Senate Tweaks Bailout, Now Likely To Pass

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:52


The Senate has tweaked the bailout bill, and is likely to pass it tomorrow. The tweaks include point #5 of the "No Bailout Act," plus a range of not very offensive tax cuts. It still contains the original flaw of the plan--its enormous size that hands over a large portion of the Obama presidency to Henry Paulson and, through him, Wall Street (even though Obama himself doesn't seem to care). Here are the tweaks:

The Senate agreed to vote on the legislation along with the measure temporarily raising the limit on federal deposit insurance to $250,000 from $100,000. That increase was proposed by Republicans critical of the plan authorizing Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to buy troubled debt from lenders, which was rejected by the House on Monday.

Good reporting, Bloomberg. It was also in the "No Bailouts Act" proposed by DeFazio earlier today. And watch Bloomberg give more credit where credit isn't due:

Fiscally conservative House Democrats known as Blue Dogs opposed the Senate bill because it wasn't fully offset by new tax revenue. The House version of tax breaks was paid for. Senate leaders refused to consider the House bill, saying it would never pass in that chamber. The financial rescue measure won support from 24 of the Blue Dogs on Monday.

Yes, the Blue Dogs were truly the cornerstone of opposition to the original bailout due to their fiscal conservatism. I mean, only 60% of all Blue Dogs voted for the bill, meaning that 40% opposed it. Surely, they were the key! These dudes are really good at getting press for anything they do, even when they don't do it.

Here are the less than offensive tax breaks that I described above:

The Senate measure will graft the bailout language to a tax bill it approved last week, on a 93-2 vote. It includes: a provision to prevent more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from feeling the bite of the alternative minimum tax, $8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana and some $78 billion in renewable energy incentives and extensions of expiring tax breaks.

In a compromise worked out with Republicans, the bill does not pay for the AMT and disaster provisions but does have revenue offsets for part of the energy and extension measures.

That doesn't strike me as offensive, except in that it will probably allow the bill to pass both chambers and become law.

I wish there was some way to cut down the size of this bill, such as removing the $100 billion that Paulson can grab for after he receives the $250 billion. At this point, it seems like the bill is going to pass, and so the goal should be to limit the damage it causes. The heart of its damage is its excessive size, and so removing that $100 billion might be the best way to go.

Chris Bowers :: Senate Tweaks Bailout, Now Likely To Pass

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Rethuglicans win again! (4.00 / 1)
Yes, it increasingly looks like the rethugs outplayed the clueless Dem leadership again. Instead of Pelosi et al. publicly blaming the right wing ideologues for the rejection of the Paulson/Dodd Plan and using the opportunity to ram a more progressive plan through, based mostly on Dem votes, it sure looks like all efforts concentrate on getting those 12 additional GOP voites on board by surrendering to the wishes of the rethuglicans. What a great show of leadership by the Dems again - NOT!

This not only provides an easy way out for republican naysayers, who already have come under pressures from angry voters who lost money with stocks and funds, but actually rewards them with a PR victory. Now they can say their determined opposition resulted in the bill they wanted all along, but couldn't get because the Dems didn't want to add their "insurnace" provision. At the same time, the Dems who held their nose and followed the "lead" will get nothing for their sacrifice, but are expected to now support even the pro-republican modified bill again. Horrible.

Well, what do y'all say? Not even not a more progressive bill, but a PR victory for the rethugs instead? Now that's a result that no liberal can be happy about. This shows that it's not only important to get Obama elected at president, but for the situation to change in favor of progressive goals, there has to be a change of leadership in the House and Senate, too. Pelosi and Reid have to go, or else this policy of appeasement to rethuglican blackmail will continue, ruining any chances for real change in the next years.

REID =FAILURE
PELOSI = FAILURE
We need a change in 2009!


The insurance provision.. (0.00 / 0)
Was in the original bill...  There's not much of a win here except that they're claiming credit for the FDIC thing... though it's not clear at all that they introduced that.

[ Parent ]
It's the public image that is important (4.00 / 1)
Look at the newspapers - they focus on the addition of changes the republicans wanted. WaPo, for instance:

"Prodded by a wave of angry calls from constituents, congressional leaders dialed back partisan bickering over the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan yesterday and advanced modest changes to the legislation in an effort to win over House Republican holdouts."

Yes, there might also be some new progressive hobbyhorse in the new version, but this will not receive equal attention. To the public, all this looks like the Dems surrendering to the rethugs again. The irresponsible right wing naysaysers will not only be able to save face, they can boast to their constituency that their steadfast opposition made the Dems change the bill to include the addition they wanted.

And what's infuriating me is that the whole scenario, with the negative reporting about the republican traitors yesterday, gave the Dem leadership a golden opportunity for a PR victory and to ram a more progressive bill through. If they would have had a plan B, they could have exposed the GOP as the party were ideology trumps all reality based politics, and the Dems as the responsible acting grown ups that get things done even when the right wingers abandon ship. What a chance to produce both a PR victory and a more progressive bill at the same time - WASTED! But instead, we get the usual show of crooky bipartisanship that help the rethugs more than the liberals, and which is resulting in the low reputation of Dem lawmakers. Horrible.


[ Parent ]
ridiculous! (4.00 / 2)
They are going to push a plan that most economists are saying won't work and doesn't make sense?  

That is just plain irresponsible.

The No Bail Out Act was introduced in the house and is based on what worked with the S&L crisis and didn't cost the taxpayers.

This is Peter DeFazio but the real point is it has overlap to what the Conservatives in the house are also backing...

the reason?  Various experts are recommending these approaches.

It has a series of tools to unfreeze credit markets too..
which also doesn't have to be done with the "Paulson" plan.

This is just an unreal something to push through something almost every expert I've read, listened to is saying probably won't work anymore and more important say there are much more effective approaches than that as well.


NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


That'd be nice... (0.00 / 0)
Though I'm not sure they'll be able to do that...  I guess we'll see.

The FDIC thing, I suppose, is a nice little extra that it looks like we'll get... though I'm not sure how many people that will effect.  Small businesses, I suppose, may derive the most benefit from it, which is a good thing.  Individuals?  I suppose some will... but I'm not sure that's what people were talking about for helping "main street".


The FDIC thing is important... (4.00 / 1)
...'cos large deposit holders, worried about bank solvency,  were making runs on the banks and severely depleting bank reserves in a time when banks were not able to borrow from other banks...  which made the banks even more likely to fail.

Increasing the FDIC limit is only temporary, but it should be permanent.  That $100,000 cap goes all the way back to the 30s,and really should be adjusted for inflation.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Its cosmetic and/or a recognition of fact (4.00 / 1)
Based on the discussion yesterday on local public radio, the $100,000 limit has been raised, de facto, for a number of years on a case by case basis.

This "tweak" does nothing but up-date existing law to reflect the unwritten law.  Good idea, no doubt, but did the $100,000 limit have any substantive role is promoting, or extending the "crisis"?  Not likely.  That why its "cosmetic".  It gives the impression that something has been changed so that the politicos can campaign by saying to their consituents: "See, I got YOU something, too! I really did vote against the bailout, before I voted for it!"


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
If it is about insolvency worries for large depositors.... (0.00 / 0)
I am still not sure what effect this will have.  What percentage of Americans have $100,000 in a bank, much less $250,000?  I suppose the point about small businesses makes sense, but if $100,000 seems too little and hopeless outdated, I don't see $250,000 offering much redress when we are discussing large depositors.  

At this point the number of large depositors in this country is tiny and they all have immense sums of money.  The average American has nothing but debt so all the trillions of dollars in this economy are held by a tiny few. $250,000 seems woefully low to those few above the middle class making over $5M a year.


[ Parent ]
Paulson can grab (4.00 / 3)
The entire $700B.  I don't know what analysis you are reading but the "press kits" do not match the bill.

There are no limits on executive compensation, it's simply new awards after they entered Paulson's plan.  Every executive negotiates their golden parachutes upon hire...and it doesn't have any effect.

Oversight?  Paulson sits on the oversight board.

Equity?  Not exactly.

It shouldn't pass.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


stock market recovery (0.00 / 0)
was not the "hope" of the bail out as they claim but the possibility of the SEC changing the mark-to-market rule.

It's correlated exactly.  Another thing?  The market was down 300 pts when Wall Street believed they would pass the bail out bill.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


I just thought of something... (4.00 / 1)
Watching Maddow on my DVR and something just occurred to me...

Do Democrats want to avoid pushing a truly progressive "New New Deal" like legislation to avoid giving Bush a big "win" for his legacy?

Now, maybe this would be against a lot of what Bush likes, but maybe he'd just sign it anyway both because he just wants something done and because he could, in a way, take credit for passing the "New New Deal", which, perhaps, will eventually be as popular as the original New Deal?

So, the idea is... do something with a more brute-force approach as it's being proposed now... Get Obama in office and have him move the legislation that we want, giving Obama (and Democrats) credit for something in the same way that people credit FDR for today.

Hmmm... This is likely just a dream. =)


Won't happen witrh Pelosi and Reid! (4.00 / 1)
The damn clueless surrendermonkees will spoil any chances to get anything progressive done. They seem to think "leadership" comes from "lead", and they are as dynamic and flexible as a big block of it. And even toxic for any true progressive who isn't extremely carefully when coming into contact with them.  

[ Parent ]
Well, this is my point... (0.00 / 0)
Would it be better to pass something temporary now and let Obama pass something good, rather than giving Bush something good to prop up his horrendous legacy?

[ Parent ]
Public good vs. partisan good? (0.00 / 0)
Difficult question. But since all that is at stake is a possible small boost for the popularity of the soon-to-be ex-president, I'm for not delaying things, but pushing them through now for the sake of the people. However, this is a purely rethorical question. There won't be any New New Deal with Pelosi and Reid at the helm. Totally impossible with those losers.

[ Parent ]
We'll see... (0.00 / 0)
Get an Obama landslide, 60+ votes in the senate and 250+ votes in the house and I think we'll probably see some good stuff.

And like I said, pass something that basically lasts through the end of Bush's presidency that doesn't hurt Obama's ability too much and this basically gives something good for Obama to pass in his first 100 days, instead of something good for Bush to pass in his last 100+.  This may actually lead to not only "partisan good", but also "public good", as it could lift all Democratic proposals popularity, which, I think you would agree, is a "public good".


[ Parent ]
I'm sceptical.... (4.00 / 1)
if a landslide resulting in a Dem supermajority in both Houses will have the positive impact you dream of if there are still the same old farts "leading" the Dem party. For a real change, there need to be tough progressives in those positions, who are able and willing to conduct a hardboiled power play when it's necessary. Appeasenicks, who always look for lame compromises in order to enstablish a phony harmony, would spoil any accomplishments.

I would love to be proven wrong and to see Pelosi and Reid turn into different personas under the impact of a liberal power boost. But I don't think this is realistic. However, hope dies last...


[ Parent ]
You can't always get what you want... (0.00 / 0)
...Republicans had a significant majority this century, and yet, very little of what they wanted got passed.  No same sex marriage ammendment, no destruction of social security, no destruction of health care, no flat tax (or even major tax reform)... They whined and moaned even more than we have about our leadership...

The fact is, there's a lot of great legislation that has already passed the house, and is waiting senate approval and a president's signature... employee free choice act, SCHIP, among many others... We don't hear about them a lot, since the bills go nowhere, but with significant majorities, we can get these signed within days of Obama taking office...

I think we'll see quite a change in governing philosophy, but we've got to get there first!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Hurrah for the Republicans! (4.00 / 2)
They finally strong-armed Democrats into fixing the screwed-up AMT!  Surely Republicans are the friends of the middle-class.  And they're the friends of small business; the raise of the FDIC cap will help small businesses survive bank failures.

What have the Democrats done except push a trillion dollar giveaway of taxpayer money to Wall Street?

Snark aside, are the Democrats afraid of success?  Do they secretly pine for the days when they were in the minority and had no responsibility?

Who's going to pay for it all?  Let Obama figure it out, he's all in favor of this kind of bipartisanship.


They're not fixing the AMT... (0.00 / 0)
It sounds like they're getting rid of it, I think.  This not only will cost the government a ton of money, but will allow some individuals to basically pay no income tax again.

In order to fix it, they should just make sure it applies to the people that they originally wanted it to apply to (those that completely avoid paying taxes through various loopholes and such) and not to more and more of the middle class because they stupidly forgot to have it adjust for inflation.


[ Parent ]
No, they are raising the limit... (4.00 / 1)
...they do it every year...  at some point, they need to fix it to inflation, but they never seem to ever offer a permanent fix.  Every year congress is forced to raise the limit artificially, and have been doing so for 20 years at least.

...and it is popular in blue states where cost of living is very high, like New England and California...  where the cost of living can be ten times as much as rural areas, so an AMT salary doesn't get you very far, yet you are paying the "rich man's tax" living in a bungalow.

So, Democrats are serving their own on this one and only "rich man's tax" issue...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
McSame's statement on the bill (0.00 / 0)
During his interview with the DMR yesterday, he said, he'd write it a little differently.

And, if he 'were a dictator' which he's 'always aspired to be...'



"Obama doesn't seem to mind" (4.00 / 2)
Interesting, isn't it?

I assume Obama is like most in DC: they want the Fed recapitalized, and the problem papered over until the winter, when his administration will be settled in, having had several months to arrive at a plan, and build up support for it.

Does he realize that this problem is probably not going to go away in the first year, or the second, but that it is likely that economic jolts are going to be a mainstay of his entire presidency?

And is he listening to anyone besides Bob Rubin?


Who knows.. (4.00 / 1)
all we know now is that he missed a great, albeit risky, opportunity to show strong, presidential leadership. Well, I can understand the risk aversion of his campaign consultants, at a time when Obama regained a significant advantage over McCain in the polls. But still, this kind of calculated, uninspiring campaigning makes me sick. This isn't change voters can believe in. Not yet.

[ Parent ]
Obama should stay in the background ... (0.00 / 0)

"..its enormous size that hands over a large portion of the Obama presidency to Henry Paulson..."

Isn't Obama going to make Paul Krugman Secretary of the Treasury? :))

We should remember that FDR ran on a programme of balancing the budget and avoided all Hoover's attempts to get him involved in the 1932 financial crisis ... Obama's priority is to get into office, he should be keeping his involvement in this bailout minimalist.  


Hehehe! This would be great! (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, Krugman for treasury!
Well, I believe he would really do a great job. There is some kind of precedent: During WWII, John Kenneth Galbraith, one of the most prominent liberal economists, served as the deputy head of the new office of price administration, a position with an enormous power. And he did a great job, nipping in the bud all concerns that this kind of centrally planned economy would result in a desaster a la soviet union. The US enjoyed the most efficient economy of all participating nations and had the least problems in managing the transition into the postwar era. To have such an expertly qualified administrator right now, with the powers from the Paulson/Dodd bill at hand, would be a tremendous advantage for overcoming the credit crisis.

Well, instead we have Paulson. Let's hope he doesn't ruin the economy until Krugman can take over!
:D


[ Parent ]
I'd rather this pass than not pass (0.00 / 0)
I support this bill in a very reluctant, qualified manner although I agree with most of the particulars of Chris' post.

Congress and/or the President can keep that 2nd 350B from being delivered. It's not as preordained as some have made it out to be. Maybe that's where the focus is going to have to move.


If making Bush look bad… (4.00 / 1)
...is what's holding up passing a truly progressive bill, I'd say that's straight-up B.S. With all that Bush has gotten wrong during his presidency, the history books would have to attribute any progressive victory to strong-arming by a Democrat Congress.

I honestly don't understand why the Democrats would go for this bailout on any level. The acrimony coming from Republican constituencies nationwide is clearly part of a general revolt against "elites"--pereceived and otherwise--so it's amazing that Dems are allowing themselves to end up on the wrong side of the issue yet again.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams


Change? (0.00 / 0)
Obama's support of the bailout package undermines the message of change which has been so effective for him. Just as McCain's choice of Palin took away the argument that experience was crucial, Obama now looks like another Washington insider. No way is he perceived as an economic populist now.

I have been paying close attention to Presidental elections since Kennedy-Nixon, and I believe that has given me a feel for how events influence the electorate. I think we have seen the high point of Obama's lead, and the question is whether he will be able to hold on enough to win.

Chris, I would also expect that your estimates of House races will soon tilt strongly to the Republicans, if anything like the current bailout package succeeds. I fear that Democrats have found a way to lose another election.

Voters may be "information challenged" on many matters, but they can see that the promises that we will recoup money spent on worthless financial derivatives is typical Washington lying. And it is sad, because there do seem to be ways that government can increase liquidity without rewarding the people who have caused the problem in the first place

 


you just don't undestand....democrats are actually winning, put those pitchforks down (0.00 / 0)
this is not going to be portrayed as a GOP win -- they are forever going to be tarred with the original failure and the market tanking... The Dems are giving nothing away -- they are winning the main bill (remember all of the Democratic leadership supports this bill). This will be perceived a loss for the GOP...

also what no one seems to understand here are:

1) The GOP won't go for direct recapitalization -- that's their main point of opposition. They don't want nationalization of banks.  So, the Paulson plan does this through the back door by focusing on the underlying mortgage assets rather than equity (and now using warrants to get that equity). So, this bill goes as far as is practicable in the direction recommended by most economists (which is why Krugman and now Galbraith support this bill).

2) This is about the government buying troubled mortgages.  This not a "giveaway" or bailout to Wall Street to fat cats.  This is the government buying up bad mortgages extended during the bubble.  When they own the mortgages, they can renegotiate the terms (so it is a very good thing -- if they only extend equity to lenders, this is not possible).  And, while there is some crap out there most of the mortgages are not in default and so these mortgages should retain value later on... it is unclear what the total cost will be...

3) Limiting money in this bill has no meaning.  The Fed pushed out $630 billion in paper yesterday because the Money Markets stopped functioning and because the bill failed.  Treasury and the Fed are going to spend whatever it takes to solve this crisis as every economic official in the government understands that we are on the precipice... So, you might limit Paulson to $100 Billion but by doing so, you're pushing him and Bernake to put out more T-bills which -- my friends -- we are still on the hook for. Much better to have the bulk of this done through the political process so we can actually also help out homeowners and have oversight..

4) Focus on the big picture. See Front page of the NYT today http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10... -- muncipalities can't issue bonds any more because of the liquidity crisis and guess what that means people -- no new hospitals, school, pitchforks, etc. That'll really screw those wall street "fat cats"...

October 1, 2008
Under Strain, Cities Are Cutting Back Projects

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
Cities, states and other local governments have been effectively shut out of the bond markets for the last two weeks, raising the cost of day-to-day operations, threatening longer-term projects and dampening a broad source of jobs and stability at a time when other parts of the economy are weakening.

The sudden loss of credit, one of the ripple effects of the current financial turmoil, is affecting local governments in all parts of the country, rich and poor alike. In New York, a real estate boom has suddenly gone bust. Washington has shelved a planned bond offering to pay for terminal expansion and parking garages already under construction at Dulles and Reagan National Airports.

Billings, Mont., is struggling to come up with $70 million more for a new emergency room. And Maine has been unable to raise $50 million for highway repairs.

"We really are in terra incognita here," said Robert O. Lenna, executive director of the Maine Municipal Bond Bank, which helps that state's towns and school districts raise money. He said he had worked in public finance for 34 years and had never seen credit evaporate so completely.

Maine had already begun some of its road work when the bond markets stopped functioning, so now it is scrambling for bank loans to keep the dump trucks rolling. If money does not start flowing soon, Mr. Lenna said, Maine will have to cancel some of its road and bridge projects.

The only alternative would be what New York City did on Monday: Go into the locked-up markets and whip up demand by offering to pay investors a very high return.

Analysts said the dysfunction in the municipal bond markets appeared to signal the end of an era of relatively cheap money for governments and, probably, the start of an era of tough choices for communities. When the market starts moving again, they said, it will look a lot like the municipal bond market of 10 years ago, before the arrival of financial wizardry in the form of structured-finance products, which lowered borrowing costs but added big new risks. Instead, governments will probably be issuing plain-vanilla bonds with fixed rates of interest, higher than they are accustomed to.



What are you going to say when we need the next bailout? (0.00 / 0)
The economy has been built on a illusory foundation. No?

Your argument is we have to "prop it up". For how long?

When does the pain come? And yes, there MUST be pain!

I am certain that when the latest injection of financial heroin wears off, the junkies will be back for more.

The correct approach is to wait until after the election. The moral hazard in the economy has to be curtailed. Are the Democrats the ones who will tell The People (tm) that consumption must retrench significantly?

Pigs will fly sooner.

Thus America is dead. The heroin rescues will ultimately fail and Mad Max / Nazi Germany will be with us.

The Dark Night will descend on Earth for another 1000 years.

I wanted to wake up this morning in 1775 America. Unfortunately I woke up in Weimar.


[ Parent ]
Thanks, David. Indeed comprehensive ... (0.00 / 0)
...you've done an excellent job of keeping the progressive perspective on this situation in the forefront.  

Oops. Wrong thread. But you've done ... (0.00 / 0)
...a good job on this, too, Chris, my minor disagreements with you on it aside.

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search