Wow, this is some seriously tough talk from Mark Warner regarding the House of Representative's rejection of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" on Monday.
"The option was no action or action," he said. "This is not one you can say we've got to wait another 30 days and play Russian roulette. I would have liked to have seen it improved."[...]
He criticized Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson Jr. for seeking too much power in the original bailout bill, and he called the House vote against the bill "an embarrassment."
He also said the bill was misnamed. Instead of being called a bailout, he said it should have been called a "pipeline to credit markets" that would provide relief to American taxpayers.
Stressing the importance of the legislation, Warner added:
"These are real people with real homes, with jobs, whose lives are on balance as they wait for this to play out."
I agree with Mark Warner that this thing was not marketed well at all, that calling it a "bailout" was a huge mistake if Congress and the Administration had any desire to sell it to the American people. I mean, who wants to "bail out" fat cats on Wall Street? Right, nobody. Who wants to "rescue" the American economy, their own jobs, their futures? Everybody. You get the picture.
Beyond marketing, I also agree with Mark Warner. Sure, I'd love to see a much better bill, maybe even a completely different bill. But as the saying goes, the process of legislation being made in Washington is like watching the making of sausage - not pretty, in other words.
And there's no doubt that this bill, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," is a (messy, flawed) hunk of sausage. In other words, it's a compromise on an extremely complex, intricate, important subject - keeping our economy from melting down as credit markets freeze up and stock markets plummet. Reluctantly, I must say that it is also probably the best (I can see a few tweaks getting incorporated) option that can be accomplished at this point given the alignment of political forces in Washington, DC - Shrub in the White House, a closely divided Congress, an election looming, etc. Again, I'm not talking what's IDEAL, I'm talking about what's PRACTICAL. Which is what I believe soon-to-be Senator Mark Warner is saying: no "Russian roulette," thank you!
UPDATE: The Washington Post reports that the Senate is likely to vote tonight on a modestly revised rescue plan. Apparently, after Monday's stock market plunge, public sentiment shifted "completely in the other direction" - from opposing to supporting the package ("Monday's vote had snapped the public to attention about the potential repercussions of Congress's failure to act"). Ironically (?), it's now "Blue Dog Democrats" who might now pose the biggest obstacle to passing this plan in the House, as they "[oppose] extending the tax credits unless there are other spending cuts or tax increases to pay for them." Time for a nice game of "Russian roulette" after all? :)
If the Senate makes this a give-away to big business (Wall Street, not Main street), and I suspect they will, it should be voted down.
There are just a few people in the Senate I respect - Tester, Webb, etc. They are out numbered.
They need to get this done right, not get it done fast. They should give Paulson $100B to play with until we can devise a solid solution - that buys time.