Lawmakers Claim Progress In Bailout Talks

Congressional Leaders Hopeful Of Striking Deal Before World Markets Open

(CBS/AP)  Nervously eyeing the markets' next trading session, key lawmakers in both parties and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson worked late into the night Saturday trying to close an agreement on a multibillion-dollar government bailout of distressed financial companies.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters "quite a bit" of progress was being made on a deal that Congress could send to President Bush as early as Monday after votes in both houses.

A key sticking point was how to include a new government-sponsored program demanded by House Republicans as an alternative to devoting the entire $700 billion proposed by Bush on buying up devalued mortgage-backed securities and other toxic debt from banks and investors.

"We're making a lot of headway; I think it's possible to get this thing done tonight," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. "I can't guarantee it," Baucus quickly added.

The House was scheduled to convene at 1 p.m. EDT Sunday and members there were hoping they could vote on it by that evening and go home to campaign for re-election. The Senate isn't scheduled to go back into session until Monday morning.

Presidential politics again played a role in the bargaining. Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama called key negotiators and portrayed themselves as helping without getting directly involved in the talks.

Bush expressed confidence earlier Saturday that lawmakers soon would approve a rescue plan while acknowledging that many Americans are frustrated and angry at the amount of money taxpayers are being asked to put up for covering Wall Street firms' mistakes.

The president spoke with Paulson, McCain and other Republican lawmakers during the day, said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

Under the plan being considered, the Treasury Department would buy deeply distressed mortgage-backed securities. The money should help troubled lenders make new loans. The government would later try to sell the discounted loan packages at the best possible price.

House Republicans were insisting that some of the money be available to insure, rather than buy, distressed mortgage-backed securities. Banks and investment firms holding such packages would pay the government for insurance against losses if the mortgages default.

Proponents say their idea would require less taxpayer spending. But the Treasury Department has said it would not pump enough money into the financial sector to make credit sufficiently available.

Another proposal would have the government receive stock warrants in return for the bailout relief, ensuring that proceeds from eventual sales of the discounted packages would return to the Treasury.

Negotiators were trying to settle on a means of limiting severance packages for executives of companies that benefit from the rescue plan.

They also discussed phasing in the program's costs. For example, after the first $350 billion or so is made available, Congress could try to block later amounts if it believed the program was not working. The president presumably could veto such a move, however, requiring extra large margins in the House and Senate to override.

House Republicans insisted on several changes to the administration's original proposal.

"We should not be bailing out Wall Street on the backs of American taxpayers," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters at midafternoon, when Paulson and key House and Senate members took over the negotiations from their aides.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said earlier that the goal was to come up with a final agreement before the Asian markets open Sunday night. "Everybody is waiting for this thing to tip a little bit too far," he said, so "we may not have another day."

The bailout is intended to rescue bankers from bad loans that threaten to derail the economy and plunge the country into a long depression. Some lawmakers likened the situation to a major car wreck that has backed up traffic - credit, in this case - for miles. The rescue is meant to remove the wreckage so credit can start moving to borrowers again, they said.

But there are at least a dozen sticking points, reports CBS News correspondent Thalia Assuras. Key among them figuring out who would pay premiums to cover future losses - the banks or the taxpayers - and whether future profits from the bailout would go into a housing trust fund.

And while Republicans have problems with the proposals pitched by the White House and Senate leaders, Democrats say no package can move forward unless conservative Republicans provide substantial votes. Conservatives are pushing an alternative package of tax cuts and insurance that would not require taxpayers to foot the bill, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.

Democrats and administration officials said they were willing to include House Republicans' idea of having the government insure distressed mortgage-backed securities - but only as an option, not a replacement for the broader idea of buying those toxic securities.

"There may be a way in which that could be accommodated as part of the toolbox" available to the Treasury Department, said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. "As a practical matter, that can't be the engine that drives this bill," he said.

Negotiators also discussed phasing in the program's costs. For example, after the first $350 billion is made available, Congress could try to block later amounts, which could total an additional $350 billion, if it believed the program was not working. The president presumably could veto such a move, however, requiring extra large margins in the House and Senate to override.

The negotiations have agreed to limit compensation to executives of corporations that would be covered by the rescue plan but there was disagreement on how to do it and by how much.

Whatever emerges "is not the proposal that we got from Secretary Paulson," Reid said. But lawmakers said it would be much closer to Paulson's original plan than to the alternative offered by House Republicans several days ago.

McCain, who flew to Washington after Friday night's presidential debate in Mississippi, spent part of Saturday working the phones and "helping out as he can," aide Mark Salter said. But McCain did not enter the Capitol, where his colleagues were voting on a $634 billion spending bill that ended a ban on drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and sent billions of dollars to the military.

McCain supports such measures. But the vote would have been difficult for him because the bill also included more than 2,000 pet spending projects worth more than $6 billion. That is the kind of pork-barrel spending that McCain has pledged to end.

Obama campaigned in North Carolina and Virginia. Aides said he placed calls to Paulson, Reid and a key House member to keep tabs on the finance negotiations.

[thee0racle]

government by the rich; for the rich. Any provisions to prevent a recurrence? Or will raping the treasury now become the norm?

[tbuckl]

I want to vote to the person who will follow this GREAT American idea and concept and return my America to me and my fellow citizens forthwith..."We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles & organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness." Thomas Jefferson

[jakep51]

Why in heaven''s name are there no news media outlets talking about the role the Federal Government played in creating the situation which caused the collapse of so many mortgage lenders? Passing legislation to force lenders to provide home loans to individuals who clearly didn''t have the financial means to repay the loans had a huge impact on the stability in the markets. Yet none of the so called "news" (pronounced propaganda) networks has even dared to make mention of this fact. The legislation passed and forced onto the mortgage lenders has to be investigated and the names of the politicians who perpetrated this scheme must be made public, but I suppose that would only happen if it was done by those mean nasty Republicans, right?

[jakep51]

Why in heaven''s name are there no news media outlets talking about the role the Federal Government played in creating the situation which caused the collapse of so many mortgage lenders? Passing legislation to force lenders to provide home loans to individuals who clearly didn''t have the financial means to repay the loans had a huge impact on the stability in the markets. Yet none of the so called "news" (pronounced propaganda) networks has even dared to make mention of this fact. The legislation passed and forced onto the mortgage lenders has to be investigated and the names of the politicians who perpetrated this scheme must be made public, but I suppose that would only happen if it was done by those mean nasty Republicans, right?

[williewomper]

Subject: A US Citizen Bailout


Whoever T. J. Birkenmeier is, I sincerely salute him.
I''m against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
To make the math simple, let''s assume there are 200,000,000
bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.
Our population is about 301,000,000 /- counting every man, woman
and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
So divide 200 million adults 18 into $85 billon that equals
$425,000.00.
My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18
as a
We Deserve It Dividend
. Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
So let''s assume a tax rate of 30%.
Every individual 18 has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.
But it means that every adult 18 has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it''ll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent''s medical insurance - health care improves
If we''re going to re-distribute wealth let''s really do it And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because
$25.5
Billion is returned
***************
This guy should be President!

[txgrouch2006]

Why in heaven''''s name are there no news media outlets talking about the role the Federal Government played in creating the situation which caused the collapse of so many mortgage lenders? Posted by jakep51 at 08:45 AM : Sep 27, 2008

Because that 1999 legislation was SIGNED BY BILL CLINTON.

BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME

And please, liberal r e t a r d s, SPARE me the song and dance about "veto proof." Just stow it. I''ll be glad to shove it down your throat again, if you insist. But really, it''s getting old.

BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME

And as I have found, Clinton STILL enjoys overwhelming popularity IN SPITE of the fact that we are not experiencing the results of his SYSTEMATIC SABOTAGE of our nation for the sake of his own political gains at the moment. And it hurts the profits of the news outlets if they point out the faults of such an idol of overwhelming public worship and adulation.

BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME

Yes, Bush had 8 years to undo Clinton''s sabotage, and he failed. BUT CLINTON CAUSED THE SABOTAGE in the first place.

[txgrouch2006]

TERM LIMITS FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - ESPECIALLY CONGRESS.

By executive order of President Obama, if necessary.

NO MORE career crooks in Washington DC.

[skyk239]

Why in heaven''''s name are there no news media outlets talking about the role the Federal Government played in creating the situation which caused the collapse of so many mortgage lenders? Passing legislation to force lenders to provide home loans to individuals who clearly didn''''t have the financial means to repay the loans had a huge impact on the stability in the markets. Yet none of the so called "news" (pronounced propaganda) networks has even dared to make mention of this fact. The legislation passed and forced onto the mortgage lenders has to be investigated and the names of the politicians who perpetrated this scheme must be made public, but I suppose that would only happen if it was done by those mean nasty Republicans, right?

Posted by jakep51 at 08:45 AM : Sep 27, 2008

Duh?? Have YOU been on another PLANET or something?? There WAS a LAW on the books, had been there since the Great Depression PREVENTING Lending Institutions from allowing people who could NOT pay for their loans from getting them. THAT Law as taken OFF the Books as well as ALL the regulations by the Gramn-Leach-Bliley Act!! That Bill was WRITTEN by Lobbyist from the Banking Industry and SPONSORED by John McCain. Good Grief!!

[txgrouch2006]

we are not experiencing the results of his SYSTEMATIC SABOTAGE of our nation

BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME

Posted by txgrouch2006 at 09:02 AM : Sep 27, 2008

Ooops, typo. That should be

we are NOW experiencing the results of Clinton''s SYSTEMATIC SABOTAGE of our nation

BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME

As long as I include that part in EVERY POST, they don''t accuse me of not blaming Bush.

[txgrouch2006]

That Bill was WRITTEN by Lobbyist from the Banking Industry and SPONSORED by John McCain.
Posted by skyk239 at 09:04 AM : Sep 27, 2008

And SIGNED INTO LAW by Bill Clinton in 1999. So what if it was "veto proof." If he vetoed it, he would be able to say it was passed over his objections, and he''d be clean. There would be no doubt he opposed it.

But he SIGNED IT. So now he''s as dirty as McCain, Gramm, and the rest.

BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME

Don''t say I didn''t blame Bush, McCain, Gramm - I DID!

[txgrouch2006]

Freddie and Fannie succumbed to the same deregulation that the Bush administration and John McSame as Bush have been pushing for all along.

Posted by wjksea at 09:08 AM : Sep 27, 2008

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley banking deregulation was SIGNED BY BILL CLINTON. (can we PLEASE just fast-forward through the "veto proof" crapola???)

BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME

[txgrouch2006]

BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME
AND CLINTON IS TO BLAME
AND BUSH IS TO BLAME

Vote for OBAMA!

And when he wins, FLOOD THE OVAL OFFICE with letters URGING him to issue and executive order to TERM LIMITS FOR ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

[j_flood]

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles & organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness." Thomas Jefferson

Where is our financial safety?

[freckster]

No bailout! Don''t reward these basssstards and get them off the hook for making poor business decisions, bending and breaking the rules. Spend (congressional) time and efforts on prosecuting these guys and making changes to the system that will provide for stiff penalties & mandatory jail sentences.

But, nooooooooo, that won''t happen because these same guys are putting money into the campaigns of the lawmakers.

The foxes are guarding the chicken house and us chickens are being eaten alive!

[marshall_nee]

The Fed will be next for a bailout, and then the FDIC.

[jakep51]

To sky239.....Uh...excuse me for being so DUH! but who signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, (to spell it correctly,)into law? Ding Ding Ding time''s up. Bill Clinton....just so you know the mean nasty Republicans aren''t the only ones who share the burden of blame here......

[jss2003]

Just how long have these problems existed, why have the just now come to light? Where''s the money coming from to implement this bailout? We the people AKA Taxpayers? Perhaps the government can float a loan from Cheney. After all he''s the most powerful VP in the history of our country. He can probable generate the $700 billion from Halliburton. They still have all the no bid contracts in Iraq.

The Ceo''s from these big corporations should forego bonuses and their umbrellas, contributing to the cause due to greed.

[cfin5]

Lawmakers Hope For Bailout Deal By Monday,.....but the majority of the citizens who hired them hope it fails.

[jakep51]

Well ***, it seems that the congress has been controlled by Democrats for the past eight years with a Republican as President....Either Mr. Bush is all powerful to be able to completely defeat the entire majority of the Democratically controlled Congress or the Democrats are simply powerless to accomplish anything. Did I miss something or have Democrats as well as Republicans been completely silent all along? My only point here is that blame exists on BOTH sides.

[arrestbush1]

""
"There are disagreements over aspects of the rescue plan but there is no disagreement that something substantial must be done," said Mr. Bush.""


I like how they put "Mr. Bush" instead of President Bush because all he is, is another Mr.....Mr. Potato head

[jesusface]

Seems like the most expensive hostage taking, ever!

"Give us 700 billion dollars or the economy dies!
Will that be Visa or Mastercard..."

[txgrouch2006]

Seems like the most expensive hostage taking, ever!
Posted by JesusFace at 09:55 AM : Sep 27, 2008

TERM LIMITS for all members of Congress. That''s my solution.

[txgrouch2006]

Did I miss something or have Democrats as well as Republicans been completely silent all along? My only point here is that blame exists on BOTH sides.
Posted by jakep51 at 09:48 AM : Sep 27, 2008

Yes, BOTH sides are to blame. No matter HOW MUCH the Democrats try to deny it.

Sinlent? Worst than that. In 2005, the Republicans RECOGNIZED THE DANGER and proposed legislation to add safeguards. THE DEMOCRATS VOTED IT DOWN.

I don''t call that silent...

[ubrew12]

txgrouch2006 said: "In 2005, the Republicans RECOGNIZED THE DANGER and proposed legislation to add safeguards. THE DEMOCRATS VOTED IT DOWN."

In 2005, Republicans owned the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. I don''t see how the Democrats could have voted anything down. Maybe you live in a different democracy than I do.

[txlakeside]

Jake ... you better google your comment! You are looking very silly

[txlakeside]

repubs like to alter history to fit their perception of who has been in charge the last 8 years ... 6-2 overwhelmingly repubs.

They also have forgotten their mantra ... FREE MARKETS and DE-REGULATION.

Thier candidate has been a leader in de-regulation until this election and now he is for change?

ROFLMAO

[jss2003]

We can cuss and discuss until hell freezes over, but the fact remains, we the people will be responsible for the cost of this bailout. Corporate America will go scott free. Thank our representatives in Congress, the Senate and George W. Bush. Wasn''t it Bush that said the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper.

[brianbwb-2009]

A week ago thursday, we were told that there ws an imminent crisis, and that if a solution was not enacted, the US economy could collapse within a few days.

It has been a few days now, and the collapse is not apparent, although over the next couple of months, failure to put money into the hands of the middle class, by restoring employment and wage levels, plus a few more months of wasting $10 billion in Iraq, will certainly do the trick.

The point is Bush lied again, and the taxpayers are again going to pay for them.

[tincup356]

gee these same people who have miserably failed us in every way are the same ones your great parties put before us to lead us down the road of BS, I''m sick of hearing the same lies from both parties time after time.both parties say we need change little do they realize the change we need is to change every face in every seat. Time to vote out every single incumbent in Washington We the people need to send a message loud and clear ,"represent the people not the lobby dollar or be gone" they have failed us and if left there they will fail us again, cut the cancers that have put us in this mess , starting with all incumbents next month at the poles and bring the troops home from that illegal privatized war that no one in Washington will admit has been a drain on our economy , caused the price of oil to go out the roof and has killed over 5000 American soldiers,,,all for a LIE.

[riddelup]

I am not just going to be angry if this passes. I am going to be angry if it fails and my representative votes for it.

[tincup356]

any congressman with his vote as yea will surely face defeat next month

[starleo146]

To sky239.....Uh...excuse me for being so DUH! but who signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, (to spell it correctly,)into law? Ding Ding Ding time''''s up. Bill Clinton....just so you know the mean nasty Republicans aren''''t the only ones who share the burden of blame here......


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by jakep51 at 09:31 AM : Sep 27, 2008
+ report abuse


DING, DING, DING. This is partly true Clinton did ask Congress to come up with a loan the that the middle class could afford in 1999, Gramm is the one that came up with the subprime ,Bush was elected in 2000 and absolutely no oversight was there for eight years, and these investment groups had a field day making money off these people. Now you mentioned in another post democrats were in control for eight years, you are wrong only since 2006 in the senate only by 1, and to get anything done you have to have 60% or 2/3 to get anything through and it was not there, and obstructionist republican knew this, and over and over voted NO so get your facts, and put the blame where it is The Republicans.

[tincup356]

so this is a mess of their own making , they have been in bed with wall street, the banks, the lobbyists, and have so much personally invested in the markets , to vote for would save them money wise, but what happens when the voters take their jobs away, and the new replacements demand that prosecutions take place for roles in the collapse?

[tincup356]

i cant believe all the party liners just want to point the finger and blame each other brainwashed zombies lol, tell me what good has either party done for you? if you have benefited maybe you are a lobbyists?wake up people both parties have failed us , and to dump 700 billion more into the same pockets that have already screwed us? COME ON the definition of insanity is doing thing the same way over and over expecting different results, people neither party will ever represent you as citizens NEVER, they take their oath to the great green lobby dollar

[tincup356]

i would be ashamed to say i belong to or condoned the actions of either party yet so many are proud of their gang of crooks

[tincup356]

TERRORISTS havent hit us for 700 billion or are they trying to know?

[upto1947]

It will be a sad day when the they pass the bailout. I wish theu would give me a mill are two. But they only steel for them-self and those who give to them.

[gracianp]

Tell your stupid congressman to bail US out, NOT Paulson and his band of traitors. How about forcing ALL mortgages to a fixed 30-year 6%. This by itself will stabilize our housing industry. NO TAXPAYER MONEY FOR BAILOUTS!!! THIS IS THE BIGGEST THEFT IN HISTORY!!! AND WE ARE THE LOSERS! Bush, Cheney, Paulson, Bernanke should be arrested for treason. NOW!

[vivekgee]

Paulson is asking money by sunday or else he will make all the world markets fall from monday. This is same as a Street Mugger puttig a pistol on your head and demanding your wallet.

[upto1947]

I hope not. I would like to wake up Monday and not have to face the Dumb action of the Congress. I don''t need any more help from the DUMB DUMBS in CONGRES

[random_radar]

If someone puts a gun to your head and says "Give me money or something bad will happen!" you would likely call it robbery. And some of us might like to see the criminal punished.

If Wall Street says "Give us money or something bad will happen!" why do we think it is any different? Why not call these people criminals and punish them? Why are we giving in to their demands for extortion?

Once we give in and demonstrate we fear them, they will take everything we have. They will laugh as they grind upon our faces and lock us in financial shackles.

America is selling itself into slavery.

[Peter Leinfelder]

I will never again vote for any Senator or Representative that votes to bail out the Bankers on wall street. I will continually remind those voters that I meet, who screwed the taxpayers by these actions.

[vivekgee]

Cogress should immediately fire Paulson instead of wilting under his threats. This will send a strong message to the wall street that enough is enough and no further blackmailing will work, and within few days you will see the markets rising.

[stn_sage]

Oh-Oh! Am I reading write?! It looks like the title is warping into the future!

Last night, the title indicated they hoped to have the deal by Sunday---NOW---it''s Monday!

What are the chances that may roll back yet?!

The Southern Republicans SEEM to be the only ones who understand how angryily opposed to this bailout the public truly IS!

Only in ''D.C.'' can they NOT figure out what is a ''no-brainer'' to the average citizen! You don''t reward sloth, irresponsibility, arrogance, selfishness, mismanagement, and lawlessness by writing a check for at least $250 BILLION dollars!

PUT UP A BILL AND VOTE ON IT! THEN, WE VOTE YOU OUT!!

[xlib]

I guess I''m wondering why we would give 20% of any bailout to organizations like la raza and acorn. Don''t know why they would be written into any plan.
I''m also wondering if the messiah is still the lawyer for acorn.
Perhaps some of you libs would give me a reason for the above.

[irishmurph2]

$20,000 per family for bail out - directly connected to Phil Gramm - McCain''s choice for Sec. of Treasury.

[irishmurph2]

Big Oil and Haliburton - who''ve been gouging us for years should pay for the bail out. Pay all of it!

[jab232]

Don''t let Deregulation John McCain parachute in and jimmie up the works again. We''ve had enough of his grandstanding. This is a time in our history for courage, not grandstanding. Courage may involve voting to do something which is unpopular, something that even the legislators themselves find it hard to do, and yet something that needs to be done to save the country. The people who work quietly, without grandstanding, might lose elections, but they will be doing what is best for the country. I thank God for those who are really working to save this country, not to promote their own political advantage.

[catlady1412]

The bailout is a bad solution. These jerks got greedy, went nuts and now get bailed out like bad college boys who went on a rampage during spring break. Give the money to the taxpayers and let us stimulate the economy! And as for Bush, I say Vincent Bugliosi is right! Prosecute him for murder!

[tonysp2]

The Democrats must not cave in on President Bush''s bailout. If all the Democrats get is a provision for "no Golden Parachutes" for failed CEOs, this will be total victory for President Bush and failure for the Democrats. Of course every American does not want Golden Parachutes for these executives. Bush can act conciliatory and put this provision in - he expected that. What the Democrats need to do is make the Bush administration feel the pain of the rest of the American people. The Bush administration is responsible for this failure, so it would be a huge mistake to give them more than a small role in this bailout. We can''t let these foxes like Paulson and Bernanke in the hen house of our tax money. The Bush administration should have absolutely no role in the distribution of this money. The Bush administration failed; we can not let these failures have any role in the attempt to fix the system. Otherwise we are just throwing away the $700 billion of our tax money.