While the NCUA is definitely a "government agency," I believe it would be in the best interest of the credit union movement that Credit Union Journal refrain from using the words "government rescue" and "bailout" in the same sentence. In fact, I believe an article explaining that this bailout is not coming from taxpayer dollars would be in order.
The fact that credit unions are bailing out their corporates through the NCUSIF should be proclaimed loudly. The relationship of the corporates to natural-person credit unions is, in some ways, equivalent to the relationship of the Federal Reserve to banks, yet I doubt we will see any call for the Fed to bail out a bank using the FDIC insurance fund.
However, you can be sure that the ABA will attempt to take advantage of the words "government rescue" and "bailout" in your article to reinforce their argument that credit unions continue to receive an unfair advantage. I would have little opposition to banks being bailed out by tax dollars if these dollars could be used and accounted for properly.
I would also have little issue with the NCUA bailout, if our replenishment of the insurance fund could flow directly from our capital account rather than through net income.
The negative press resulting from a vast majority of credit unions posting net losses this year would be even more difficult to counteract than the attacks the ABA will most certainly launch using your words from [your reporting].
Singing River FCU, Moss Point, Miss.