pour l’analyste démocrate Steve Clemons, George Bush utilise une nouvelle fois “la politique de la peur”.

Corine Lesnes
http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2008/09/25/les-etats-unis-a-la-recherche-de-l-union-sacree-pour-faire-face-a-la-crise_1099216_829254.html

Bush: «Toute l’économie américaine est en danger»
(Reuters)
Le président américain a tenté de convaincre cette nuit le Congrès d’adopter son plan de sauvetage. Il reçoit aujourd’hui à la Maison Blanche les deux candidats à sa succession, une première.
AFP
LIBERATION.FR : jeudi 25 septembre 2008
Le président américain George W. Bush a averti mercredi soir, dans une de ses rares allocutions télévisées consacrées à la crise financière, que “toute notre économie est en danger”. “Nous sommes au milieu d’une crise financière grave”, a-t-il dit depuis la Maison Blanche, insistant sur cette “période sans précédent pour l’économie américaine”.
Toute notre économie est en danger”, a déclaré M. Bush d’un ton solennel, appelant les élus du Congrès à adopter le plan de sauvetage du système financier proposé par son administration.
Pour ce faire, le président américain a annoncé avoir invité, jeudi à la Maison Blanche, les candidats à la présidentielle Barack Obama et John McCain à “se joindre aux responsables parlementaires des deux partis (...) afin d’aider à accélérer nos discussions vers une loi sans esprit partisan”.
“Il y a un esprit de coopération entre les démocrates et les républicains et entre le Congrès et cette administration”, s’est-il félicité au cours de cette allocution d’un quart d’heure.
Il a souligné que le plan, présenté par le secrétaire au Trésor Henry Paulson, était “assez ambitieux pour résoudre un problème grave”, rappelant que le gouvernement fédéral verserait 700 milliards de dollars pour racheter “les actifs douteux qui encrassent le système financier”.
“Cet effort de sauvetage ne vise pas à préserver les sociétés ou les industries de certains individus. Il vise à préserver l’économie américaine en général”, a-t-il encore déclaré.
Le président américain s’est présenté comme “un fervent partisan de la libre entreprise”. “Donc mon instinct naturel est de m’opposer à une intervention du gouvernement”, a-t-il dit, “je crois qu’on devrait laisser les entreprises qui prennent de mauvaises décisions s’éteindre”.
“Dans des circonstances normales, j’aurais suivi cette inclinaison. Mais nous ne sommes pas dans des circonstances normales”, a-t-il martelé. “Le marché ne fonctionne pas bien, il y a une importante perte de confiance et des secteurs majeurs du système financier américain risquent de tomber”, a-t-il poursuivi.
“Sans action immédiate du Congrès, l’Amérique pourrait glisser dans une panique financière et un scénario douloureux”, a encore prévenu Bush, sur la foi des prévisions des experts.
“Davantage de banques pourraient faire faillite, la Bourse pourrait chuter encore plus, ce qui réduirait la valeur de vos retraites”, a-t-il dit aux Américains, “plus d’entreprises pourraient fermer leurs portes et des millions d’Américains perdre leurs emplois (...) et finalement, notre pays pourrait vivre une récession longue et douloureuse”.
“Nous ne devons pas laisser cela arriver”, a-t-il scandé. “Notre économie est confrontée à un défi immense, mais nous avons déjà surmonté des défis difficiles auparavant, et nous allons surmonter celui-là”, a-t-il promis.
•
Accéder au forum «Obama-McCain, dernière ligne droite»

http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/economie_terre/354293.FR.php

—-
Bush : « L’économie américaine en danger »
Rédaction en ligne
jeudi 25 septembre 2008, 09:37
Le président américain George W. Bush a averti mercredi soir, dans une de ses rares allocutions télévisées consacrées à la crise financière, que « toute notre économie est en danger ».
Lire aussi l’édito de Jurek Kuczkiewicz: “Citoyens cherchent leaders désespérément” / Bush invite McCain et Obama à la Maison blanche / La crise financière s’immisce entre McCain et Obama
AP

« Nous sommes au milieu d’une crise financière grave », a-t-il dit depuis la Maison Blanche, insistant sur cette « période sans précédent pour l’économie américaine ».
« Toute notre économie est en danger », a déclaré M. Bush d’un ton solennel, appelant les élus du Congrès à adopter le plan de sauvetage du système financier proposé par son administration.
Pour ce faire, le président américain a annoncé avoir invité, jeudi à la Maison Blanche, les candidats à la présidentielle Barack Obama et John McCain à « se joindre aux responsables parlementaires des deux partis (…) afin d’aider à accélérer nos discussions vers une loi sans esprit partisan ».
« Il y a un esprit de coopération entre les démocrates et les républicains et entre le Congrès et cette administration », s’est-il félicité au cours de cette allocution d’un quart d’heure.
Il a souligné que le plan, présenté par le secrétaire au Trésor Henry Paulson, était « assez ambitieux pour résoudre un problème grave », rappelant que le gouvernement fédéral verserait 700 milliards de dollars pour racheter « les actifs douteux qui encrassent le système financier ».
« Cet effort de sauvetage ne vise pas à préserver les sociétés ou les industries de certains individus. Il vise à préserver l’économie américaine en général », a-t-il encore déclaré.
Le président américain s’est présenté comme « un fervent partisan de la libre entreprise ». « Donc mon instinct naturel est de m’opposer à une intervention du gouvernement », a-t-il dit, « je crois qu’on devrait laisser les entreprises qui prennent de mauvaises décisions s’éteindre ».
« Dans des circonstances normales, j’aurais suivi cette inclinaison. Mais nous ne sommes pas dans des circonstances normales », a-t-il martelé. « Le marché ne fonctionne pas bien, il y a une importante perte de confiance et des secteurs majeurs du système financier américain risquent de tomber », a-t-il poursuivi.
« Sans action immédiate du Congrès, l’Amérique pourrait glisser dans une panique financière et un scénario douloureux », a encore prévenu M. Bush, sur la foi des prévisions des experts.
« Davantage de banques pourraient faire faillite, la Bourse pourrait chuter encore plus, ce qui réduirait la valeur de vos retraites », a-t-il dit aux Américains, « plus d’entreprises pourraient fermer leurs portes et des millions d’Américains perdre leurs emplois (…) et finalement, notre pays pourrait vivre une récession longue et douloureuse ».
« Nous ne devons pas laisser cela arriver », a-t-il scandé. « Notre économie est confrontée à un défi immense, mais nous avons déjà surmonté des défis difficiles auparavant, et nous allons surmonter celui-là », a-t-il promis.
(d’après AFP)
http://www.lesoir.be/actualite/monde/bush-toute-l-economie-2008-09-25-642285.shtml

La Russie aujourd’hui a bien negocie son virage mais a quel prix! Il est vrai qu’a l’Ouest on ne lui a pas fait de cadeau.

Mais la Russie avait quelques atouts pour elle. Une richesse energetique et une population habituee et adaptee a survivre.

Au contraire, les USA n’ont pas la meme richesse energetique, sans etre non plus miserables sur ce point, et surtout on une population habituee a un certain confort, acquis au depent du “rest of the world”.

Mais peut etre chose plus importante, la Russie et les USA sont de natures differentes.

L’histoire Sovietique n’est pas toute l’histoire Russe. Meme si les Russes ont subit l’ideologie sovietique, cette ideologie n’etait pas la leur. L’URSS n’etait pas la Russie.

Il est raisonable de penser que depuis les annees 1970 des elements nationalistes Russes ont commence a emerger au sein du systeme Sovietique, pour aboutir aujourd’hui, apres le dynamitage du carcan societique, a une liberte retrouvee permettant l’expression de l’identite Russe.

On ne retrouve pas cela du cote des USA. Ceux ci sont totalement impregnes de leur ideologie. Ils n’ont pas, apparemment, un tel carcan ideologique qui leur a ete impose par un accident de l’Histoire. Leur ideologie leur est propre. Et c’est la leur grand malheur. Il est beaucoup plus facile de rejeter ce que l’on ne reconnait pas comme etant de soi meme, que de se remettre en question.

Il y a eu un grand fracas du cote Russe, mais peu de desordre apres coup. Et un ordre a vite retrouve ses droits, au grand dam des puissances occidentales qui sont pris de gemissements droit-de-l’hommistes des que l’ordre regne en face.

Il n’y aura probablement pas de grand fracas du cote des USA, mais un desordre douloureux et interminable.

De la difficulte de se regarder en face…

C’est rigolo que Poutine parlait du camarade loup a son discours de Munich.

Ce chiffre de 700 milliards, et le “plan” qui va avec,  semble être devenu une bouée pour un naufrage en cours. Mais une bouée symbolique et à usage unique. Alire les commentaires sur les sites étasuniens on comprend vite que le besoin réel, à cet instant présent (sans préjuger de ce qu’il pourrait être dans les mois à venir) serait du double, soit 1500 milliards, voire 2000 milliards. C’est donc une bouée déjà crevée. Il faudrait au système financier étasunien une nouvelle bulle.  In extremis…

Analogie étonnante, mais déja relevée par certains commentateurs, avec l’effondrement de l’Union soviétique. Effondrement que peu d’observateurs avaient prévu (excepté E. Todd mais pour des raisons différentes). L’URSS était elle aussi “too big to fail” et n’était peut-être plus réformable (le débat est cependant toujours ouvert en Russie).

Il y a cependant une différence avec le cas étasunien. L ‘effondrement de l’URSS a été accompagné et accéléré par une partie de l’élite soviétique, qui semble avoir été consciente de l’impasse dans laquelle le “système” soviétique s’était enfermé (prise de conscience assez ancienne puisqu’elle remonte au moins à Andropov). Dans le cas étasunien, rien de tout cela. Là, les évènements sont subis et non accompagnés. Il n’y a pas dans l’élite dirigeante étasunienne une telle prise de conscience.

On retrouve le meme chantage que l’on avait vu pour imposer la guerre en Irak. Ca ressemble a un vulgaire rackat mafieux. Notre “protecteur” ne pourra plus nous garantir notre “securite” si l’on ne fait pas ce qu’il nous demande.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/i-got-75b-but-i.html

Tonight’s Goldman Sachs/Warren Buffett deal is a classic example of our post 2001 news: Looks good as a headline, is godawful underneath

Vote of confidence? Hardly. Doubtful. It is merely an opportunistic deal, and probably a damn good one, for Berkshire Hathaway (BRK). On the other hand, for Goldman Sachs, it is a very expensive deal. If you delve beneath the headlines, you see that Warren is not so much making a vote of confidence as he is extracting pound of flesh (and then some).

Verily, let’s look at the details to figure out just how much GS is paying for this capital:

• Goldman Sachs pays a fat dividend to Berkshire Hathaway of 10% on $5 Billion dollars—that’s $500 million per year. And, since this is a preferred, it gets paid out of net income in after tax dollars dollars. Ouch.

• Goldman gets the right to call the preferred at any time at a 10 percent premium. Ouch again.

• Buffett gets $5 billion worth of warrants with a strike price of $115, or about 43.47 million shares. The warrants are good for only 5 years.

If Buffett were to go to the Street earlier today to buy 44 million calls with a $115 strike price (circa 2010), they would have cost him about $1.5 billion dollars. With GS now trading at $135, Buffett’s $5 billion investment is more like $3.5B, in terms of net cost to him. Hence, the 10% interest is more like 14%.

Doug Kass thinks its an even better deal for Berkshire— goes further than I do, putting an intrinsic value on the warrants of about $2 billion. That makes Buffet’s net cost $3B—so the effective yield is closer to 17%.  (Ouch)

A friend points out that Goldie bought back 1.5 million shares in the quarter ending 8/31, at an average price of $180 a share.  (Nice trade). I’m thinking the buyback program may be on hold for a while here.

~~~

Bottom line: This is a terribly expensive deal, but probably a necessary one. The smart boys at 85 Broad Street did not want to wait until they were too desperate to get even a mediocre deal. They sure as hell did not want to “pull a Fuld.”

This also looks like a steady stream of income for Berkshire Hathaway. And what do you want to bet me that Warren asked for—and got—a very serious promise from Bernanke & Paulson that Goldman would under no circumstances be allowed to tank like Lehman? This might even be a riskless deal for Buffett.

Vote of Confidence my ass . . .

Ron Paul est le seul, parmi les candidats à la présidence, à avoir une juste perception de l’ampleur de la crise. Depuis longtemps ce sénateur républicain libertaire essaie d’alerter les pouvoirs publics et la population des dangers.

Sa position est claire vis à vis du plan Paulson est claire :
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?cat=14

J’ose espérer que certains médias US le mettront au cours des prochaines semaines un peu plus en lumière. Ce serait rendre service à tout le monde.

Pour revenir à MacCain, ma première réaction quant à la suspension provisoire de sa campagne a été celle d’un déni de démocratie. Quelle meilleure technique (et moins onéreuse) que celle où l’un des deux seuls candidats susceptibles d’être élus refuse de continuer à danser au risque de bousculer l’agenda électoral ?