October 2, 2008

Bailout or rescue?

Posted at 2:33 PM by Rob Schofield

No matter what anyone on any side of the current debate in Washington is saying, the decision to vote "aye" or "nay" on the proposed rescue/bailout bill cannot be an easy one for any thoughtful lawmakers who actually care about the country as much as they do about getting reelected. On the one hand, you've got brilliant and committed progressives like Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities saying things like this:

The House should quickly approve the financial rescue plan that the Senate approved in strong bipartisan fashion yesterday.  Further delay would leave the U.S. economy increasingly vulnerable to a contraction more severe than any since the 1930s — one that could trigger large increases in unemployment and poverty and the loss of a sizeable portion of many families' retirement savings.

The Senate-approved plan is far from perfect, although it includes important improvements to Secretary Paulson's original plan that provide greater oversight and reduce the risks to taxpayers (the same improvements included in the bill the House defeated Monday) and also increases the amount of an individual's bank deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from the current $100,000 to $250,000. 

The Senate demonstrated a lack of fiscal responsibility by adding an array of tax-cut extenders that are unrelated to the rescue plan and would be deficit-financed rather than paid for by closing unproductive (and in some cases, egregious) tax loopholes, as the House had sought to do in a separate "extenders" bill it passed last month.  The package also lacks various elements that it would have been beneficial to include, such as bankruptcy protection for people facing foreclosure.  Even with this financial rescue package in place, the federal government will need to undertake more work ahead to address the ongoing economic fallout from the mess on Wall Street.

The bottom line, however, is that the potential consequences of defeating this legislation are far too grave to ignore.  Quick action to enact this legislation is imperative in order to reduce the great risk of a financial market meltdown that would harm millions of low- and moderate-income households."

And then you've got other brilliant and committed progressives like Dean Baker saying this:

Thomas Friedman doesn't like the people who oppose the bailout. He told readers that today.

He told Congress to stop asking questions and just hand the money to Wall Street.

'Message to Congress: Don't get cute. Don't give us something we don't need. Don't give us something designed to solve your political problems. Yes, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke need to accept strict oversights and the taxpayer must be guaranteed a share in the upside profits from all rescued banks. But other than that, give them the capital and the flexibility to put out this fire.'

Does Freidman have any idea what the fire is or whether this package will put it out? That's unlikely, but when the Wall Street banks are in trouble, Thomas Friedman doesn't ask questions."

The only thing that seems to be obvious to anyone with any common sense is that, as they almost always do when they get their hands on power, the market fundamentalists have screwed things up so bad that everyone will have to get their hands dirty cleaning up the mess.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

4 Comments

4 Comments Add yours »

Bailout » Blog Archive » Bailout Or Rescue? 2 Oct 2008 2:48 pm

[...] No matter what anyone on any side of the current debate in Washington is saying, the decision to vote “aye” or “nay” on the proposed rescue/ bailout bill cannot be an easy one for any thoughtful lawmakers who actually care about the …[Continue Reading] [...]

Rob Schofield 2 Oct 2008 2:52 pm

You can see and hear Baker panning the bailout as “a joke” by clicking here.

sturner 2 Oct 2008 5:02 pm

Rob…
The other thing the market fundamentalists like to do when they screw up is:
1) Blame the government
2) Blame Blacks.

You will notice throughout the right wing media, both nationally and with our local klaverns, lots of placing the blame for the meltdown on the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). Like “states rights,” this is code for racists. Media Matters does a good job of explaining the issue here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809300012

and this is good, too:

http://www.openleft.com/showQuickHit.do?quickHitId=3991

Paul & Nader v Bailout! 2 Oct 2008 7:51 pm

Staged “debate” dance now ready for 24/7 consumption -
Bailout Barack Obama w/partner Bailout John McCain.

Full-spectrum media suppression/distortion
target Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.

Your vote is your power,
they fear it, use it.

Add your comment

Please keep comments on topic and be respectful of other commenters. Inflammatory comments will be edited or removed.

Search

Previous Posts

  1. With apologies to Tennessee Ernie Ford…
  2. New oil rig disaster spawns interesting headlines
  3. Fixing Medicaid for the better
  4. Late Lunch Links

NC Policy Watch