Bailing Out of the Bail Out
As we've all heard by now, the bail out package failed to pass the House of Representatives.
This, alone, may not be a bad thing. I have begun to have serious doubts about the bill and its size. (Note, I am not an economist, I have taken exactly one basic economics course over 20 years ago, so this is all based on what I'm reading, not based on any expertise!)
The truth is that economists do not seem to agree on this bill. This isn't surprising, it seems like if you get N economists in a room, you end up with at least N+1 opinions on any situation.
Nevertheless, there are some who seem pretty convinced that:
- This package won't work particularly well.
- With the high price tag, this package will further damage the economy.
- There are cheaper things we could do that might have a better chance of working.
I don't know if any of this is true, but it seems like an awfully big gamble of a lot of money, a lot of additional national debt and a lot of weakening of the dollar on a gamble.
However, I'm getting really annoyed at the partisanship. The vote was called when Nancy Pelosi said she could deliver a certain number of democrats, and John Boehner said he could deliver a certain amount of republicans. Those two numbers together added up to enough to pass the bill, but after the votes were cast, the democrats came through, the republicans did not.
Rep. Boehner immediately pointed the finger of blame at Nancy Pelosi for a supposed partisan speech she gave before the vote. Even assuming that's true, it does not make me feel any better about the republicans that they would base their vote on what some have said the most important financial legislation in our lifetimes on hurt feelings, and if they did, it says a lot (all bad) about their willingness to throw the country and its economy under the bus.
Far more likely, of course, is that Boehner needs an excuse why he can't even control the people he's supposed to lead, because it doesn't look good for a party's leadership in the Congress to be that weak.
Also, Senator Obama has been very quiet on the whole matter, enough so that John McCain has accused him of doing nothing, showing no leadership in the whole matter. But the truth is that what that really means is that Obama isn't playing politics with it.
Today, just a bit after 5pm, McCain held a press conference in which two of his statements, back to back, were to talk about how shameful it was that "Senator Obama and his allies in Congress" had injected "unnecessary partisanship into the process", followed by "Now is not the time to affix blame, it's time to fix the problem."
Essentially "It's all Obama's fault. But it's not time to assign fault."
The entire handling of this affair has smacked of raw partisan politics on the McCain side, and it's making me sick.
Liam.
5 Comments:
I was anxious to read your take on this failed vote of the bailout bill, as I wasn't yet sure how I felt about it. It's a strange situation.
You might be right to criticize the Republicans for letting Pelosi's speech get to them enough to ax the bill. Still, Pelosi was stupid to interject such a speech at that time, not realizing the pressures politicians are getting from home against the bill during an election season, let alone the Republican inclination to distance themselves from anything Bush, at this point.
And McCain's anti-blame speech directed at Obama and the Democrats is so ridiculous given that blame is high-flying everywhere right now.
I saw the McCain-Palin interview with Couric on CBS tonight. You can bet that the media will now pick up on his repeated phrase "gotcha journalism." Ah, the hypocricy.
Monday, September 29, 2008 7:55:00 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Monday, September 29, 2008 7:56:00 PM
I have not seen Pelosi's speech, so I can't comment on whether it was improper or unfairly partisan or any of the rest. I agree if it was as represented (and in Washington, that's doubtful) then it probably wasn't the smartest move.
Still, though, if my family was starving and I had the opportunity to buy them some spoiled food, I would make that decision based on whether I thought it was better to stop the starvation and risk the spoiled food, or better to not make them sick and try to find another source of nourishment, and I can't imagine allowing an insulting comment from my ex-wife to allow me to change my mind away from what I considered to be such an important decision, just for spite.
That's not a perfect analogy, but it works.
No one is blameless, but to say "I had to do this thing that was not in the country's best interest because Speaker Pelosi was mean to me", even if the allegation is true, does not speak well of the person who can that easily be swayed.
By the way, it looks like you double-posted. Would you like me to delete one of the two?
Liam.
Monday, September 29, 2008 8:03:00 PM
Yeah, I had a computer malfunction (or a computer-user malfunction). Feel free to remove one.
... Ya know, I may not have been paying enough attention. But these latest bank problems, were any of them bailouts? I know some companies were acquired by others, and I guess Fannie/Freddie were somehow bought out by the government, right? Anyhow, are we already bailing out Wall Street, even without this bailout package? Is it that there's a limit on what can be bailed out without Congressional approval? I know the $700 billion was a limit based on additional Congressional approval. I'm wondering about the current stuff.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:20:00 PM
I don't honestly know. The Fanny/Freddie thing wasn't a bailout, per se, we took over the companies. Which probably DOES mean we spend tax-payer money on getting them turned around, but also means we, the tax payers, own a significant fraction of the companies now, so if we turn them around that share may be worth something.
Of course, anyone who believes that something will go into paying back the money we paid out hasn't been paying attention, most likely if/when that money comes in, it'll be put to some NEW project. So in a sense, I would guess the effect is the same.
The other part that bugged me is that yesterday morning, shortly before the bailout bill failed, the Federal Reserve did something with $630 billion, but I don't have any idea what. It sounded like they increased the money supply by that much and then made it available for borrowing.
But... I didn't understand the articles I read. Which isn't surprising, I don't have much expertise at all with economics, and I'm trying to get by on simplified explanations from people who DO get it...
Liam.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:39:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home