S/SW blog philosophy -

I credit favorite writers and public opinion makers.

A lifelong Democrat, my comments on Congress, the judiciary and the presidency are regular features.

My observations and commentary are on people and events in politics that affect the USA or the rest of the world, and stand for the interests of peace, security and justice.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Activists still in a box

"We are in a box. The United States' current economic crisis has four corners, just like any regular box," was how I framed it in my Friday post, "Squaring off." Again today, activists -- people who are trying to influence what Congress does about the financial crisis -- are boxed in by fears#, by anger, by confusion, and by disappointment. Today's post examines how those prevailing emotions are driving what Democrats, Republicans, plain citizens and the power elites are doing to respond to the Bush administration's demands*. Activists may have set new records this week, as they called* and e-mailed their Representatives.

Of two minds, with an uncomfortable feeling of ambivalence -- I really like what Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said in his recent e-mail about what really should be done: "We are told that we must stabilize markets in order for the people to be protected. I think we need to protect peoples' homes, bank deposits, investments, and pensions, to order to stabilize the market." I also like what Rep . Chris Shays (R-Conn) said in an e-mail on the other side of the argument: "While this is not 1929 all over again, it could be if we step aside and let the wonders of the market work its will in this environment. We can’t let the foolishness and greed on Wall Street bring down Main Street; at least I don’t intend to." Perhaps this ambivalence is what kept me from trying to call members of Congress. But a huge unknown number of people had no such problem with mixed feelings. Their fierce opposition meant that, as reported by by Paul Kiel, ProPublica - 9/30/08, "Despite Lobbying, Popular Opposition Sinks Bailout Bill". And now there is a desperate GOP spin going on to shift the blame.

Democrats in the Senate did not let disappointment immobilize them. An article at headlines an edgy reality: "Bailout not dead yet," by Ryan Grim & Martin Kady II, 9/30/08. To quote:

Senate leaders have decided to take up the failed House version of the $700 billion economic rescue bill, and plan to add a widely supported change in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. caps.

In what is shaping up to be yet another historic vote, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain will return to Washington tonight for a late night vote.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), embraced the idea as well, but sought to give Reid credit for attaching the FDIC measure and a widely popular tax extenders bill to the bailout.

"I'm getting to the point in my life where I can't start over" signals a kind of resignation in the story of how fast the situation has evolved in just a few hours. Now people are looking at "a second chance (and thoughts) on the House bail-out vote,#" in Time (10/1/08). To quote:

Representative Elton Gallegly, 64, a California Republican . . . says he doesn't regret his "No" vote. Gallegly is adamant that the House must pass a bill to stabilize the nation's fragile financial markets. Whereas phone calls to his office were once running 40 to 1 against the bill, now they're "a mixed bag . . ."

It's amazing what a 778-point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, wiping out $1.2 trillion in equity, can do to change public opinion. An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken following the failed vote showed that 88% of Americans are concerned that the collapse of the bill could worsen the economic turndown and that 51% are confident that a bill will eventually pass. And where the people go, politicians very quickly follow. Most members explained their votes opposing the bill Monday as a reflection of their constituents' anger about a rescue package for Wall Street. "Since the vote, it's about half and half," Representative Tim Murphy, a Pennsylvania Republican who voted against the bill, says of the calls coming into his office. "Half say, Do something — I'm worried about my business or my retirement; and the other half still say, Don't vote for the bailout."

Though we plain citizens remain anxious, angry, confused and disappointed, I am not sure that we can change now. I feel that the weight of influence has now shifted to the power elites, the investor class, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc. Regarding who's likely to get the second chance, I conclude this post with a comment from Pseudocyants from my yesterday's post, that presents a logical prediction by this reader, along with some good advice. To quote:

Barron's is attempting to set-up a soft-landing for the Republicans who will end up voting for the next version of the bail-out:
After the House of Representatives Monday dramatically rejected legislation to establish a $700 billion rescue package for the financial system and helped to trigger more than $1 trillion loss in the value of U.S. stocks, Congress worked Tuesday to put together a bill that could gain passage, perhaps by the end of the week.

What changed? Reports say that House members, who previously had been besieged with messages from constituents who reacted with blind anger over the prospect of laying out $700 billion in what they saw as a bailout for Wall Street fat cats, heard a very different tune Tuesday. America's investor class reacted just as angrily at the losses suffered in their retirement and college-savings accounts as what they saw as the result of the House defeat of the bill.

Randall W. Forsyth , "Congress Reads the Returns -- of Minus $1 Trillion", Barron's, October 1, 2008

Mighty broad definition of the "investor class", if you ask me. In reality, the investor class are those who are pissed off about how big a percentage of their wealth now needs to be expended purchasing their monocle polish.

A great number of the persons opposed to the bail-out lost money in their 401-Ks and children's college funds. It ain't gonna be the Democrats would walked after the ACORN initiatives were excluded from the package who will return with a yea vote, because ACORN is off the table. It just won't do for the "investor class" if po' folk get a piece of the bail-out pie.

The Barron's article goes on to describe the mark-to-market accounting rules required by Sarbanes/Oxley as a "relatively esoteric matter". Really? A financial institution having to mark their assets to present day valuations is called transparency, and if this passes, there will be more trouble down the road, guaranteed.

My prediction is that there will be a bail-out passed by no later than next Monday, and that many of the Republicans who voted no previously will be onboard. It will be billed as bipartisan cooperation. Whenever the word bipartisan is mentioned in the same sentence as $700 billion, go and put on your best pair of steel trousers, because politicians are about to tear you a new one.

The proper way to handle this crises is to force all corporations who need government funding to completely and honestly mark down their bad debt publicly, forcing their share price to tank down to the real market value. Then whatever monies they receive, the Federal Government should receive stock warrants on a dollar for dollar basis at that value. As soon as the market stabilizes, and the Government is able to realize a profit from these warrants, they should be sold to the highest bidders at open auction, and the monies derived from these sales to be placed directly into the treasury, not siphoned off into pet projects. If Congress played free-market hardball with the financial corporations, most would suddenly discover new avenues of previously untapped investment capital, and would no longer be crying for a hand-out. Never extend credit to a lousy gambler. It's like giving money to a junkie.

Additional References:

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo*" and Jon#.

View my current slide show about the Bush years -- "Millennium" -- at the bottom of this column.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

My “creativity and dreaming” post today is at Making Good Mondays.

Technorati tags:


PseudoCyAnts said...

I'm still predicting that a bail-out bill will be passed soon, and that it will be House Republicans, who were previously opposed to the bill that will tip the balance.

On the menu for lunch at the House cafeteria Thursday: crap sandwiches. How many Republicans will be ordering them? It can't be any worse than those Crawford cowchip cookies they've been munching on for the last 7 1/2 years... My prediction seems to be substantiated by what Steny Hoyer has to say about the new Senate version of the bail-out:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told NBC's "Today" show that he feared the tax breaks could make it harder to win Democratic support in the House.

"There's no doubt the tax package is very controversial," Hoyer said. "There's no doubt in my mind that the Senate added this because they thought that's the only way they could get it passed."

Hoyer feared the tax issues would arouse the ire of the "Blue Dogs," a caucus of conservative Democrats who have blocked the tax breaks in the past, arguing that the tax breaks without spending cuts would increase the nation's deficit.

Mark Mooney, "Obama, McCain Will Quit Presidential Campaign Trail for Senate Bailout Vote", ABC News, October 1, 2008

The Blue Dogs are going to remain intransigent on the deficit, and Republicans will prove once again that Contemporary Conservatives continue chasing a well-dressed fuzzy bunny with a fancy timepiece down into the black hole in the ground of moral relativism.

I still haven't seen any note of the ACORN provisions being reinserted into the bail-out bill, so the House Dems who opposed it the first go around because of it being taken out are unlikely to be riding a wooden pony and reaching for the golden ring this time on the merry-go-round either.

I'm waiting to see which dunderheads, caught between their crock and a hard place, side with the Monocle Polishing Class:

"It's almost inconceivable that well over $1 trillion in domestic market cap was lost as Congressional dunderheads played partisan politics at EXACTLY the wrong time," writes Max Bublitz, chief strategist at SCM Advisors. "Markets have a nasty way of severely disciplining those who act up, but it's just unfortunate that the whole class has to stay after school because of the actions of a few camera-hungry idiots."

Randall W. Forsyth, "Monday, Bloody Monday", Barron's, September 30, 2008

Carol Gee said...

Some quick takes on your good comments: I kind of liked it when John Boehner so frankly named the sandwich. Blue Dogs really do face a devil's bargain, huh? The Acorn stuff would gag the Republicans as positively un-American. And last, wouldn't it be interesting if all the unemployed little people on Wall Street are actually able to develop some empathy for those huge numbers of people who will soon be using up their last unemployment benefits?
Thanks again for your very useful ideas and info, PCA.

PseudoCyAnts said...

The Blue Dogs lose very little, if anything, by not supporting the bail-out. They come off as sticking to their guns about deficit reduction, and look like populists while doing it. Even if they support the bail-out in their hearts, there will be no need for them to vote that way, because the pressure is on the House Republican leadership to deliver the vote this time around. As you noted, just 12 would have been enough the first go around.

I doubt that the House Democratic leadership feels the same pressure. 60% + of the Democrats are onboard as it is. If the Republicans don't play bipartisanship, their support begins to collapse. Republican voters support the bail-out at a much greater percentage than the Democratic voters. At the same time, I'd wager that the majority of Independents are against it. The Republicans stand to lose no matter which way they vote, but it much more important to them to secure their own base.

I'm still sticking to my prediction. It will be Republicans that voted no the first time around, who push the bail-out over the top. "Main Street not Wall Street" will be the phrase of the day tomorrow.

Carol Gee said...

PCA, I am going to go back over your predictions regarding this historic episode and give you an online award for each one that is correct.
BTW which way would you vote if you had to? I admit I would probably vote for it, but I'd have to hold my nose. The great middle seems to be carrying the effort. It is the very liberal and very conservative that continue to be opposed, I guess. Thanks for your comment.

PseudoCyAnts said...

Where does Soros on your Liberal/Conservative scale? He's not really one that fits well on the linear line. He has also proposed a plan much closer to what I think should happen. If the government is going to intervene, they should do as free-market players, and take equity for the money at the real market valuation for it. I'm opposed to this plan as it is written. It does not secure the public treasury, and is a hand-out to lousy gamblers.

Here's two from Bloomberg:

Ryan Donmoyer and Lorraine Woellert, "House Republicans Reconsider `No' Votes on Bailout", Bloomberg, October 2, 2008

Katherine Burton and Matthew Benjamin, "Soros Says Paulson's Financial-Rescue Plan Is `Ill-Conceived'", Bloomberg, October 1, 2008

I am offended that Ron Paul gets any press at this time. If you've been preaching economic doom and gloom for 20 years, you are not prescient now. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Here's a nice pull-quote of Paul's from the Congressional Records in 1998, when he was predicting the collapse of the global economy, exacerbated by the Y2K bug:

The worldwide financial bubble is like nothing ever witnessed before and it is collapsing. The Y2K problem will compound our problems, not to mention the instability of the U.S. presidency.

Ron Paul, Congressional Record: September 9, 1998, GPO DOCID:r09se98-137

Lead us out of the wilderness, oh prophet Paul...If I had to choose between Paul or the current bail-out plan, I'd take the bail-out in a heartbeat. (I've also taken a bit of heat posting this quote on some libertarian boards recently, but had fun doing it)

Carol Gee said...

I heard Ron Paul during the debate this morning. It was more gloom and doom. And it is all a moot point now and the bill passed the House and has been signed by OCP.
Thanks for all your help and ideas regarding the issue; we'll see how oversight goes.