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.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 27 CommentsI apologize!
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.
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.
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!!!
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!
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.
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%.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 27 Comments