Posted on 09/29/2008 10:37:50 PM PDT by goldstategop
After nearly eight years of voting in virtual lock step with President Bush on everything from tax cuts to torture, House Republicans decided on Monday to break ranks on the survival of the nation’s financial system.
The rejected bailout bill that was on the floor after a weekend of hard negotiating was objectionable in many ways, but it was a Republican-generated bill and was improved from the administration’s original version. Sixty percent of House Democrats voted for the bill, enough to easily pass the measure if the Republicans had not decided to put on their display of pique and disarray.
The question now is whether the stock-market plunge that followed the House’s failure to lead — and a renewed credit freeze — will be enough to get the 133 Republicans who voted against the measure to change their minds. And, more important, whether the damage that the no vote has inflicted is readily reversible.
Republican no votes were rooted less in analysis or principle than in political posturing and ideological rigidity. The House minority leader, John Boehner, conceded as much: “While we were able to move the bill drastically to the right, it wasn’t good enough for our members.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
NY Slimes!
Gee, I didn’t catch the part in the article where the Times commented on the 95 Democrats that voted no.
Must of just been an oversight.
Where’s the headline about how 95 Democrats betrayed Pelosi and sent us on our way to economic ruin? Where’s the balance?
It’s in the second paragraph. But they mention the percentage of rats that voted for the bill (60%).
You can’t expect them to tell the truth.
If the NYT is critical, I feel better already!
Ya, why do they emphasize that 133 Republicans voted no? Why the emphasis on getting some of them to change their minds? Why no mention of getting some of the 95 Democrats to change theirs?
Why no mention of how Nancy P. does not have control of her party caucus on an allegedly critical issue? About 40% of her fellow Dems. deserted her on what was billed as a very critical bill. What does this say about Nancy and Steny Hoyer’s leadership of House Democrats??????
what about Pelosi giving key Democrat friends and committee chairs a pass to vote NO for political reasons?..... any mention?... LMAO
15 Democrats from California, Nancy’s own state, voted against it.
Some leadership.
After decades of defending an untenable concentration of systemic risk in the form of government-sponsored enterprises backed by taxpayers but with excessive executive compensation accruing to the well-connected few, House Democrats failed to support a measure to clean up the mess they nutured and protected in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
“Members of the Hispanic Caucus rejected the measure 12-8 and Congressional Black Caucus members voted 21-18 against the bill”
Here’s what we get on the issue of 40 percent of Democrats abandoning ship: the remaining 60 percent was, “enough to easily pass the measure if the Republicans had not decided to put on their display of pique and disarray.”
If how many of the Republicans had not decided to stick to their principles? You got 65 of them. How many more do you need? I might as well say, “ 65 Republicans would ahve been enough if the 95 Democrats had not decided to put on their display of pique and disarray.”
Ah, liberal media bias. Are they even trying to hide it anymore?
Standing Athwart History, Yelling ... Sure, Go Right Ahead [Andy McCarthy]
A friend from the Hill writes:
For the life of me I cannot understand the Corner these days. I keep wondering where the call to “Stand up and Yell Stop” that Mr. Buckley spoke of has gone. I keep reading about the irresponsibility of House Republicans, but how is it irresponsible to stand up and say that you think a bill is bad for America? It is the height of irresponsibility for the Bush administration – and all those doing their bidding – to be screaming “crisis” and scaring the hell out of the American people, holding a shotgun to Congress’ head and then saying “there are NO other options.”
We all get it. It’s bad out there. We’re way over-leveraged. Consumer debt is out of this world. Credit is tight at best. And banks are insolvent. We need to take action. But darn it, we should take the right kind of action.
Are the following not real concerns about this bill?
1) The bill has NOT been significantly improved – it is essentially THE SAME as Paulson’s original bailout
· The alleged “Congressional action” requirement for the last $350BB in authority is false. It is, effectively, an “opt-out” by Congress, which if not exercised within 15 days of Presidential certification, expires.
· The alleged avoidance of ACORN, “cramdown,” and unions is misleading – they were never in the original Paulson plan – only suggested by Democrats. Republicans simply did their job to keep those out.
· Other “improvements” are of questionable value – and pale in comparison to the harm done by the bill.
2) The Paulson-Democrat Wall Street Bailout will not work· Banks are highly insolvent and the capital hole to be filled would not be filled by this plan – and any attempts to do so under this plan would drive up the cost of the “toxic asset” purchases (see next point)· The supposed “profit” or “minimal cost to the taxpayer” is predicated on buying toxic assets low and selling them high – yet that inherently conflicts with the price point necessary to inject sufficient capital· But even when prices are bid up (because Treasury is incentivized to do so to make it work), there is no guarantee banks will use the money to then lend if they are still insolvent and facing a likely recession· This bill does nothing to deal with the over $60 trillion in largely unregulated Credit Default Swaps that are wreaking havoc with the financial system· The plan is operationally questionable – with little clarity about dealing with the pitfalls of price-fixing, how a “reverse auction” won’t be easily manipulated to allow prices to get bid up, and other problems 3) The Paulson-Democrat Wall Street Bailout will arguably make things WORSE, not better
· The plan does nothing to address the immediate commercial banking concerns – withdrawals by citizens increasingly panicked by an administration and Congress apparently hell bent on stoking the flames
· The plan does, however, funnel money primarily to the old-line, traditional investment banks – undermining the capital position of less leveraged, commercial banks so critical to Main Street America.
· The plan has no restrictions on buying up assets from foreign banks – banks who aren’t active lenders in U.S. markets directly and whose leverage is far greater (40x) than even American traditional investment banks (25x), whose leverage is greater than American commercial banks (10-15x).
· Moreover, many of these foreign banks are currently being or are soon to be nationalized. Therefore, the US government would be buying toxic assets at above market prices to support foreign governments.
· We may blow the best shot the federal government has to use taxpayer money wisely to “work out” of the current financial situation – getting it wrong will CREATE problems and HARM confidence, because fundamentally underpinning this situation is the assumption that the government can prevent a meltdown. If the plan fails, this opportunity may well disappear.
· $700 Billion is a LOT of money, and if this doesn’t work (and even if it does, to a degree), we cannot borrow forever – as we continue piling up national debt – and risk the collapse of the dollar
4) The Paulson-Democrat Wall Street Bailout forsakes free market principles and creates moral hazard· This plan would have government socialize losses – and breaks the tie between risk and reward/failure. Certain companies need to get wiped out – and doing so will be BETTER for remaining investments.· When government steps in preemptively and starts arbitrarily buying up assets, the expectation is that it will do so again and again 5) The Paulson-Democrat Wall Street Bailout is arguably unconstitutional
· Possibly struck down for improper, sweeping delegation of power to the Treasury Secretary
· The oversight mechanisms cause significant separation of powers concerns – creating a “power sharing” mechanism that runs afoul of the Founders vision of not merging executive and legislative decisions.
I am not suggesting that this is easy. But the furor on the Corner for members who dare to suggest this plan is not a good one is weak and itself irresponsible, when no one is suggesting doing nothing.
And as for alternatives:
- how about reinforcing FDIC to give people confidence in their savings? Maybe more support for money markets?
- How about cutting corporate taxes or cap gains taxes?
- How about buying up (or financing the purchase of) the AAA securities that currently are having trouble moving but are not “toxic,” in order to increase liquidity and help with possible insolvency for healthier institutions rather than the old line investment banks?
- How about doing something about the silliness of the $62 Trillion Credit Default Swap market (e.g. the margin requirements, etc…)?
- How about immediately changing mark-to-market rules?
- And – heaven forbid – how about belt-tightening in Washington? Don’t hold your breath – but imagine what a signal that would send – a freeze in discretionary spending, a moratorium on earmarks and a real plan to educate America about entitlements and talk about the need to get our fiscal house in order.
It is very concerning how much the Washington Republican / Conservative establishment is jumping in line behind this bill because, we are told, we “must do something.” Since when is that EVER a good thing in Washington?
09/29 10:47 PM
Me thinks the NY times will be needing a bailout soon.
Democrats coulda passed it. Majority in both houses. Phonies.
It's typical liberalism: "We know what's best for you. We know how to spend your money better than you do. Give us power and you can sit back, bend over, and relax with us in charge."
Otherwise known as they actual strongly believe that their ideology put into practice works, is good and advantageous for the USA and they had the guts to not cave.
Dear New York
You are out, you are yesterday, sorry but...
Truth, Justice and Country First will prevail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.