Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Opening For A Maverick

by digby

Ed Kilgore over at the Democratic Strategist has posted an interesting take on the politics of this bailout. He points to a post yesterday by Patrick Ruffinni that outlines a probable McCain strategy for dealing with this:

Republican incumbents in close races have the easiest vote of their lives coming up this week: No on the Bush-Pelosi Wall Street bailout.

God Himself couldn’t have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the Administration. That’s why I want to see 40 Republican No votes in the Senate, and 150+ in the House. If a bailout is to pass, let it be with Democratic votes. Let this be the political establishment (Bush Republicans in the White House + Democrats in Congress) saddling the taxpayers with hundreds of billions in debt (more than the Iraq War, conjured up in a single weekend, and enabled by Pelosi, btw), while principled Republicans say “No” and go to the country with a stinging indictment of the majority in Congress….

In an ideal world, McCain opposes this because of all the Democratic add-ons and shows up to vote Nay while Obama punts.

History has shown us that “inevitable” “emergency” legislation like the Patriot Act or Sarbanes-Oxley is never more popular than on the day it is passed — and this isn’t all that popular to begin with. All the upside comes with voting against it.

Note the framing of the “Bush-Pelosi” bailout plan. Very crafty.

Kilgore says:

For McCain and other Republicans, voting “no” on Paulson without accepting the consequences of that vote is the political equivalent of a bottomless crack pipe: it will please the conservative “base,” distance them from both Bush and “Washington,” and let them indulge in both anti-government and anti-corporate demagoguery, even as Democrats bail out their Wall Street friends and big investors generally. You simply can’t imagine a better way for McCain to decisively reinforce his simultaneous efforts to pander to the “base” while posing as a “maverick.”

He’s right. If they go this way, McCain gets to distance himself from Bush by standing on the sidelines wielding a phony pitchfork while Obama, as the head of the Democratic party and thus the leader of the congress, gets splashed in all this muck. It’s quite ingenious and a very possible scenario in my opinion.

We will see the rebirth of the phony fiscal conservative image before our very eyes as our brave POW hero, John McCain, takes on the great malefactors of wealth while the soft, liberal elites behave like toadies to the rich. It’s a neat trick for a man who owns seven houses and thirteen cars, but in America, you can be a multimillionaire and still be a man of the people as long as you drink a beer the right way.

Kilgore concludes that the Democrats must demand Republican votes in congress including John McCain’s. But I don’t see the mechanism for doing that. After the campaign he’s run, I don’t think we can rely on his “honor.” So, the Dems can ask, but the Republicans will find a reason to do what they think will benefit them politically. And that is to sufficiently separate themselves from Bush and the congress that they can realistically be perceived as the real change agents.

This is a very delicate and dicey political moment for both campaigns. The polls are tied and we are facing a crisis. In a world that made sense, it wouldn’t even be contemplated that McCain could benefit from this situation. And it’s still seems highly unlikely that he will — he’s still old and saddled with an unprepared running mate in case he dies. And he’s still a Republican. But this crisis could give him the space he’s long needed to truly separate himself from the failures of the Bush administration. It’s risky, but he’s a thrill seeking flyboy and he may very well do it.

Let’s hope the Democrats are thinking a few moves ahead on this and don’t allow themselves to be trapped into being “responsible” while McCain runs around like some avenging angel and demagogues his way into a victory.

.

The Meek Will Inherit Nothing

by tristero

Frank Zappa’s great line came to mind when I saw this piece of shit approved by McCain/Bush. And let me tell you, my friends, this is mild compared to what’s down the pike. Bombin’ Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America!” Wright are getting ready for their closeup (wanna bet there are no Democratic ads tying McCain/Bush/Palin to the Tim McVeigh elements in the Republican party?*)

And after they’re done smearing Obama – one of the most truthful, patriotic, and decent figures in American politics – as a Weatherman who hates America, I guarantee you that everyone in this country will next be told that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim for sure, a message John Mcain/Bush will personally approve. Then, when asked by an outraged media to explain this smear, McCain/Bush will duck the question and claim he’s never seen the ad and doesn’t know what Obama’s “real beliefs” are, anyway.

BTW, did you know that McCain was tortured by the Black Muslims in ‘Nam?

McCain/Bush has demonstrated that he will lie, distort, sewer-sniff, and literally do anything whatsoever to win this race. But to turn this around, neither Obama nor the rest of the Democrats have to go there. All they have to do is tell the truth about McCain/Bush – that he is not “born of corruption” but actually is a corrupt tool of special interests and has been his entire political career. All they have to do is inform Americans that it has been a loooong time since McCain/Bush behaved like anything other than a total coward. All they have to do is drive home that McCain/Bush has neither the programs nor the temperament to lead – and Obama will win, and probably handily so.

Do they have the guts? For the sake of this country’s future, they better, but let’s face it, they don’t. (On a personal note, I will never forgive the Democratic party for this nailbiter, no matter who wins, but especially if Obama loses.) This is not a fight amongst gentleman in powdered wigs arguing about the legacy of the Enlightenment.** This is donkey-hunting from a helicopter and McCain/Bush’s the guy with the gun in the chopper. Time for the Democrats to get off their asses and get some SAMs.

Note: Don’t show me Obama’s leading by two whole points in the polls. That is, for all intents and purposes, a tie. By any reality-based standard, this election should be a rout [UPDATE; and it isn’t, on any level]. The Republicans fielded a buffoon and a sociopath while Democrats chose genuine leaders. Racism explains a lot of it. Media bias explains a lot of it. But it is also the case that Democrats are hellbent on avoiding mentioning anything that could possibly be thought “unclean” when the Republicans have demonstrated that no sewer is so foul they won’t stoop to disgorge its stinking mess into the public discourse.

***

*You saying the Oklahoma City bomber wasn’t a Republican? Well, you could’ve fooled me, especially after that emblematic Republican, Ann Coulter, said the only problem she had with Tim was his choice of targets. Besides to get technical about it, if you look at what I said, I was talking about the Tim McVeigh elements in the Republican party, ie people like the aforementioned McVeigh-loving Coulter. Actually, I know McVeigh isn’t a Republican, just thought I’d try my hand at some Rovian politics. How does it feel? Put it this way: Only a Republican could act like Karl Rove and be able to sleep at night.

**And yes, those fellows in the powdered wigs included many ruthless politicians who often stooped at nothing to try to gain power.

Liberalism Demands Responsible, Accountable Governance

by tristero

Krugman, a moderate liberal, urges caution and reason, not panic. Unlike conservatives, who do nothing but panic, whether it’s a terrorist attack, a financial crisis, an employee wishing them “Happy Holidays”, or lipstick on a pig:

Mr. Paulson insists that he wants a “clean” plan. “Clean,” in this context, means a taxpayer-financed bailout with no strings attached — no quid pro quo on the part of those being bailed out. Why is that a good thing? Add to this the fact that Mr. Paulson is also demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review “by any court of law or any administrative agency,” and this adds up to an unacceptable proposal.

I’m aware that Congress is under enormous pressure to agree to the Paulson plan in the next few days, with at most a few modifications that make it slightly less bad. Basically, after having spent a year and a half telling everyone that things were under control, the Bush administration says that the sky is falling, and that to save the world we have to do exactly what it says now now now.

But I’d urge Congress to pause for a minute, take a deep breath, and try to seriously rework the structure of the plan, making it a plan that addresses the real problem. Don’t let yourself be railroaded — if this plan goes through in anything like its current form, we’ll all be very sorry in the not-too-distant future.

Fortunately, it looks like Democratic congresscritters may actually agree. Today’s the day to call your particular clutch of critters and demand, “No blank check for the Bush administration.”

UPDATE: In comments, Doug makes an important, additional point. It is the Republicans that are loading this bill, not Democrats.

Paulson demands a ‘clean’ bill. Boehner carries the same water in warning that the American people will not stand for loading up this bill in this time of emergency.

Horse puckey. Over the weekend, foreign banks and others sent armies of lobbyists to Washington to ask for — and they received — an expanded list of assets purchasable by Paulson. Now, in addition to mortgage-related securities, Paulson’s ‘clean bill’ would authorize him to use taxpayer money to acquire any security of any type.

This, Congressman Boehner, is what is called LOADING up a bill in a time of crisis. This Secretary Paulson is what is called ‘dirtying up” a bill.

Every one of the bloggers in this network — tristero, digby, atrios, josh marshall, kos and others — and every single journalist like Krugman who actually cares about resolving this mess needs to IMMEDIATELY change the frame of this Republican assault on those who would refuse to give a blank check. The Republicans and their lobbyists from the capital markets are the ones LOADING up this bill in a time of crisis. They just can’t help themselves. There’s money to be made out of misery and they are darned sure they want to be first in line.

UPDATE: I’ll add to Doug’s remarks that it appears that the Republican loading is coming directly from Phil Gramm, a close economic adviser-in-all-but-name for St. John McCain.

UPDATE: Glenn notes that the right also has problems with Cash for Trash and that the Democrats can be reliably counted upon…to do absolutely nothing:

Right-wing opposition to the Paulson plan is vital for having any meaningful chance to stop it. Does anyone have any confidence at all in the Democrats’ willingness and/or ability to impede this bailout train if the Bush administration and the Right were vigorously behind it, warning the nation of impending doom unless we submit to vast, unchecked government power of the type Henry Paulson is demanding? The instances of complete Democratic acquiescence under those circumstances — including when they ‘controlled’ the Congress — are far too numerous to allow any rational person to think Democrats, standing alone, would stop the Paulson plan. As sad as it is, meaningful right-wing opposition is critical for that to happen.

Testing The Limits Of Newspeak

by tristero

It’s true: conservatism is postmodernism made flesh. How else to explain this incredibly bizarre contradictory nonsense, breathtaking in its stupidity and mind-blowing in its lack of irony? Background: It turns out the far right is funding college courses. Now, behold:

“These are not ideological courses,” said James Piereson, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, which created the Veritas Fund for Higher Education to funnel donations to these sorts of projects. The initiatives are only political insofar as they “work against the thrust of programs and courses in gender, race and class studies, and postmodernism in general,” he said.

Oh, and the article tells us, don’t worry, be happy, all they want to do is fund the teaching of Plato and Martin Luther KIng. And if you believe that, there’s a first edition of Mao’s translation of Atlas Shrugged I’d like to sell you.

Trojan Horse , anyone? Once colleges become dependent on rightwing moolah tied to specific course offerings, and they certainly will, you’ll find MLK dropped like a hot potato – but not Plato because, after all all, Leo Strauss hearts the old pederast. And they’ll replace Rev. King with the likes of Westbrook Pegler or some other loony tune.

Fun With Online Polls

by tristero

I know that online polls are silly, biased, and prove nothing. Still, as PZ Myers’ efforts to zap creationist polls by sending his blog readers to vote the pro-science choice demonstrates, it’s always fun to skew them in our favor.

NOW at PBS has an especially silly poll:

Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President of the United States?

As I write this at 4:11 AM (don’t ask), it is running 54 Yes to 44 No, and that can only mean that the lunatics on the right are playing games. In the spirit that the right should get away with nothing, ever, no matter how trivial, because nothing is trivial when it comes to fighting the right:

Think we might be able to do something to make that poll better reflect reality? Oh, and tell yer friends.

h/t, my pal HJ.

I Like It

by digby

From a reader:

In case you have not seen this, there is an ongoing effort to get progressive women and men to make a contribution to Planned Parenthood in honor of (or in “memory of” if you want to be dark about it) Sarah Palin, and then send the acknowledgment card to the McCain campaign HQ in Virginia.

Here’s the link.

Oh, and as much as we have on our minds right now, we shouldn’t forget that the Bush administration is still busily making rules that have the effect of forcing you to have children against your will. They didn’t believe in regulating the financial markets, but they sure want to regulate your crotch.

So aside from making the McCain campaign shudder, it’s good to support Planned Parenthood for righteous reasons too.

.

Playing Chicken

by digby

The Democrats make a few common sense requirements, considering the epic level of philosophical failure, incompetence and corruption of the Republicans:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today said that Democrats would “not simply hand over a $700 billion blank check to Wall Street” and called for “independent oversight, protections for homeowners and constraints on excessive executive compensation” to accompany any Treasury Department bailout.

Here’s what they get in return:

“Efforts to exploit this crisis for political leverage or partisan quid pro quo will only delay the economic stability that families, seniors and small businesses deserve,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement issued Saturday afternoon. “Going forward, I hope we all can agree that we should keep any legislation as straightforward as possible while doing everything we can to protect American taxpayers.”

So it looks like the Republicans are prepared to play chicken. Fantastic. We all know how well that works out for the country.

Earlier on CNN Fareed Zakaria interviewed a bunch of people about the crisis and Niall Ferguson said this:

And what I think we may end up with is a slightly sort of soft, soft version of the New Deal being offered by Obama, and John McCain having to counter with another kind of Rooseveltian economics — Teddy Rooseveltian economics — saying, you know, this isn’t going to be solved by increasing the power of the federal bureaucracy. This is about bashing bad guys on Wall Street, and bashing corrupt congressmen.

I think there’s two different kinds of populism that can be rolled out at this point, one of which increases the federal government’s power, and one of which doesn’t necessarily. And I’m not sure it’s clear which one American voters will go for yet.

He frames this as Obama wanting to “increase federal power” and McCain wanting to battle back the great malefactors of wealth. It’s absurd, of course, since its McCain’s own party demanding this blank check with no accountability, but I can see how the campaign might try to further that misconception. If McCain decides to break with the white house and fight this plan, that’s how I’d see this playing out.

This is what all the politicians are pussyfooting around right now. Both presidential candidates are on the populist field but they are playing different games. They don’t yet know how to gauge the public mood. But I think when facing these kinds of major crises, politicians shouldn’t try top hard to guess the public mood. These are situations where the public really does look to their leadership to actually lead. We don’t need them telling us who we are allowed to sleep with or what music to listen to. But we do want them to call on all the best minds in the world and try to figure out a solution to a serious, complicated crisis.

In fact, our most pressing problem as citizens right now is that the conservative movement has so degraded any belief that Americans have in their government that they literally don’t trust anything they say. And the living symbol of their greatest power, the Bush administration, is so lacking in credibility that we’d be fools to do so. It’s a bad place for a country to be in a time of crisis.

The first order of business is to stop the Paulson steam roller and catch a breath before they sign over 700 billion more dollars to the Bush administration with no accountability or oversight.There are plenty of people with alphabet soup after their names with other plans, which aren’t “giveaways” or “pork”, which should be considered. Like Nouriel Roubini, who called this crisis from the first, for instance. Or Dean Baker, (who, I think, presents a very common sense solution for stressed homeowners that avoids moral hazard.) I’m sure there are many more, including some smart bloggers who think about these things.

But this is unfolding very quickly and the Fed and the treasury are putting tremendous pressure on the lawmakers to sign off without thinking it through. That’s shown itself to be a very bad policy these past few years.

It’s been pretty clear for a while that these people aren’t very good in a crisis:

Trust em?

.

Schlock Doctrine

by digby

Jack Balkin shouldn’t have to remind us that giving the executive branch even more power is a bad idea. But in case there’s anyone left out there who disagrees, here’s the case:

In response to the crisis created in part by its own incompetence and ideological blinders, the Administration now asks for enormous new powers to run the economy in a form of state planning that would make Friedrich Hayek turn over in this grave but would surely bring a smile to Carl Schmitt’s lips.

In the latest version of its plan, the Secretary of the Treasury is given authority to take 700 billion dollars (that’s 700,000,000,000) from the federal budget and spend it pretty much however he likes, free from any oversight requirements or restrictions that apply to public contracts and especially free from any form of judicial review. (The technical term for this is “committed to agency discretion.”).

[…]

I do not oppose emergency plans to preserve liquidity in markets and prevent a further crisis. What I do object to is plenary discretion in the executive in running the nation’s financial markets, especially given the history of the past seven years, which has been a sorry parade of venality, incompetence, hubris and failure.

The modus operandi of the Bush Administration has been to use crisis to seize unreviewable power for the executive. Have we learned nothing from the last seven years? True, the face of our new Dear Leader is Mr. Paulson, and not Messrs. Bush and Cheney. But who, pray tell, do Mr. Paulson and his associates work for? If one truly credits the theory of the unitary executive so beloved by the Bush Administration, who, at the end of the day will these masters of the universe be taking orders from? And whose friends, business associates, and allies will stand to benefit from their deal making?

[…]

It is not enough, however, to revel in the irony or the hypocrisy of the Administration’s current plans. Two things are central: one is solving the financial crisis, and the other is doing so in a way that preserves constitutional values of oversight, checks and balances, and accountability to the rule of law. The government must have the power to act, but only the powers it actually needs, and not those it would enjoy having for the foreseeable future. It must be able to make decisions, but not without any accountability or oversight. That is what the debate is and should be about, and even though it nominally concerns the passage of an emergency measure, it is ultimately a debate of constitutional proportions.

I don’t think it can be overstated just how little credibility these people have to insist that they should have complete discretion to do anything they choose. The arrogance of even suggesting such a thing, considering their history, is breathtaking.

And Balkin is right. No president, even one we like, should have such powers. It’s entirely possible, considering the scope of the problems he’s facing, that our next president will only serve one term, and even if it’s two, I would bet a wheelbarrow full of worthless dollars that the Republican who seeks to succeed him will be someone who wants to use those powers very, very badly.

There is a lot at stake, but it won’t be worth a thing if we don’t make sure that the people charged with “:fixing” the problem understand who it is they are working for and insist that they “show their work” and stand behind it.

FYI: The “plan”, as currently written, bears a striking resemblance to the AUMF. Seriously.

H/t to bb

.

Heckuva Job Coxie and The Parasites

by digby

One of the most galling things about this economic crisis is that it isn’t the first time we’ve seen financial wizards put together some byzantine products and transactions that were designed to obscure rather than reveal what was really going on. Hell, it isn’t even the first time in this administration.

You’ll recall that Enron and Worldcom were only a few years ago. And everyone was assured that the system was going to be “cleaned up.” But we should have had a clue when Bush nominated Chris Cox to be the head regulator.

Consumer Watchdog put out the warning at the time, but naturally, it made no difference. After all, Cox was a member in good standing of the Village and they all knew him:

It’s not like nobody warned them.

Here’s the result:

Cox’s failures are too numerous to count. However, I’ll give it a try. Below are what I think are his top 5 failings.

1.

Failure to enforce disclosure laws and regulations.

Disclosure rules and regulations protect investors by requiring companies to disclose everything that is needed for informed investment decisions. And, CEOs and CFOs are required to sign certifications that such disclosure is materially accurate, complete, and that their companies have adequate internal controls to ensure such accuracy and completeness.

Enforcement of disclosure rules and regulations has been a joke. CEOs lie to shareholders with impunity and without fear of SEC enforcement. It is impossible to conclude that SEC filings for Freddie, Fannie, AIG, Lehman, or Bear Stearns complied with SEC rules and regulations.

However, instead of enforcement by the SEC, there is silence. While not all management actions are criminal, why hasn’t the SEC used its civil enforcement authority, i.e., assessing fines and penalties? How about protecting future investors by banning failed executives and boards of directors from serving in executive management at other public companies?
2.

Failure to enforce accounting standards.

When Cox states that the SEC doesn’t have regulatory authority over capital adequacy of financial services companies, he isn’t telling the truth. The SEC has regulatory authority over the financial statements of ALL publicly traded companies in the U.S. which of course includes the financials. If Cox had required greater reserves and transparency of financial services companies it would have happened.

Every quarter all publically traded companies file reports with the SEC that are provided to shareholders and the SEC has review and comment authority. If the SEC deems financial disclosure inadequate, incomplete or opaque it has the authority to force the company to amend its filings. It also has authority to establish accounting standards for publically traded companies which means it can have different requirements than GAAP.

So when the AIG filed its last quarterly report and decided that it didn’t need to have loan loss reserves against defaulting mortgages and securities, the SEC had the ability to require additional loan loss reserves. When Freddie and Fannie decided to pretend that defaulted mortgage were good assets because it changed its accounting standards, the SEC could have just said “no”. When Lehman manufactured $2.4 billion of pre-tax income by pretending that it wasn’t going to repay its debts (one of the dumber aspects of mark to market accounting), the SEC should have protected investors with disclosure.
3.

Failure to supervise the rating agencies.

Cox wants everyone to believe that despite being the rating agency’s only regulator, the SEC has no oversight or enforcement authority and cannot influence their performance. Once again, the SEC’s statements are false. Cox assumes that no one will take the time to read the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006 which states that the SEC has the right to suspend or revoke the license of any of rating agency for a wide range of reasons. Rating agency regulation and reform is Cox’s responsibility.
4.

Failure to investigate and prevent market manipulation, i.e., naked short selling.

Free markets are supposed to be honest markets. The naked short selling issue isn’t new and the SEC’s knee jerk emergency response is an embarrassment. The ban on short selling of 799 stocks is very similar to Putin’s actions this week to manipulate the Russian stock market. I haven’t a clue whether or not the uptick rule works, but I know that enforcing rules on naked short selling shouldn’t have required destructive and ill thought out emergency orders. In the middle of the 1800’s the legendary financial scoundrel, Daniel Drew, understood naked short selling was bad (as he lost his fortune covering a short squeeze) when he said, “He who sells what isn’t his’n, Must buy it back or go to prison.” Too bad Cox never took economic history in school (or googled economic trivia).
5.

Failure to protect small investors.

It is no coincidence that according to the FT, stock ownership by individual investors is at an all-time low. The average individual investor knows that his chances in the market aren’t good. And the SEC doesn’t seem to care if the average guy is disenfranchised from the economic future of America. In addition to the above failures, Cox forgot that it was his job to make sure that brokers shouldn’t engage in deceptive sales practices (like in the sale of auction rate securities and the sale of Freddie and Fannie common and preferred stock to small investors because they were “guaranteed” by the government). Cox refuses to support private litigation by individual investors who were ripped off in the stock and bond market. If the SEC doesn’t protect the little guy, who will?

Well, I don’t think Cox believed it was his job to protect the little guy. He believed it was his job to ensure that the Big Money Boyz could swallow a fire hose of money for as long as possible. (That’s what conservatives call “free markets.”)

McCain thinks that firing Cox will solve the problem. But Cox is just a natural symptom of the illness of modern conservatism’s Randian philosophy, which, at its core, really does hold that the Big Money Boyz should be allowed unfettered freedom to make money without restrictions or rules. And when they gamble on the wrong thing, they believe that it is the right thing for the rubes to bail them out. Their basic philosophy holds that the taxpayers are parasites who benefit when the John Galts of the world make money so they should shoulder the burden when they fail. Indeed, they believe the serfs should be grateful for what they got out of it (which, by the way, wasn’t much lately since the BMB decided some time back that they didn’t have anything to lose by taking more and more of the pie for themselves.) Cox was just being a good servant.

Recall Alan Greenspan writing to the ditor of the NY Times in response to a negative review of Atlas Shrugged:

“To the Editor:

Atlas Shrugged is a celebration of life and happiness. Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should. Mr. Hicks suspiciously wonders “about a person who sustains such a mood through the writing of 1,168 pages and some fourteen years of work.” This reader wonders about a person who finds unrelenting justice personally disturbing.

Alan Greenspan, NY”

It is from philosophies like this that revolutions are made.

H/T to ej

.

Insane

by digby

Matt Stoller is corresponding with an angry member of congress about the politics of this 700 billion dollar blank check.

It rings depressingly true:

Here’s the industry’s play: progressives will approach Nancy with ideas for reform, and she’ll agree to push for their proposals, and she’ll really mean it. Then industry lobbyists will go to Dennis Moore, Melissa Bean and a few other Democrats, and tell them how dire the consequences of the proposals would be, and that the members who understand how the economy works need to step up to stop Nancy and the crazy liberals from doing something rash. Then those Democrats will go to Steny and tell him how terrible Nancy’s crazy ideas would be, and how we can’t rush into something like that without much, much more thought. Maybe Barney will try to talk to Dennis or Melissa, but it will become apparent quickly that they have no idea what they’re talking about; they’re just repeating by rote what the lobbyists told them to say. Melissa may actually be dumber than Sarah Palin.

Barney will realize he might as well talk to the lobbyists directly and save a step. The lobbyists will agree to something inconsequential, but certainly nothing that would really affect the industry’s conduct. Then the leadership will do the math and conclude that because the vast majority of Republicans will vote against any bill, we can’t get enough votes without the Dennis and Melissa crowd. The only way, our leadership will conclude, to get anything at all passed is to include nothing more than the inconsequential proposals that the lobbyists agreed to. Then we’ll all go along because it would be wildly irresponsible not to act when we’re staring over the brink of a complete collapse of world financial markets

.

The politics of this are as important as the substance. As usual, the conservatives are attempting to steamroll this thing through with as much advantage to their owners as possible. I just watched Barney Frank making the obvious observations that any bail out should include oversight and some kind of feature that will benefit average Americans. The right wingers on the panel all scoffed at such parochial concerns. Needless to say, it’s the Democrats who will end up being portrayed as “partisans” if they insist on such things. They should not care.

It’s not that some kind of a bail out isn’t necessary. It’s entirely reasonable that the government intervene in an economic crisis in order to avoid economic collapse. We liberals believe in such things. The question is how it intervenes and who such intervention benefits. That’s the argument.

At this point, the Republicans and the Fed have very little credibility and it’s entirely their own fault. If they want to reassure both the markets and the people, they need to do far better than “trust us.” It’s entirely rational for people to reject giving a blank check to those who’ve proven themselves to be wrong and/or incompetent at every turn for the past eight years. It would be insane to do otherwise.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

.