The Bargain for the Bailout

The bottom line is it may be impossible for 150 Republicans in the House and 40 in the senate to vote "No" on this bizarre bailout bill.

Evidently Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are making clear: No bipartisan cover, no bailout.

As we learned from the 1995 government shutdown, the press can and will blame Republicans for bad consequences, and provide no credit at all for showing any principles. (indeed, a lack of principles is how a Republican tends to get good press).

It's still a miserable deal, since we can be damm sure the Democrats will hang this on any Republican "aye" vote for years, while their people skulk away. and why not--no one on their side took any responsibility for the mess

So, my suggestions is we ask for our own cover.

Some prominent Democrats must demonstrate a level of responsibility for this disaster before Republicans allow themselves to be roped into looking like die hard Dubya loyalists.

The quid: The chairman of the Senate and House Banking Committees---Chris Dodd and Barney Frank--must relinquish their chairmanships as a condition for Republican yes votes on the bailouts.    

And there's a completely nonpartisan reason for demanding this. In 2009 we will have a new President and a new Secretary of the Treasury. The executive branch will have fresh blood who did not create this debacle (perhaps they ignored it, but...whatever) 

The people who are hopelessly compromised by their roles in Congress must step aside as well to demonstrate to America that people on Capitol Hill get the same message 

Everyone---both parties---both branches of government---is going out the door who "managed" the banking system.

For equity's sake, we can have the ranking Republicans on each committee quit too.

America needs a fresh set of folks who will have the responsiblity for getting ourselves out of this mess. It can;t be the same people who created the mess. They now have zero credibility.

And America deserves both parties accepting a share of the blame for what went wrong.

Are the egos of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank more important than our economy's future?

As Spike Lee said, Do the Right Thing

Your rating: None


One sure and fast way to depress the Republican base

is to vote for the bailout.  Fine strategies all, but the issue that will resonate is whether the Republicans we voted for, the same ones that let loose this moronic administration and help grew government in unprecedented levels, have one least bit of fiscal conservatism left to say NO! GOPers are all over the map when it comes  to certain issues, but we are all fiscal conservatives.  

If the Republicans in Congress help the Dems in passing the bailouts, can you tell the American people with straight face that we are the fiscally conservative party?

Gingrich and his GOP minority in 93-94 said NO to Clinton and that was a brilliant tactic because it highlighted the difference between the two parties, helped separated them from the DC mess, and the GOP had the credibility to stand on fiscal conservative issues.

Still Think It Makes Sense For Republicans To Vote No

One luxury of not being in power is you can play politics regardless of the consequences.  I happen to believe that the markets will work themselves out regardless of this bailout, and I'm ideologically opposed to taxpayers coming to the rescue whenever Wall Street is running through a rough patch.  To me, there's no downside to voting yes, and all kinds of upside to voting no.

I would not want to go back to my district with a yes vote for this Wall Street bailout.  If I were a Democrat, you better believe I would hang that around my opponents' neck if they voted for a trillion-dollar plan to shore up banks (many of which will be foreign banks).  This will be one of those votes that will have consequences years down the road.  It will be especially toxic for a Republican to have this vote stain their record since we have the unfair stigma of being the party of "big business."

McCain and the Republican leadership would be in far better shape to vote no, kill this deal, and let the market work itself out rather than voting yes for a bailout, and still having a not so great economy.  The "yes" voters will have nothing to show for their vote, the U.S. economy is not going to start roaring immediately after a bailout.



I'm not sure having the ATM network freeze up

would do much for party enthusiasm, either.

Frankly, my experience is at the application end of the banking system (closings and foreclosures). I tend to trust "Blackhedd" @ Redstate, who has had his pulse on what is going on @ the Wall Street money center banks for quite awhile.

And he thinks things are pretty damm dire.  Like no cash available because of money market withdrawals bad.  I hope he's wrong, but even my dire expectations of mid summer have been exceeded

That said. I'm quite pleased that a lot of folks like Brian Wesbury are trying to devise large scale interventions which could be less expensive and less intrusive than Hank Paulson's boondoggle.  Whether the other party has any interest in limiting taxpayer exposure is of course, problematic, since that's been their calling card for the past 76 years.


Well, said.

 There isn't a real fiscal conservative among any of these office seekers. Now it's time to see who the real fiscal conservatives are in Congress.

I hear even Barack Obama is now calling himself a fiscal conservative.

 By the way, I see where Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is investing at least $5 billion in Goldman Sachs. So much for the need for the taxpayer to bail out Wall Street.

ex animo



All this seriousness and pessimism...

...thanks Farrar for a little good humor.... A harty belly laugh was needed. DD

Yes, DD, from time to time...


...we get so caught up in our own little worlds...we tend to lose sight of the larger things in life ...

...and every now and again, when you least expect it, someone like this guy comes along...

 and puts every thing all back into perspective...


 Ah, that's better.


That's kind of how general election politics affects us all every four years -- well, kind of.

Thanks for your post.

ex animo



well it's hard to me for get past my dark irish persona

when I see things as miserable as this is

Sorry, True Believers, but I remember 1995

 The last time we "Stood on Principle", Bill Clinton and the News Media horsewhipped Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans during the Government Shutdown.

I can guarantee you that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will game the system in such a way to make the same thing happen all over again, and blame John McCain and Sarah Palin for any holdup in "stopping foreclosures for working families". Remove as much graft and pork as possible, get Cox, Barney, and Dodd, out of there, and get some consistent powerful oversight.

I've seen this movie before. I know how it ends. Republicans need to get some modifications, but push for the bailout. John McCain doesnt' have to be as politically tone deaf as Newt Gingrich. 

I remember 1995 too!

It was absoloutely idiotic.  We had the left-wing media sycophants,the FedGov employees unions, and the dumbass from Arkanasas who lets his little do all his thinking for him whining in front of the cameras attacking Newt and the boys for all this along with the Dumbocrat minority blaming Congress for standing in the way of this oh, so great, wonderful president.  Never mind that 5 years before they were attacking George HW Bush for the last government shutdown, all with official media propaganda approval (of course the executive and legislative branches were controlled by the opposite parties then).

Meanwhile the economy was humming right along (no thanks to Clinton's tax increaes) and that assclown eventually proclaiming "the era big government is over" (yeah and Charles Manson has learned his lesson since the Sharon Tate murders).  And that is why he won re-election because the voters wrongly gvae him credit for the economy.  Even though your average voter could not honestly name one policy of Clinton's that was actually responsible for it, he still got the credit. 

I think in this circumstances we need to keep you using our resources to blame this administration for being the genesis of the crisis (which it was) and oppose this bailout scheme as maing the problem worse, not better.  If the voters realize this is a problem that predates the W administration and has been ongoing for quite some time they will realize we will be better off if we approach it with the right fix which is no taxpayer bailout.  Make them realize the DEM solution will only make the problem worse for their benefit and not for the American people as a whole.  But we must oppose this bailout scheme.

Republicans should do the right thing

If this were a Republican bill , vote aye. But this is a Frank-Dodd bailout.

1. this bill is better than nothing. Doing nothing is a prescription for a credit market meltdown

2. There are better alternatives. And the bailout has negative consequences to the dollar, to our financial system, etc.

Alas, most of those alternatives will not be cosidered by a Democrat Congress. And the Bush white house, which should lead on this, is not leading. So there is no 'mo' for a conservative alternative getting passed. the best we can do is get the ideas out there so people realizedThe right thing then is for Republicans to extract the best improvements they can on it. If they cant, then vote no. I am hearing that they have enough votes to pass. Well, if its a Democrat bill, get the Democrat votes for it.

Politically AND economically - the MESS IS A FANNIE MAE PROBLEM. KEEP THE HEAT ON ENDING FANNIE MAE AS A GSE AND ENDING THE CORRUPTION AND THE WASTE THERE. A wall st bailout with all the other bad Democrat ideas coming up will just make things worse.