A Third Bush Dog Vote?

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 21:05


I don't know if the progressive "No Bailouts Act" bill will receive a floor vote in the House this week, but if it does I think we should consider making it a third "Bush Dog" vote along with FISA and Iraq. This is a progressive solution that could avoid making a huge bailout. If there is a floor vote, any Democratic opposition to the proposal will likely be responsible for causing the $700 billion bailout to occur when a better option was on the table.

What say you? Is opposing the progressive solution to avoiding the bailout worthy of Democrats favoring FISA or a blank check on the Iraq war? I also like the idea of adding a third Bush Dog vote not just to identify new Bush Dogs, but to give the 70 current Bush Dogs a chance to clear their names. If current Bush Dogs were to vote in favor of this bill, and then go on to oppose the $700 billion bailout, that might be good enough to at least temporarily clear their names.

I'd like to hear from the community on this. Is Democratic opposition to the "No Bailouts Act" worthy of Bush Dog status?

Chris Bowers :: A Third Bush Dog Vote?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A Third Bush Dog Vote? | 33 comments
Is it that great a bill? (4.00 / 3)
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but getting rid of mark to market seems like a not great idea.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
the 700B deal also gets rid of mark to market (0.00 / 0)
at least that's what I read - so that would be a dead comparison point.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
A little surfing and... (4.00 / 1)
Ok, I'm convinced that #1 on this "progressive" plan is a horrible idea, basically letting execs lie and set their own company value; bank execs are asking for this, which gives you an idea about its value.  Unfortunately, the FEC already made the change today.  So, that has no bearing on the value of the plan.

#2 and #3 I have no real opinion on, but I doubt seriously matter in any sense.  #2 seems obvious to me but I know actual traders think it is stupid.

#4 is the only part that matters.  It looks to be the same capitalization plan others have suggested, but I don't really know that.  If it is, I'm in favor.  If it is trying to get by on the cheap and won't do anything, then we should go with the Paulson plan.

#5 everyone agrees with all of a sudden.  I think this will happen regardless of which version is passed.

[ Parent ]
It's the same approach used for Savings and Loans (0.00 / 0)
Send in FDIC auditors, they mark the murky assets to their models, close the bad banks and certify the good ones. Worked then, will work now.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, #5 makes sense (0.00 / 0)
It seems really obvious in retrospect, actually. I don't there is anyone who thinks it's a bad idea. Who came up with it first? McCain actually credited Obama for it...

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
What do progressive economists say? (4.00 / 2)
The DeFazio-Edwards bill is based on Isaac's column in the Washington Post. It sounds like he thinks this plan would work. But what do Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, Doug Henwood, Robert Kuttner, and other progressive economists and thinkers have to say about it? These folks have proposed other ideas. What do they think of this proposal?

I also notice that this proposal doesn't include these other progressive ideas that would address many current financial problems:

* Help homeowners refinance their houses (reduce interest rates, extend length of mortgages, etc.)

* Tighten regulations (restore Glass-Steagell, ban usurious interest rates, etc.)

* Rescind the Bankruptcy Bill that is so onerous for people in these hard times

* Stimulate the economy to prevent it from sliding into a recession (extend unemployment benefits for 26 more weeks, make grants to states for needed infrastructure projects (repairing roads, bridges, and dams) and for social services (social workers, teachers, schools, etc.), subsidize new clean renewable energy sources (like solar water heaters, solar photovoltaics, and wind turbines), and extend health care to additional groups (like the SCHIP program)

* Recover the billions of dollars given to bank executives as bonuses in the last few years

* Tax all the ill-gotten wealth that has gone to the richest families in the past 8 years (one-time wealth tax on wealthy, income tax surtax on high incomes, etc.)

Maybe all of these ideas can be saved for later legislation, but I guess I'd like to hear someone say that that is the strategy before we jump on this bandwagon.

[ Parent ]
It's a terrible idea (4.00 / 1)
the basic problem is lack of transparency, and the first plank of the progressive plan is to REDUCE transparency.

The whole problem right now is the fundemental market perception that the whole truth is not being disclosed by financial institutions.

This provision makes it EASIER for them to hide losses.

Good God is that stupid.  Sorry, this is in my area of professional competence - and the provision makes me want to vomit.  

Is that what being a progressive means?

Wow.

[ Parent ]
No, everything gets audited (0.00 / 0)
By the FDIC. High transparency plan.
[ Parent ]
Am waiting to find out more (0.00 / 0)
Currently, I'm unsure I like this bill.  I need evidence it will work.  When we get more feedback we'll have more information to go on.
I Think It Depends (0.00 / 0)
Let's see what happens with this thing. If the press decides to go against it and label it far-left, I would be able to forgive a few Dems in competitive districts as long as they subsequently voted against the 700 Billion dollar Bailout. This would show that, yes, they were going against their principles, but at least it would be because they were just scaredy cats, who at heart didn't live the Paulson plan, and not actual corporatist assholes. Sure, it would be commendable, but I guess it depends on what motives you think proper for a "Bush Dog." Can it be for not standing up for principles for electoral gain, or do you actually have to be a reactionary conservative?

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
*wouldn't be commendable n/t (0.00 / 0)


Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
What are the prospects? (0.00 / 0)
If there are going to be 100 Democrats voting against the "No Bailouts Act" (possibly including Obama), adding all of them to the "Bush Dog" list may not be helpful.

What is Obama's position on the "No Bailouts Act"?

it's at least worth "half a foul" (0.00 / 0)
If not a full "double fault".
will it get a vote? (0.00 / 0)
I am behind the plan, but as published it seems pretty vague.  A number of the elements seem to be already going through.  (FDIC increase.)  Will there even be a meaningful vote for us to look at?

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
Flying blind (0.00 / 0)
My main problem is that I do not have anywhere near the level of understanding I need to evaluate these various plans. I'm trying to depend on Krugman, Stiglitz, Roubini, Reich and others, but basically I'm lost. I can't really judge these plans.
No (4.00 / 2)
I'm trying to figure out what's so "progressive" about this "progressive" alternative.

If not liking this alternative is worthy of "Bush Dog" status, hand me a W'04 sticker....

There's not much in that bill (0.00 / 0)
And the Marky Mark provision is pretty sketchy to me.

I'd love to see a toothy bill that is pro-equity, pro-oversight and transparency, anti-golden parachute, with real tranches and a lower overall total, and green infrastructure funding tossed in for job creation. That's progressive to me. Something like what Obama says he wants but not like what he's apparently going to vote for.

A question about categories (4.00 / 2)
Much of this country's political dialog is centered around Democrats versus Republicans, and I know that the Bush Dog idea was partly to show differences within the Democratic party, but I am wondering exactly what differences we are highlighting.  Especially as Bush will soon no longer be president.  (Woo hoo!)

When David Sirota was here promoting "The Uprising" (which is great, BTW) he said something that had a lot of resonance with me and that is that there are basically only two parties -- the money party and the people party and that the Republican party is pretty much 100% owned by the money party and the Democratic party is about 50% owned by them. It was very helpful to me in understanding why some Dems act so shitty and I think might be a categorization worth considering as we go forward.

Another set of contrasts that can be helful is liberals versus power-sharing-reformers.  Ideally they are the same people but not necessarily.  Anyone who lives in a solid-blue machine area has probably experienced this separation -- people who are very, very committed to liberal causes but who will fight tooth and nail to keep anyone new from coming to the table.  

So, my question is, as we think about who the next "XXX Dogs" are, do we want to look for people who are socially conservative?  Or those who favor transfers of wealth and power to corporations and the wealthy?  Or those who are against transparency/accountability/small "d" democracy? Or what?  Or all of these?

Absolutely! (0.00 / 0)
From the Bush Dog description:

Bush Dog Democrats are Democratic members of Congress who enable the right-wing through their support of Bush's policies on core progressive values at key moments.

This bill, a bit more refined and open to a vote, creates the same scenario that brought to life the Bush Dog label to begin with.  It's hard to imagine a more key moment for progressive policy than an economic crisis resultant of deregulation and corporate rule over ideology, and a more progressive value than not de-funding the entire future of progressive policy through a massive bailout.  If not this specific bill, then definitely on this specific issue.

Shameless Blog Plug: The SideTrack

Currently I would vote no (0.00 / 0)
I am very worried by removing the mark to market accounting. And I want more info.

The other two Bush Dog votes were a lot more clear cut in terms of the information that we had going in.

no way (4.00 / 1)
i don't think i'd vote for this bill and i'm pretty sure that i am not a Bush Anything.

i'm seriously disappointed in this, and a little puzzled why it's getting such a push here. for one thing, could we stop with the cutesy acronyms? yoy. but really, compare this plan to Ian's.

i may be misjudging the intent, if it is only meant to get us through January then that's different from a long-term fix.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

explain what you like about Ian's plan (0.00 / 0)
It will help persuade people to click through.
[ Parent ]
apples vs oranges? (4.00 / 1)
the comparison i had in mind was the level of detail in Ian's proposal, and the way that it addressed the root causes of the mess.

but the more i read here and elsewhere, of people's explanations of the intent behind this bill, the more i think that it's not a good comparison. that "No BAILOUTS" isn't meant to be the only final fix, but to solve the immediate credit crunch problem, in a way that doesn't involve a huge outlay of money. which means we haven't hamstrung the next Congress and next Administration, and also - possibly - can appeal to people who rejected the Paulson plan just because it cost too much. i'm thinking of the number of Reps in the "Skeptics Caucus" who are pretty conservative types. probably nothing can reach Republicans at this point.

a better contrast might be to this plan, where banks that won't loan money - because they're waiting for that Federal Christmas - just get taken over by the FDIC. and honestly, i don't know enough to make that call. one certainly appeals to the posse member in me :) but i get that that's not necessarily the best basis for policy.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

[ Parent ]
Mark to market (0.00 / 0)
Getting rid of it is like passing a law that declares "night is day." Why don't we just get rid of auditors, too. Financials could just be on one line:

This is how much we made --->$___________ (Yoo Hoo)

Mark to model *by the auditors* (0.00 / 0)
If fixed the S&Ls, it can fix the banks now.
[ Parent ]
This has to be an ex post facto classification (0.00 / 0)
There might be a fair number of blue dogs who vote down this atrocity.

The House vote and this battle in general is crossing the calcified and petrified left-right paradigm.

This basically divides the country into a bailout vs. non-bailout nation.

One feeding off the other...

No (0.00 / 0)
and if it ist then I am not a progressive.

The last poll I saw here showed significant division within this community on the bailout.


I think it should be (4.00 / 1)
Once again, Bush has proposed a horrible, unamerican idea. To support that over a clean plan based on the S&L cleanup is as Bush Dog as you could get.

IMO though, Bush Dog should be based on voting for the Paulson plan. Although the Defazio plan is quite good, it's not the only one you could have.

I'm not in favor (0.00 / 0)
of changing the definition of Bush dog in this way.  For one thing, I don't want to let any of the current Bush dogs off the hook.  They don't deserve another chance, and a re-evaluation at this point only muddies the waters.

Secondly, I don't think the general understanding of this issue is very good, including mine.  I don't feel right about excoriating people for doing things I don't have a clear grasp of.  I think the reporting on all of this is muddled and imprecise.  And while they may have a loose grasp of the issues, labeling senators and congresspersons as Bush dogs over votes cast on short notice, possibly without an accurate assessment of what the effects of the various proposals are seems like a bad idea.  

If the Bush dog label is  to continue to mean something, it must be completely clear what it means.  And I think one of the things it currently means is that a Bush dog is someone who maliciously casts a wrong vote on a crucial measure.  I don't think the contrasts between the so-called progressive plan and other possible plans are stark enough to determine malice.

This has to be one of the stupidest bills I've seen in a long time (4.00 / 2)
I have no idea why you'd want to make it a litmus test for Bush Dog status. There's nothing remotely progressive about it.

#1: Suspending the mark-to-market accounting has been Republican's wet dream for the last two years. Bankers are hugely in favor of it, accountants and auditors violently opposed. That should tell you all you need to know.

#2 & #3: I'm not sure what is so progressive about restricting short selling; it's a technical move aimed at slowing down market speed than anything else. It restricts the volatility of the market in exchange for less market efficiency. Okay in times of crisis, but I see no reason why you'd want that in normal periods.

#4: This is a real turd of an idea. The problem is companies now can't accurately value themselves, even with a team of internal experts. Having the FDIC come in isn't going to magically fix the problem - using RAP instead of GAAP will only muddle their true financial picture. This may help kick the can down the road a bit, but if housing prices keep falling, it will allow banks to obfuscate their true situation even longer. It does offer some recapitalization, but not enough to make a difference. Futhermore, I don't really see why this is more progressive than buying assets + equities in exchange for government bonds.

#5: This is going to happen anyway. It's a marginally progressive idea, but it's been mostly pushed by local banks as a competitive strategy vis-a-vis money market funds.

Overall, the plan would greatly reduce transparency of banks financials, include some wasteful and wrongheaded ideas about short selling, and a minor bandaid for an unrelated fight. Furthermore, there's nothing in it that speaks at all to progressive values.

And you guys are willing to sink people that vote against it with a lead anchor? Count me out of your progressive-topia - I want to live in one that actually embraces progressive values rather than no-nothing populism.


Please don't sully 'progressive' with this bill... (0.00 / 0)
Just because it has been proposed by progressives doesn't mean this is a progressive bill.  There is a reason that the idea was proposed by a former Reagan official and is also the preferred plan by some of the Republicans that 'bailed out' on the bailout vote.  The main advantage this bill has over the current one is that no taxpayer money is being given to the fat cats.  At this point I'd take that deal.

As others have said a real progressive deal would return us to broad, independent oversight, protect homeowners with bankruptcy protection, cut the golden parachutes of corrupt executives, provide broad and deep stimulus to the middle class, poor, and unemployed, and tax the bejesus out of the wealthy and market speculators to pay for it all. Unfortunately, this won't pass with our slim majorities and the idiot in the Oval Office.  

The DeFazio bill seems more a punt to the future while the revised Paulson plan is just an enormous give away.  I don't think either plan is any more likely to work, but the DeFazio plan at least doesn't hamstring the government for the foreseeable future.

I'd say no. (0.00 / 0)
Not because I have a clear opinion on the merits of the bill, but because I'm not immediately convinced that the bill has much merit. And it looks like I'm not the only one.

This is a complex issue in financial terms, made even more complex by the political context, and everything is happening quickly. I would have a hard time putting any Democratic legislators in the Bush Dog House (or letting them out) for a vote made under these circumstances.

Bush Dog status should be reserved for Dem congresscritters that clearly violate core progressive principles. It's not really obvious to me how those core progressive principles relate to this bill. Since it's not obvious, I'm not yet convinced it should be a Bush Dog vote. If the political context (or the bill itself) changes, I guess it could become such a vote, but right now I don't see it.

A Third Category (0.00 / 0)
Hurt Obama's Chance 2008 Vote. I suppose we've waited 40 years and we could wait another 16 years. Hopefully, we'd have a country still worth saving and a 'true' progressive leader. Shame for American history that Lincoln won when he wasn't a 'true' Absolutionist.
A Third Bush Dog Vote? | 33 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox