September 25, 2008
On Monday, September 22, the real Republicans in Congress stood up to the “bailout” plan, written by the Bush Administration and ratified by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. As I wrote in my last posting, there has been a serious question as to whether the Democrats in Congress had the cajones to stand up to the Bush Administration’s proposed Seven Hundred Billion – to One Trillion Dollar bailout of those financial institutions holding fuzzy mortgages and mortgage-based securities. The Administration’s plan, as originally written, gave autocratic authority to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for administration of this plan, without oversight by the Courts or Congress. At this point in the 2008 campaign, it has become time to give the well-deserved recognition to those Republican and/or conservative members of Congress as well as those conservative pundits, who put philosophy ahead of political allegiance and who spoke out for what they felt was right on this issue. The Congressional Democrats alone, would have backed down and simpered away from a fight with the “lame duck” Bush Administration on this proposal. Were it not for the intestinal fortitude and existential authenticity of the following individuals, Congress would have, once again, provided the “rubber stamp” for yet another, despotic Bush plan.
Before I congratulate them by name, let’s take a look back to the words of a great patriot, Thomas Paine. This passage was the opening to an article called The Crisis, written on December 23, 1776. His words are as important now as they were then:
THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.
Accordingly, the following Republican members of Congress should be given their due congratulations for rising above political loyalty on this monumental issue:
House Republican Study Committee (RSC) Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) who expressed skepticism about the Treasury Department’s proposal (last) Friday, saying he was “unconvinced that this is the proper remedy for our nation at this time.” (This was reported by Jackie Kucinich and Alexander Bolton for TheHill.com on September 22.)
The article by Kucinich and Bolton also disclosed that:
In a statement Saturday, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former RSC chairman, came out against the idea of a government bailout. “Congress must not hastily embrace a cure that may do more harm to our economy than the disease of bad debt,” he said.
The Kucinich/Bolton article went on to describe the action taken by Republican Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey:
In a “Dear Colleague” letter circulated on Monday, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) attached three articles written by economists at the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation and the University of Chicago that all offer alternatives to the administration’s plan.
“As in most cases, there is not just one solution to a public policy problem,” Garrett wrote. “It is my hope that the ideas below will provide some interesting analysis to the problems faced by the U.S. financial markets and generate thoughtful debate as we consider this monumental legislative proposal.”
Last, but not least, was Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns of Florida, who took time out to chat with Rachael Maddow on Wednesday night. Kucinich and Bolton noted how:
Florida Republican Cliff Stearns also criticized the proposal, which would allocate hundreds of millions of dollars to buy mortgage-based assets from private firms.
“Bailout after bailout is not a strategy,” said Stearns, who said that taxpayers could be left with a huge bill.
Were it not for the integrity of these individuals, the Democratic Party’s opponents of the original Bush Plan would not have enjoyed a chance at challenging the Administration’s original draft bailout proposal.
While we’re at it … let’s give a pat on the back to one of those bold conservatives, motivated by philosophy, rather than the televangelist lobby or the neocon trend: George Will. He has always been on my blogroll for a reason: his opinions are often philosophy – based, rather than party – based. Here’s what he had to say about the bailout plan in the Jewish World Review on September 23:
Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?
What is the real motivation behind the McCain campaign’s proposed “time out”? Is it because McCain’s campaign manager, (Jeffrey Dahmer look-alike) Rick Davis, as corporate Director and Treasurer of his lobbying firm: Davis Manafort, had been monthly collecting $15,000 from the vilified Freddie Mack, up until August? Or is it because Sarah Palin had been caught on video, going through some strange ritual with avowed “witch hunter” Bishop Thomas Muthee at the Wasilla Assembly of God church? I suspect it’s because McCain is lost in the woods without a compass, moral or otherwise.
Will It Work?
September 29, 2008
This is the question on everyone’s mind as they ponder the new “bailout bill”, officially known as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. It is available for everyone to read on the Internet (all 110 pages of it), but most people are looking for answers to the most important questions: Will it pass and will it work?
Just after midnight on Monday morning, David Rogers, of Politico.com, reported that the bill (which goes to the House floor on Monday and the Senate floor on Wednesday) was still facing resistance from both the right and the left, despite the support voiced by both Presidential candidates. Republican Congressman Chris Shays of Connecticut was quoted in the article as saying that: “For this to pass, a lot of people are going to have to change their minds”. The following passage provided more light on the view of this bill from those House Republicans providing resistance to the measure:
Jackie Kucinich reported for TheHill.com that earlier in the day, Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana had sent out a letter to his fellow Republicans in opposition to this bill:
The opposition to the bill from the Democratic side was discussed in another Politico.com article: this one by Ryan Grimm. Grimm’s article discussed an “intense” Democratic Caucus meeting. He quoted Minnesota Congressman James Oberstar as describing resistance to the bill coming from across the complete spectrum of Democratic opinion, from liberal to conservative. California Congressman Brad Sherman had met with Republican Darrell Issa before the meeting. Sherman’s contribution to the Caucus discussion was described this way by Ryan Grimm:
The House vote on the bill is scheduled to take place after a four-hour debate, beginning at 8 a.m. on Monday.
Whether or not this bill will ultimately “work” is another question. Paul Krugman, Economics Professor at Princeton University, wrote in the Sunday New York Times:
Steve Lohr’s report from the Sunday New York Times, discussed the outlook for this plan, as voiced by Robert E. Hall, an economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative research group at Stanford. Lohr observed:
Lohr’s article then focused on the opinion of Nouriel Roubini, an economist at the Stern School of Business at New York University:
A more unpleasant perspective appeared in an editorial published in the September 25 edition of The Economist:
Whatever your definition of “success” might be for this plan, the experts agree that things aren’t going to return to “normal” for a long time, if ever.