A little more depth on the 'bailout'
Peach Pundit focuses on Jim Marshall's support of the failed bailout bill, and they rightfully ask if his backing of the plan gives Rick Goddard an opening.
Maybe, but I'm not so sure that the public is terribly against the plan, and by that I mean the plan that was put forward for the vote. Arguably folks were opposed to Henry Paulson's ridiculous pitch to hand him $700 billion in taxpayer funds with no accountability, no oversight and no equity stake (and immunity from any court seeking to review whatever steps he would take after acquiring said money). That plan was preposterous and it should have been defeated.
However, the plan that was debated earlier this week was one that, while still containing flaws, was markedly better than Paulson's version. It included oversight and provided an equity stake. It limited executive compensation for companies participating in the plan. It soothed jittery nerves.
And that plan got blown up at the 11th-hour.
I don't think folks are opposed to some measure of a financial rescue plan, but that they were opposed to handing over a blank check to the folks who drove the economy into the ground in the first place. Brian talks about this at his place and, though admittedly through a different ideological lens, reaches somewhat of the same conclusion as I do.
The bigger picture is not what happens 'tomorrow' if nothing is done, but rather what happens a month or so down the road. If credit continues to freeze up, then businesses won't be able to make payroll and workers won't be able to draw paychecks. Toss that into the current situation with defaulting mortgages, rising fuel and food prices and higher unemployment levels, and you've got a big, ole mess on your hands.
Opposing any sort of financial aid package solely because you're averse to 'eating cow patties' shows how small the vision is of someone like Paul Broun.
Maybe, but I'm not so sure that the public is terribly against the plan, and by that I mean the plan that was put forward for the vote. Arguably folks were opposed to Henry Paulson's ridiculous pitch to hand him $700 billion in taxpayer funds with no accountability, no oversight and no equity stake (and immunity from any court seeking to review whatever steps he would take after acquiring said money). That plan was preposterous and it should have been defeated.
However, the plan that was debated earlier this week was one that, while still containing flaws, was markedly better than Paulson's version. It included oversight and provided an equity stake. It limited executive compensation for companies participating in the plan. It soothed jittery nerves.
And that plan got blown up at the 11th-hour.
I don't think folks are opposed to some measure of a financial rescue plan, but that they were opposed to handing over a blank check to the folks who drove the economy into the ground in the first place. Brian talks about this at his place and, though admittedly through a different ideological lens, reaches somewhat of the same conclusion as I do.
The bigger picture is not what happens 'tomorrow' if nothing is done, but rather what happens a month or so down the road. If credit continues to freeze up, then businesses won't be able to make payroll and workers won't be able to draw paychecks. Toss that into the current situation with defaulting mortgages, rising fuel and food prices and higher unemployment levels, and you've got a big, ole mess on your hands.
Opposing any sort of financial aid package solely because you're averse to 'eating cow patties' shows how small the vision is of someone like Paul Broun.
posted by Jmac at 1:19 PM
1 Comments:
Its not just Rep. Broun that deserves to be taken to taks. Georgia's congressional delegation let us down, big time. See the roll call here.
2 of our 13 representatives voted yes. Every Republican, and 4 of 6 Democrats voted "No."
More on this embarassment at my blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home