Sticks, Carrots And A Failed Bailout
Jill Jackson is a Capitol Hill field producer for CBS News.
Early this morning, members of the House were starting to think they might actually pass an economic rescue package hammered out in late night negotiations over the weekend. But democrats and republicans were not going to take any vote for granted – especially when the bill would commit up to $700 billion of taxpayer money. Plus, it's an election year and members are getting hundreds of calls and e-mails from constituents urging their congressmen to vote "no."
Both democratic and republican leadership committed their support to the final package. But everyone knew the vote would be tight. And that's why there are whips in the House – members of leadership who count the votes and use carrots and sticks to get members to vote a certain way. Sometimes it's arm-twisting. And sometimes they just a promise of a favor down the line. Sometimes it's an appeal to party unity.
After three hours of debate on the bailout, it was time for a 15-minute vote. Members were keenly aware that voting one way could cause more trouble in the economy, perhaps even a deep recession. Vote the other way and it's a Wall Street bailout. Republican Congressman Chip Pickering of Texas called it a "legacy vote."
As the clock started to tick down, republican minority whip Roy Blunt made the rounds on the republican side of the chamber. He would casually walk around and sit with a member or two, whisper something in their ear and then get back up. His deputy whip Eric Cantor did the same.
On the democrats' side of the chamber, Majority Whip Steny Hoyer and conference chair Rahm Emanuel ran around trying to manage their party's vote since they did not want democrats to vote overwhelmingly for the package. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's made clear that this bailout, or economic recovery package, had to pass with both democrats and republicans.
The vote moved slowly. Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner had one quick exchange in the front of the chamber. The Speaker looked like she wanted folks to vote faster. Boehner just shrugged.
And then, the vote froze at 207 yeas to 226 nays. The clock had run out, but democrats kept the vote open hoping enough republicans would change their votes. The tension spiked when it was clear that votes would change, but only by two votes over to the nay category.
Members stared grimly up at the tallies. Democrats, along with Pelosi and Rep. Barney Frank, crowded around the leadership and committee tables and stayed pretty stationary. Hoyer crossed over to Blunt on the republican side to get a read on if there was any hope left.
When it was clear the whips could whip no more. The vote was closed. Final vote: 205 yeas to 228 nays.
Early this morning, members of the House were starting to think they might actually pass an economic rescue package hammered out in late night negotiations over the weekend. But democrats and republicans were not going to take any vote for granted – especially when the bill would commit up to $700 billion of taxpayer money. Plus, it's an election year and members are getting hundreds of calls and e-mails from constituents urging their congressmen to vote "no."
Both democratic and republican leadership committed their support to the final package. But everyone knew the vote would be tight. And that's why there are whips in the House – members of leadership who count the votes and use carrots and sticks to get members to vote a certain way. Sometimes it's arm-twisting. And sometimes they just a promise of a favor down the line. Sometimes it's an appeal to party unity.
After three hours of debate on the bailout, it was time for a 15-minute vote. Members were keenly aware that voting one way could cause more trouble in the economy, perhaps even a deep recession. Vote the other way and it's a Wall Street bailout. Republican Congressman Chip Pickering of Texas called it a "legacy vote."
As the clock started to tick down, republican minority whip Roy Blunt made the rounds on the republican side of the chamber. He would casually walk around and sit with a member or two, whisper something in their ear and then get back up. His deputy whip Eric Cantor did the same.
On the democrats' side of the chamber, Majority Whip Steny Hoyer and conference chair Rahm Emanuel ran around trying to manage their party's vote since they did not want democrats to vote overwhelmingly for the package. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's made clear that this bailout, or economic recovery package, had to pass with both democrats and republicans.
The vote moved slowly. Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner had one quick exchange in the front of the chamber. The Speaker looked like she wanted folks to vote faster. Boehner just shrugged.
And then, the vote froze at 207 yeas to 226 nays. The clock had run out, but democrats kept the vote open hoping enough republicans would change their votes. The tension spiked when it was clear that votes would change, but only by two votes over to the nay category.
Members stared grimly up at the tallies. Democrats, along with Pelosi and Rep. Barney Frank, crowded around the leadership and committee tables and stayed pretty stationary. Hoyer crossed over to Blunt on the republican side to get a read on if there was any hope left.
When it was clear the whips could whip no more. The vote was closed. Final vote: 205 yeas to 228 nays.
This bill is necessary only if we refuse to consider alternatives. Scrap the Paulson plan and start over. Since the concern is to get loans flowing to American businesses, find a way to fund regional and local banks all across the country and cut out those who perpetrated this debacle. The market will hand them their verdict.
We need options for those in default of the mortgage. I further suggest that every adjustable rate loan in the country be given the option to renegotiate into a fixed rate without qualification so long as their payments are on time. If homeowners are making what ever sacrifice they need to in order to keep their home then we need to allow them to continue to do that.
As for Paulson and Bernake, they need to be stripped of their positions. There is no way that they were ignorant of this situation more than 12 months ago. I suspect they knew it was coming for several years. But they did nothing. They allowed it to brew to a crisis and then used it as an attempt to grab still more power. Replace Paulson and begin the process of minimizing the power of the Federal Reserve.
Much of the toxic (garbage) debts were based on fraudulent practices %u2013 opaque financial instruments unrelated to real assets (but which generated huge commissions). Bailing out swindlers only encourages more swindling.
The US Treasury will purchase worthless paper, the private banks will retain any assets of value. We buy the lemons, they drive the Cadillacs.
The chance of the Treasury recovering any value from their purchases of bad debt is near zero. The taxpayers will be stuck with paper with no buyers.
The long-term effect of a bailout will be to double the public debt and undercut funding for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and public health programs while increasing the tax burden of future generations.
The dollar will devalue as the government debt will decrease its attractiveness overseas, increasing the cost of imports and resulting in an inflationary spiral which will further undermine working people%u2019s living standards.
The killing of this version of the bill was designed to do just what it did - drive the market down.
Their institutional supporters will now buy into the market, and as soon as those buy orders are filled, "hard work and devotion to the public good" will suddenly produce a consensus that looks very much like what they killed; the market will recover; and those institutional supporters will have done very well, indeed. If others accomplished the same thing, it would be "conspiracy to manipulate the market", but since congress members were the actors, it will just be politics as usual.
On topic: Even if I wanted to pay for someone else''s lack of judgment we cannot afford this, especially on top of tax cuts for the wealthy, never ending war in Iraq, Afghanistan, saber rattling or worse at Iran, threats aimed at North Korea, revival of star wars, military arms and race in space against China, and all the other boondoggles Bush is inventing even now.
BREAKING NEWS
Americans read of Obama''s victory while standing in soup line across the country while the depression expands beyond our boarders. Unemployment reachs 20%.
Just one. There obviously isn''t on on the TV or blogs. Maybe a janitor?
Pelosi can''t even get her own party to vote for the bailout and they have the MAJORITY. If she had kept her mouth shut it might have passed. Maybe Katie should have played that up.
Why Republicans lower themselves to speaking to Couric and Crew is beyond me.
What needs to be done, is responsible oversight of the bailout with absolutely NO HIGH CEO payoffs at end of year. Can anyone think of a reason why the American taxpayer would want a CEO to walk away with a huge package after what they have done? This is the issue. ABSOLUTELY NO CEO BUYOUTS, PAYOFFS OR GOLDEN PARACHUTES! LET THE BANKS FIGURE THIS OUT AS FAR AS THEY CAN! LET THE MARKETS ADJUST. NO WALL STREET BAILOUT!
Neither the 41,000 lobbyists who know our House of Representatives, our Congresspeople, and the President so very well NOR the House, Congress, or our President represent us taxpayers in any way shape or form.
I, like the majority of Americans, are disgusted with all of them. I believe that we should have NO bailout for any of these failures/CRIMINALS on Wall Street. Yes, "my money/Main Street''s money" is on Wall Street, and yes, so is my parent''s money as they are at retirement age and dealing with issues of their own (i.e. health) at home - I understand that all VERY clearly.
I also understand that Wall Street is NOTHING what it was in 1933 nor is it ANYTHING that it was just 15 years ago.
One more thought - Why doesn''t the House and Congress and the President give an estimated 200 million taxpayers who are over the age of 18 years EACH $3,500.00 (or more, if a "bail-out" is all it takes!) for their individual debt, if those "leaders" of ours truly care about our, the Americans, financial well-being or truly want to spend OUR money to get us out of this mess. Here''s an answer "why", Katie...because those Representatives, those Congress people, that President of ours have all been - other than those who voted AGAINST this package - the puppets of the exact big companies, big lobbyists, and big criminals who need this bailout plan to save their own rear ends....those people care NOTHING about your or me, Katie.
Thanks for all you do, Katie. STAY VOCAL!!!
Here''s my bailout proposal...
The Federal government should take the tax payers money to pay off the tax payers high risk mortgages.
The money - current market value of home - would still go to the financial institution where the mortgage is held, which will help them out of their situations.
The Fed. Government could then put a Fed "lien" on the property - again based on current market value. Tax payers could pay off the "lien" every year as an addition to their property taxes. Instead of making 2 payments a year, we could make 4, two of which would go the Fed. Gov.
When the property is sold, the buyer could have the choice of taking over "lien" or taking out a conventional mortgage which would pay off the Fed. %u201Clien%u201D. The seller would only be entitled to the equity.
This bailout would put cash in the hands of the consumer, thereby sparking the economy and hopefully lifting the hiring freeze. CEO%u2019s will not get large bonuses from the checks the government writes and the government will still eventually %u201Cget most, if not all%u201D of the money back.
Increase Decrease
September 30, 2008 (LPAC)-- All Congressmen whose personal investments would be affected by the bailout bill should recuse themselves from voting on the plan, in order to avoid a conflict of interest. That alone should be enough to kill the plan.
Here''s my bailout proposal...
The Federal government should take the tax payers money to pay off the tax payers high risk mortgages.
The money - current market value of home - would still go to the financial institution where the mortgage is held, which will help them out of their situations.
The Fed. Government could then put a Fed "lien" on the property - again based on current market value. Tax payers could pay off the "lien" every year as an addition to their property taxes. Instead of making 2 payments a year, we could make 4, two of which would go the Fed. Gov.
When the property is sold, the buyer could have the choice of taking over "lien" or taking out a conventional mortgage which would pay off the Fed. %u201Clien%u201D. The seller would only be entitled to the equity.
This bailout would put cash in the hands of the consumer, thereby sparking the economy and hopefully lifting the hiring freeze. CEO%u2019s will not get large bonuses from the checks the government writes and the government will still eventually %u201Cget most, if not all%u201D of the money back.
Here''s my bailout proposal...
The Federal government should take the tax payers money to pay off the tax payers high risk mortgages.
The money - current market value of home - would still go to the financial institution where the mortgage is held, which will help them out of their situations.
The Fed. Government could then put a Fed "lien" on the property - again based on current market value. Tax payers could pay off the "lien" every year as an addition to their property taxes. Instead of making 2 payments a year, we could make 4, two of which would go the Fed. Gov.
When the property is sold, the buyer could have the choice of taking over "lien" or taking out a conventional mortgage which would pay off the Fed. %u201Clien%u201D. The seller would only be entitled to the equity.
This bailout would put cash in the hands of the consumer, thereby sparking the economy and hopefully lifting the hiring freeze. CEO%u2019s will not get large bonuses from the checks the government writes and the government will still eventually %u201Cget most, if not all%u201D of the money back.
Here''s my bailout proposal...
The Federal government should take the tax payers money to pay off the tax payers high risk mortgages.
The money - current market value of home - would still go to the financial institution where the mortgage is held, which will help them out of their situations.
The Fed. Government could then put a Fed "lien" on the property - again based on current market value. Tax payers could pay off the "lien" every year as an addition to their property taxes. Instead of making 2 payments a year, we could make 4, two of which would go the Fed. Gov.
When the property is sold, the buyer could have the choice of taking over "lien" or taking out a conventional mortgage which would pay off the Fed. %u201Clien%u201D. The seller would only be entitled to the equity.
This bailout would put cash in the hands of the consumer, thereby sparking the economy and hopefully lifting the hiring freeze. CEO%u2019s will not get large bonuses from the checks the government writes and the government will still eventually %u201Cget most, if not all%u201D of the money back.
Here''s my bailout proposal...
The Federal government should take the tax payers money to pay off the tax payers high risk mortgages.
The money - current market value of home - would still go to the financial institution where the mortgage is held, which will help them out of their situations.
The Fed. Government could then put a Fed "lien" on the property - again based on current market value. Tax payers could pay off the "lien" every year as an addition to their property taxes. Instead of making 2 payments a year, we could make 4, two of which would go the Fed. Gov.
When the property is sold, the buyer could have the choice of taking over "lien" or taking out a conventional mortgage which would pay off the Fed. %u201Clien%u201D. The seller would only be entitled to the equity.
This bailout would put cash in the hands of the consumer, thereby sparking the economy and hopefully lifting the hiring freeze. CEO%u2019s will not get large bonuses from the checks the government writes and the government will still eventually %u201Cget most, if not all%u201D of the money back.
Here''s my bailout proposal...
The Federal government should take the tax payers money to pay off the tax payers high risk mortgages.
The money - current market value of home - would still go to the financial institution where the mortgage is held, which will help them out of their situations.
The Fed. Government could then put a Fed "lien" on the property - again based on current market value. Tax payers could pay off the "lien" every year as an addition to their property taxes. Instead of making 2 payments a year, we could make 4, two of which would go the Fed. Gov.
When the property is sold, the buyer could have the choice of taking over "lien" or taking out a conventional mortgage which would pay off the Fed. %u201Clien%u201D. The seller would only be entitled to the equity.
This bailout would put cash in the hands of the consumer, thereby sparking the economy and hopefully lifting the hiring freeze. CEO%u2019s will not get large bonuses from the checks the government writes and the government will still eventually %u201Cget most, if not all%u201D of the money back.
I apologize!
-
by stormyhailey
October 2, 2008 3:06 PM PDT
- No to bail out! The gov taught us in school, USA is a capitalist country, it is all about the mighty dollar you make it any way you can. The Fannie/Freddie need to lower interest rates n stop doing the floating interest rates to set people up for failure. Recall as many foreclosures as possible n refinance the houses the honest right way, for once. Products n services should be valued for what they really are, instead of valued for greed. The gov should stop lending money out to other countries as if we got it to give. My mom always said to take care of home first. That should be the first law for USA to live by. The following should occur: CEO, etc. should invest their paycheck n 35 mil bonus that they receive every quarter back into their co. Their personal items, jets, condos, homes, etc. should be put up as collateral. Families that are in foreclosure homes should be evaluated at the correct cost-n taxes should be lowered, put what they are behind at end of note, n start them afresh on a 4.9 fixed rate for the next 15 years. Stop overpricing these matchbox homes that only cost 20 to 44 thousand to build. When I applied for a credit card, these same banks deny others n me because of credit score. I AM SORRY STOCK MARKET - I AS A TAX PAYING CITIZEN DON''T CONSIDER YOU A GOOD INVESTMENT FOR MY TAX MONEY - APPLICATION DENIED - SEE US TAX PAYERS WHEN YOU GET YOUR CREDIT n ETHICS SCORE UP. THERE IS NO APPEAL PROCESS.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 27 Comments