Posts Tagged Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi’s partisan snipe + GOP’s faux protest = dead bailout

September 30, 2008 at 5:33 pm · Filed under domestic policy, Economy, Politics ·Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Wesley Pruden, over at the Washington Times, is one of many conservatives across this land to blame Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker from San Francisco, for the failure of the bailout bill in the House yesterday.  Pruden goes on to make the best suggestion Sarah Palin has gotten all month: she should use Thursday’s debate with Joe Biden to whack the heck out of Nancy Pelosi for killing the bailout package with that pesky partisanship that Palin will end to if the American people so bless her and John McCain with the privilege to serve them.

It’s a great idea, considering there really aren’t any live ones out there to improve Governor Palin’s image of late.  I look forward to seeing how Joe Biden fields direct assaults from Palin.  But seriously, can we really blame Pelosi’s speech for the failure of the bill?  Here is what she said:

“When President Bush took office he inherited President Clinton’s surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies within two years he had turned that around and now eight years later the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything-goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.

“They claim to be be free-market advocates when it’s really an anything-goes mentality: no regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.”

She added: “Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, it can create many good things in our economy. But in this case, in its unbridled form as encouraged, supported by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos.”

The thing is, the prepared version of that speech was not nearly so direct a condemnation of the Republican party.  I feel for the poor staffer who wrote that speech and had to sit and listen as the boss went off message.  Yes, Pelosi’s comments were clearly not helpful, and they were not in good taste.  She should have waited until after the vote to deliver her stinging condemnation of Republican economic policies.  But was it enough to tank the bill?

One has to ask the question, why were the dozen or so Republicans – who John Boehner and his Republican whip (vote counter), Roy Blunt of Missouri, claim were spooked by the partisan rhetoric – why were they going to hold their nose and vote for a deal they didn’t like and that they thought would certainly hurt them politically?  They were prepared to do it, one can only surmise, for the good of the country, for the good of the economy.  What other reason could there have been?  Moreover, why didn’t all of the Republicans protest?  Why only twelve – the magic number needed to pass the bill?

Nancy Pelosi comes off looking idiotic for her gratuitous GOP-bashing on the House floor before the big vote.  But I cannot accept that her poorly-timed partisan jabs would give those 12 members license to throw the good of the country overboard.  Those members who objected to Pelosi’s partisanship actually succumbed to that very vice by rejecting the bailout bill at the last minute.

Barney Frank, the famously grumpy chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, wasn’t buying it either.

“Here’s the story: There’s a terrible crisis affecting the American economy. We have come together on a bill to alleviate the crisis. And because somebody hurt their feelings they decide to punish the country . . . And there are 12 Republican members who were ready to stand up for the economic interests of America but not if anybody insulted them . . .

“I’ll make an offer,” he added. “Give me those 12 people’s names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are and maybe they’ll now think about the country.”

Leave a Comment

Who’s going to bail out the bailout?

September 29, 2008 at 8:01 pm · Filed under Economy, Politics ·Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Wow.  Maybe John McCain should have skipped the presidential debate on Friday afterall.  Because whatever progress he deemed there to be on the bailout legislation under negotiation, it was not enough progress to pass it today.  The measure just failed by a vote of 228 – 205 (65 Republicans and 140 Democrats voted for it).  While it would have passed with 12 more votes, more likely is that 20 more members would have needed to support the deal, so that no 1 member sealed its fate.

What can we learn from this vote?  First, neither John McCain, nor Minority Leader John Boehner, leads the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives.  And if John McCain loses this election, watch for the results of another election – leadership elections in the House next year.  Fiscal conservatives have been growing bolder in the waning years of the Bush presidency.  This vote, above all others, shows that their resurgence is all but certain.  If Barack Obama wins, he’ll have a devil of a time passing tax hikes on the wealthy.

We also learned that Democrats and Wall Street make for strange and ultimately uncomfortable bedfellows.  The liberal wing of the party just wasn’t willing to reward what they consider to be Wall Street fat cats.  In this, they have more in common with the conservative Republicans.  But more importantly, Pelosi wasn’t enforcing party unity on this vote on purpose; the Democrats were bent on a balanced vote – which they did not get, and for which they were willing to let the bill fail, for now.

Meanwhile, the Dow drops five hundred points in less than an hour, following the House vote.

Ben Pershing discusses why the bailout failed, starting with the fact that the Bush administration never should have let the “Bailout” label stick.

Poor Salesmanship. Did you know that the general consensus is now that this bill will not cost $700 billion? If you didn’t, it’s because the bill’s proponents did a poor marketing job. From the start, the Bush administration did not do enough to emphasize the point that taxpayers would get at least some of the money back, and that gigantic price tag got stuck in the head of the public (and the media). The administration was also too eager and ambitious with its initial proposal, alienating many lawmakers right from the start by seeming to ask for the moon — give us everything we want, with no oversight . . .

Vulnerables Scared. If you have a difficult reelection race, what was your motivation to vote for this bill? “I voted in favor of a bill that I didn’t really like, because I had no choice,” doesn’t make for a particularly snappy campaign slogan. “I stood up to my party and Wall Street,” sounds much better . . .

No Center of Gravity. Who’s running Washington right now? Bush is the lamest of lame ducks, with a miniscule approval rating and no clout or political protection left to offer . . .

Ideological Problems. The simplest explanation of all for the loss was that a lot of members just didn’t like the bill. Capitol Briefing outlined last week all the reasons why House conservatives balked at the initial proposal, and the basic point still stands: A massive expenditure of taxpayer funds and intervention in the free market, combined with tough new regulations, simply offended too many conservatives’ most basic principles. And Republicans, being in the minority, feel no responsibility to govern. They calculated that the bill’s failure will be blamed on Bush (so what?) and the majority Democrats.

On the liberal end of the spectrum, most members believe this really does represent a “bailout” of Wall Street and a power grab by the Bush administration, and that the current crisis vindicates their longtime warnings that the financial system was riven by greed and insufficient regulation. For those members, the final package didn’t have nearly enough help for struggling homeowners.

Oh, and then there was ‘partisanship’.  The House Republican leadership claims that Pelosi’s pre-vote speech (which, among other things, blamed the Bush administration’s policies for this disaster and promised a “New Direction” next year . . . ) so deeply offended swing Republicans that they swung the other way.  Maybe she could have held off with the blaming, but can you really imagine some Republicans switching their vote on a subject of such vital importance to the nation’s economy over that?

So, what now?  Apparently the House will vote on the bill again shortly (today).  The sad fact is that the bill is now more likely to succeed after the first failed vote.  The ensuing panic on Wall Street this afternoon, painful as it was, was probably just the bailout this bailout needed.

Comments (1)

Washington’s game of chicken on Wall Street crisis

September 26, 2008 at 2:41 am · Filed under domestic policy, Economy, Politics, Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

First there was agreement – in principle – on a bailout package, and now there is not.  Why?

Secretary Paulson delivered his sweeping three page proposal to Congress last Friday.   Congressional leaders on both sides of the capitol (and the aisle) began negotiating the parameters of a retooled deal. They debated priorities like, does Paulson really need this much money upfront?  How do we know how much is needed?  Will taxpayers be left holding the bag, or is there a way to structure potential buyouts in such a way that taxpayers get any profits and Wall Street CEOs get chastened (with limited compensation packages).  And is there a way to help stop more home foreclosures?

All the while that the bipartisan, bicameral negotiators defined and addressed these questions, John McCain was refusing to take any clear position on the deal.  On Tuesday he claimed to not have read the Paulson proposal yet.  By Wednesday, a deal was in sight.  Word was most Senate Republicans would support it, thus Senator Bennett’s comment today that they had an agreement.

But while McCain waffled, House Republicans, led by the most conservative of them, were balking. They are up for re-election and a taxpayer bailout fundamentally violated the absolutist free market principles to which they adhere.  So even if John Boehner was open to the agreement taking shape in negotiations, it doesn’t mean the caucus is with him.  And even though Paulson reportedly reached out to McCain on Wednesday (the excuse to suspend the campaign), it’s not clear McCain can bring the caucus along either.  Speculation was (and still is) rampant that the rank and file GOP want to oppose the deal, while the Democrats grudgingly sign off.  It could pass, just barely, Bush would sign the bill, and Republicans would bludgeon Democrats over the next month as the party that used taxpayer money to rescue an unrepentant Wall Street.

And so that is the dynamic that took over in today’s meeting in the White House, in which John McCain reportedly took no stand and said little at all.  Neither House Minority Leader John Boehner nor John McCain can deliver the party, or afford to break with it.  And Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid aren’t willing to risk being backed into a corner and locked into a deal with Washington’s least popular Republican, when $700 million dollars are at stake.  The question arises, should they just hold their nose, do the right thing and hope to talk taxpayers through why this was this right thing to do?  I’m not holding my breath on that one.

So what we have here is a game of chicken.  The upside to McCain will be if he and his renegade Republicans can force some of their alternative ideas onto a deal that gains bipartisan consensus. But no one has explained these ideas and McCain hasn’t backed them.  As I understand it a group including Eric Cantor (R-Va) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) want Wall Street “to pay for its bailout” by offering them government backed insurance, sort of like a homebuyer might buy mortgage insurance.  But if it is government backed – whatever that means – it still sounds a lot like our tax dollars at work, and I don’t see any potential profit at the other end, either.

So, could this all fall apart?  McCain has staked — rather, suspended — his campaign on getting a deal.  If he really wants a deal, can he force Republicans to move to the middle?  After the White House meeting with the candidates and congressional leaders, it wasn’t looking good.  Paulson later pleaded – reportedly on one knee?? – to Democrats, “Please don’t blow this up!”  To which Pelosi said, ‘We’re not the ones trying to blow this up; it’s the House Republicans!” “I know, I know,” Paulson sighed.

Maybe it will turn out that Paulson, Democrats and Senate Republicans were being too easy on Wall Street and the sky won’t really fall without this bailout.  Maybe there is a better way to restore confidence without the government footing or fronting the bill.  No one is crazy about the idea of buying “toxic waste,” especially with Ben Bernanke admitting in Q and A on Capitol Hill, he can’t guarantee this will work, and that he’s “been wrong quite a few times before.” If there is a better way, I’d sure like to hear it.

It is equally possible that the Republican party (minus, unbelievably, President Bush), with a little help from the Democrats, gambled the stability of our capital markets today — and thus ordinary Americans’ access to home, car, construction or school loans for the forseeable future — for the sake of this election.  What else could we have expected them to do?

Comments (1)

Will they, or won’t they debate?

September 25, 2008 at 2:33 pm · Filed under domestic policy, Economy, foreign affairs, Politics ·Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Yesterday, John McCain suddenly announced he would be suspending his campaign, and returning to Washington to help broker agreement on the rescue/bailout package that congressional leaders and Secretary Paulson have been negotiating.  He also called to cancel tomorrow night’s debate.

David Letterman was miffed that McCain blew off a scheduled appearance on his show last night, in his “race to the airport,” but sat for an interview with Katie Couric instead.  So, Letterman rolled live footage of McCain getting his face powdered before the interview.  “Hey, I’ve got a question for you,” Letterman yelled at the onscreen image of McCain.  “Need a ride to the airport?!”

For his part, Barack Obama wasn’t having any of it.

“With respect to the debates, it’s my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess. And I think that it is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once . . .”

“I think there’s no reason why we can’t be constructive in helping to solve this problem and also tell the American people what we believe and where we stand … So in my mind, actually, it’s more important than ever that we present ourselves to the American people and try to describe where we want to take the country and where we want to take the economy.”

President Bush went on the air last night to calm us all, and to explain why we won’t be able to get a car, home or school loan next year, even with a great credit record, if we don’t act now to stabilize our capital markets.  He’s right, actually.  But George Bush isn’t exactly someone most Americans feel confident in.

We are looking to the guy who, just over a month, is going to inherit this mess.  So, as Obama said, there is no better time to hold a nationally televised debate than now.

Senator Lindsey Graham, McCain’s debate negotiations pointman, had this to say yesterday: “We need a solution on this crisis more than we need a foreign policy debate.”  Oh, really?  I wonder what Mr. Graham had to say today, after Pakistani and American troops exchanged fire — with eachother — and Pakistan’s Prime Minister had this to say:

“We will not tolerate any act against our sovereignty and integrity in the name of the war against terrorism,” Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, told reporters on Wednesday. “We are fighting extremism and terror not for any other country, but our own country.”

And that’s not all.  Terrorist violence in Pakistan has been escalating,  and there are now reports that a “grim” new National Intelligence Estimate on the situation in Afghanistan is ready, but that it won’t be released until after the election.  Iran’s nuclear development activities aren’t on hold while Washington works to rescue Wall Street.  The North Korea deal still hangs precariously on the cliff of failure.  A new Israeli Prime Minister may or may not be able to hold a coalition government together to continue peace talks with the Palestinians, and with the Syrians.  Hugo Chavez gallivants off to see his new BFFs in Moscow every other month.  But hey, no biggie.  All that stuff can wait.

I agree with Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (never one to mince words) that McCain’s announcement was “the longest Hail Mary pass in the history of football or Marys.”  The negotiations include Senate and House leadership and the Senate Banking and House Financial Services committes.  John McCain will not be in the room at 10:00am this morning when the negotiators hammer out their remaining differences.  In fact, the negotiators will have to take a break from the actual business of negotiating to troop over to the White House and have a meaningless photo op with the President.  The president has little juice left for effective arm-twisting, and whatever lines in the sand he wants to express, are obviously represented for him by Hank Paulson.  The only thing that meeting could be good for is if Congressional leaders and Paulson have reached an agreement by the time they all arrive at the White House, and President Bush announces the deal when the “meeting” wraps.

At this stage, the arms that still need twisting are those members who don’t want the government, and thus the taxpayers, to have to front this money for Wall Street.  They are understandably angry, but they need to realize that things will only get far worse if we don’t act to stabilize the markets.  So the parameters really are around how much money truly needs to be fronted (Paulson is erring on the side of as much as he can have the authority to move around), what measures will be taken to penalize those at fault (limiting CEO pay, for example), what measures can be put in place to increase the likelihood and the amount of profit the taxpayer, and not the bailed out companies, will get later for fronting the money now, and, is there anything Congress can do to prevent more homes from being foreclosed (I have read about a proposal to allow bankruptcy judges to reset mortgage terms, but I doubt that would fly).

If John McCain wants to be useful, he should march over to Jeb Henslaring’s (R-TX) office and twist his arm.  “Jeb, I don’t like this anymore than you do,” he should say.  “But I need the caucus with me on this one.  I don’t want to be responsible for the deal failing, and Reid and Pelosi are threatening not to move if the GOP sits back on this one.  It sure would be nice to all buck the president, vote no and let the Democrats pass a socialist government takeover of Wall Street, but Harry and Nancy aren’t going for it.  So, I’ve come back to save the deal, right?  Seriously, I need you to shut up and fall in line.  You know, as if I were the leader of the Party now and I carried some real sway with you jerks?”

Comments (3)