The Fed continues to offer contradictory rationales for treating state and local governments worse than private companies. The truth is that nothing is stopping the Fed from offering more help and saving jobs -- it’s just choosing not to. 1/
Fed: All programs that use CARES Act money must include a penalty rate, which is why we charge state and local governments so much in interest.
Also Fed: Our CARES Act facility for corporate bonds purchases them at market price. 2/
Fed: Under the CARES Act, we can only act as a lender of last resort for state and local governments. We are a backstop, and just want private markets to function.
Also Fed: Our CARES Act program for midsize companies actively encourages banks to make loans to businesses. 3/
The Fed’s lending programs are an exercise of its monetary policy authority, and as such, are supposed to support “full employment.” That's a clear justification for more support to state/local governments, who have already fired 1M+ people because of budget shortfalls. 4/
The Fed also said its full employment goal is “broad-based and inclusive” -- meaning it should reflect that Black and female employment can lag overall rates. Black and female workers are disproportionately hurt by state/local cuts. The Fed's actions don't match its rhetoric. 5/
Rather than hiding behind conflicting legal rationales, the Fed should just provide the same type of support to state and local governments that it is providing to private companies. State and local officials have outlined what they need here 6/
NEW: The latest Oversight Commission report is finally out. As the @NYtimes reported last week, Republican foot-dragging has delayed the report’s release for weeks. So what didn’t Republicans want you to see? 1/
The report reflects broad support for expanding the MLF (the Fed’s state and local lending program):
✅Extend the MLF into 2021
✅Lower rates
✅Lengthen repayment term
✅Expand # of eligible borrowers
✅Offer flexibility on loan use
✅Create secondary market facility 2/
Three of the four expert witnesses at our recent hearing backed these changes -- including one of the Republicans' own witnesses. Which witness didn’t? It was this gentleman: 3/
Let's take a look at the actual text of these executive orders.
Here's the heart of the one on evictions. As you can see, it doesn't create an eviction moratorium. It asks certain federal agencies to see if they can maybe do something on evictions.
Here's the payroll tax one. It's a deferral. That means either employers will continue to withhold your payroll taxes and you won't see any difference, or they won't withhold (unlikely), and you'll have it all withheld from your paycheck when the deferral expires at year-end.
Here is the key part of the unemployment insurance one.
*To be clear, the legal authority to do this is highly dubious.*
But, at best, it's a $300/week federal contribution redirecting money that, by my estimate, would cover about 4 weeks for the currently unemployed.
NEW with @owenslindsay1: We're heading towards a wage apocalypse unless Congress intervenes. Our proposal builds on the unemployment insurance boost to:
✅Raise wages by $320/week for millions
✅Increase economic growth
✅Create half a million jobs
The Oversight Commission has just released its third report. In it, we make a number of key findings to help Congress as it considers new Covid legislation, and question some recent Fed and Treasury actions.
The Fed's Main Street program is still not really doing much. It's supported a single $12M loan.
And as the Commission finds, it's also not designed to help smaller companies "facing serious declines in revenue that cannot take on additional debt to address that problem." 2/
Also on the Main Street program: "it's clear to the Commission that [Treasury and the Fed] are not going to impose mandatory payroll requirements on businesses..unless Congress mandates it in new legislation." Right now, they're not requiring or monitoring anything on payroll. 3/
The Oversight Commission has released its second report on what’s happening with half a trillion dollars of the public’s money. Here are highlights from the report--including some important admissions from the Treasury and the Fed in response to the Commission’s questions. 1/
The big picture: the agencies have announced how they will use less than half of the $454B fund and actually used only $6.7B. That's worked out well for big corporations that benefit from the promise of action but less well for smaller companies and municipal governments. 2/
Unemployment remains very high. The Fed said in response to our questions that it “designed the facilities to work together to protect financial stability and support achievement of its dual mandate of full employment and price stability.” Keep that employment goal in mind... 3/
In the nine weeks since Congress gave the Treasury and the Fed $500 billion for economic “stabilization,” they’ve used less than 10% of the money to create a single program that has serious conflicts of interests and, at best, a weak connection to stopping ongoing job losses. 1/
The program buys corporate debt, including junk bonds. A Treasury official who helped design the program still has financial ties to his family investment firm -- which owns junk bonds. The program has helped that firm “reverse billions in losses.” 2/
The Fed hired BlackRock to manage this program. BlackRock runs a corporate bond ETF. After BlackRock's role was announced, investors poured $4.3B into BlackRock's ETF -- 100x the new investments in a similar ETF run by a BlackRock competitor. 3/