There were a few surprises in the Financial Rescue roll call. This can best be seen by analyzing the 25 senators that voted against the bill. They can be categorized. (And I’ll bold all the ‘no’s’ that are up for reelection). First we have the wingnut/budget hawks.
Allard (R-CO)
Bunning (R-KY)
DeMint (R-SC)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Then you had the ‘folks in my state don’t much care for New York Jewish Financial types’ contingent:
Barrasso (R-WY)
Brownback (R-KS)
Cochran (R-MS)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Then you had the progressive objectors:
Feingold (D-WI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Wyden (D-OR)
Finally, you had the people who were scared because their state has been particularly hard-hit by job loss and foreclosure:
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dole (R-NC)
Nelson (D-FL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Region was an important indicator, but it wasn’t everything. There were a lot of splits within states. Coburn voted for the bill, while Inhofe voted against it. Levin voted for it while Stabenow voted against. Murray voted for it while Cantwell did not. Dorgan voted against, while Conrad went along. Burr said ‘aye’ and Dole said ‘no’.
Even progressives were split, with Brown and Boxer and Leahy voting for the bill and Sanders and Feingold voting against.
The lesson is that this vote was not, as some would have it, some test of any particular politician’s fealty to the progressive movement. Nor was it a test for the conservative movement. It was a vote that splintered the Senate and both parties into a kaleidoscope pattern. Conservatives in Texas, Georgia and Tennessee voted for the bill, while conservatives in Mississippi and Alabama did not. The only thing that was consistent was that senators from the heart of the financial sector (the belt from DC to Boston) voted in favor of the bill. Almost all senators from the prairie region voted against (Coburn, Hagel, and Conrad being the exceptions).
This was not a popular bill or a particularly good bill. I supported it, but without enthusiasm. Most of the Senate felt the same way. Now we will see what the House does.
I think it is going to pass the House, but it will be close. Much closer than the Senate.
I also think that the Dow is going to jump about 350 points within 30 minutes of opening tomorrow. Today was a blah day, they were waiting for news of a possible rescue, and now they have it.
There’s no rescue here. At best it’s a finger in the dike. It isn’t going to loosen credit. It might keep it from falling to zero degrees Kelvin but the banks need the capital for their balance sheets. There won’t be much trickling down to Main Street.
I agree with you. I’m just predicting what is going to happen in the short term.
“The lesson is that this vote was not, as some would have it, some test of any particular politician’s fealty to the progressive movement.”
I disagree. And I’m quite beyond lifting a finger to support Obama, who has managed to master the art of identity politics. This bill may be better than the one originally handed down by Paulson, but it is by no means a bill that should be palatable to the middle class. I’m shocked that you’ve chosen to spin this as an issue that progressives should somehow overlook. When our change candidate actively pushes for this very bill in both the House and Senate, how can you not see this as betrayal?!
As one commenter at Firedog noted, and I paraphrase: “It’s high time that the red flag of nonviolent revolution for a third party be raised in this country.” Indeed.
Dude, Obama voted for the FISA bill. This is frankly small potatoes compared to that stupidity.
After that nonsense, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’s Clinton Part II. Which also shouldn’t surprise anyone because his platform has always been warmed-over DLC bi-partisan comity put into a new bag that doesn’t actually include the DLC. Somehow espousing positions indistinguishable from the positions of the DLC while not actually being a member convinced some folks that he was somehow a progressive. (And got a lot of progressive bloggers to pick up his candidacy as some kind of “transformational” move for the Democratic Party. I never quite understood how backing someone who’s platform was indistinguishable from the platform that the Democratic Party has used since 1992 was supposed to be “transformational”, but whatever).
Obama has never been a progressive and he’s never claimed to be. A lot of other folks pinned that label on him but it’s just not true. Like the laughable claim that he’s somehow the “most liberal member of the Senate” – a Senate that includs Bernie frickin’ Sanders for crying out loud.
OTOH, Obama does have the honor of being the selection for President that can 1) actually get elected and 2) is not batshit insane. So given where politics sits in America ca. 2008, he actually has a lot going for him.
Of course the FISA vote was worse. That’s when he lost me, frankly. But calling it small potatoes? Tell that to the millions who have lost their homes and have to watch as the perpetrators walk away scott-free.
And you can’t convince me for a second that he didn’t run and get where he was on the backs of progressives–read: espouse many progressive policy positions on the stump–so don’t even go there. I love it when people like you spout crap like that, as if you haven’t noticed his record in the Senate. Of course he’s no Bernie Sanders. But touting his stance against the war, standing up for the bankruptcy bill, being outspoken against the PATRIOT Act, a proponent of more federally-funded health care…he’s no universal health care Kucinich type, granted, but to not call him progressive (up until now) makes no sense.
So who among the progressives is “batshit insane?”
Your other hand is most prescient. This man must get elected before true change can occur. Change being progressive in nature. The same way Bush sent (past tense already) signals to his base with certain comments. Remember in general terms Obama has ridiculed the trickle down clowns who have wrecked our economy. The ownership society was targeted in his acceptance speech. He is sending us those signals.
Obama will have a healthy majority in congress. He will be able to move the debate left from the bully pulpit. The president sets the tone.
I say this as someone who grew up in the sixties and seventies. I remember watching the Chicago riots on television. Four years later wore a McGovern button to school in seventh grade. I’m loyal to the Democratic party. As sure as I am typing this I will go with a 3rd party candidate in 2012 if Obama is anything but a true progressive. At my age I believe in loyalty so this is not just hyperbole the country must go left to save itself.
Beautiful words, and I respect your viewpoint and wisdom. But look at what this party loyalty has gotten you.
Country before party, Salunga.
Ben Franklin was all about appearances. He would push paper rolls to his printing business at 10pm so his potential customers could see his work ethic. This guy brought French intervention to our side in the revolution. He knew how to manipulate people. Not to be callous but it worked. I believe Obama has the same gift.
To answer your question though, party loyalty has not yielded a progressive agenda……yet. Through borrowed wealth the voters have thought themselves part of the oligarchy. Now reality will bring people home to their own problems and they will vote their conscience. If not I’m out. Populist, Green whoever is closest to my beliefs.
Give Obama a chance we need your vote and we need a firm majority. However DMS, your point is well taken.
Personally, I think we’re on our way of saving 3 million jobs that would otherwise be lost unnecessarily. Not to mention, anyone approaching retirement desperately needs to stop the bleeding.
We’ll see how much cash hoarding there is, and there will be some. But, remember, at the root of this is a swap of cash for assets. It is only to the degree that we overpay for those assets that it costs us anything. We will certainly overpay, but it is a matter of degree. Reviving those assets will be of vital interest to the government, meaning they will have a keen interest in slowing defaults.
Lenders will no longer have frozen assets. Millions will still have jobs, and many people will avoid losing their savings or the homes.
In spite of this, things are going to get worse than they are right now and it will be hard to know how much worse things would have gotten.
Also, remember, the program won’t even be up and running until mid-November at the earliest. And a new Congress will be sworn in on January 5th, and a new president on January 20th.
As for progressivism, 47% of them voted for this in the House and roughly half followed suit in the Senate. It was not a progressive issue. It split progressives just like it split moderates and conservatives.
I understand what you’re saying Boo. But I just think you’re putting far too much faith in this man now. I mean, his economic advisers are from the same clan that got us into this mess! If Obama has such great leadership qualities, why did he fall for this Bush fearmongering?! He didn’t just vote for this shit sandwich, he was actively whipping for this bill. And what good does it do us to keep kicking the can down the road, so to speak, instead of taking the problems inherent in our situation head on?
Why do you continue to accept what he’s doing?
He was right to whip the members. He was right both politically and substantively. We would pay an immediate and horrible price if no rescue passed, and it would be stupid to not provide cover for vulnerable members that needed to vote against but felt duty-bound to vote for.
Why do you think Obama reached out to McCain to try to get him to agree on shared principles (or prerequisites) for the bill?
He knew a rescue had to pass and he knew we couldn’t get a great rescue. His job was to pin McCain into agreement on the most vital improvements and prevent him from taking credit for the bill or getting wiggle room to oppose it.
Obama is a lot smarter than people realize. I never doubted he would ace this test. And look at the polls.
“We would pay an immediate and horrible price if no rescue passed.”
Is that so?
Why on earth are you accepting Bernake and Paulson and Bush’s word, after everything they’ve put this country through? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to actually stop and bring in some experts to testify, to get a broader consensus as to what’s going on here?
I guess (and by no means am I being glib, I really do believe this) you and I have different ideas of what “Change we can believe in” actually means. To me, it means someone who, among other things, will put a stop to the fear mongering and actually lead instead of whipping party members into line for University of Chicago policies.
What does it actually mean to you?
You’re an infrequent commenter here, so I don’t know how often you read what I write, but there’s nothing in my record to indicate the remotest sympathy with fear-mongering.
I have actually been railing for the last week against fear-mongering…from the left.
I visit almost daily. Please don’t take what I’m saying personally.
I guess you really feel that it was necessary to cram this legislation through. I’m done then.
as has been the case with Reid, Pelosi + Obama innumerable times in Senate votes…Brown, Boxer and Leahy are not so goddamned “progressive”.
I am getting sick of than “progressive” word, anyway. I has become just another empty meme, another used intellectual condom that is subject to whatever warped views individual wankers wish to dump into it.
In that respect it resembles the most recent media meme “Main Street” (as opposed to “Wall Street”). I almost automatically distrust anyone who uses that phrase now. It has been totally divested of meaning. The only thing it currently means is that the user has swallowed the bipartisan line, hook, stinker and all.
Fuck it. Whole hog plus postage. Let the goddamned thing fall and then maybe we will be able to start over clean again.
I got yer “Main Street”.
Right HERE!!!
Or is this Main Street? (I get so confused sometimes!!!)
Your friend…
Emily
yes, tear it all down and start all over. Spoken like a true Jacobin. You have strange bedfellows these days.
What is a “Jacobin”, exactly?
From Wikipedia:
Yup.
That’s me alright.
What bullshit. The degradation of the use of the English language is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of modern American culture.
I am not a “Jacobin”, Booman. I am not even a revolutionary as that word is most often used. I am simply observing the root cause of the ongoing collapse of the United States and proferring the only solution that I can see.
Cold turkey.
Why cold turkey?
Because credit has become an addiction here in America. Up and down the system, from the largest institutions (government, the corporate world) right on down through to the individual.
I posted something here a week ago called Cold Turkey Or Reheated, Microwaved Big (Freddie + Fannie) Mac?. As is most often the case here on the middle class leftiness blogs with something that posits a difficult solution…one that might deprive cosseted white bourgeois lefties of some of their cherished luxuries…it sank off of the list like an anvil dropped into a vat of tepid jello.
In it I wrote (among other things):
Yup.
Lucky me.
What’s in YOUR wallet, Booman?
I do not use that advertising lick lightly. have you noticed how many of the recently collapsed financial boondoggle corps were the ones with such cute little advertising campaigns?
WaMu, Wachovia, AIG?
I cannot WAIT for those lizards at Geico and “What’s in YOUR wallet?” Capitol One to fall.
Hype runs the usury business, Booman, and those who are too fucking media-hypnotized to see the essential falsehoods behind the entire system resort to the devolved use of language…like that lame “Jacobin” meme…to protect their precious sleep from a rude but inevitable awakening by thy simple ABCs of mathematical reality.
You cannot borrow more than you can pay back.
Duh.
Not forever.
Either you go broke trying to pay it back or the entity from which you borrow goes broke when you cannot pay it back. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul and then from Marvin to pay Peter and then from KillBill Corp. to pay Marvin and Peter and Paul and then from China to pay back all four of them simply is not going to work, and the sooner that we realize this simple fact, declare some form of large scale bankruptcy and go on about the business of recovery the better off we will be.
It’s simple math, Booman, and the pronouncements of all the little economics professor hustlers in the world cannot defeat the fact that 1+1-3 does not equal 17.
Sorry, but there it is.
It’s not even about “Let it all fall and fuck the motherfuckers!!!”, Booman. I feel people’s pain at this hard reality. Hell, to some degree I share it, although I am no longer very much invested in the corporate usury scam. My business is so tied to economic conditions that you could chart my earnings over the past 30 years, place that chart over the ups and downs of our national economy and it they would match each other on a week to week and even day to day basis. I feel it every day that something happens. In my wallet. People don’t go out to listen to live music…which is how I make about 85% of my meager monies…when they are scared. When 9/11 hit NY, I simply didn’t work much for almost a year and a half. Why? No one felt much like celebrating. So it goes. I got a lot of writing and practicing done.
Jacobin?
My royal Irish ass!!!
Just a hard working, 14th generation American, hoping that we will once again manage to get back down to our economic and cultural roots.
Do your job; collect your pay; buy what you need and go about your fucking business.
Simple, eh?
Yeah.
Right.
We did it after the bust of 1929 and here it are, about 80 years later. Same game, only bigger.
MUCH bigger.
Can we do it again?
We shall soon see.
Bet on it.
Later…
AG
Here:
An open letter from so-called Jacobin Arthur Gilroy to Booman.
Later…
AG
“Not a particularly good bill”? Sort of like 9-11-01 wasn’t a particularly good day for office workers.
Monday wasn’t a particularly good day for anyone.
On Monday, the market was tanking by hundreds of points BEFORE the voting even began! Even if the House had handed Paulson his trillion dollar gift with a bow on top, the Market would still have closed down.
Inflation is guaranteed with the massive infusion of paper the Treasury just printed and blessed. More than the bailout. Why slap around dollar bills as bandaids when the problem is insanity?
Banks will still fail. Credit will still be congested. Jobs will still be lost (about 800,000 jobs so far this year?). The wealthy will still grab more millions for doing nothing. And the poor will still lose everything as we slide deeper into poverty.
What does this bill do to change any of that?
NOTHING!
A bailout does nothing but saddle the next President with an even bigger mountain of debt.
The only thing this country will be able to spend money on is the military… and the weaponry will be employed against Americans as we protest our own government.
This is a manufactured crisis so the greedy amoral wanna-be dictators can grab even more power with even less oversight.
The powers-that-be knew for months that this situation was festering and they knew for years that it was unsustainable. But dealing with it in a calm rational manner might lead to questions and accountability. Nope. Much better to wait and then package credit tightening into a crisis and a threat and a 3-alarm panic.
Who should be shot first?
*The men who speculated and leveraged.
*The lawyers who devised these instruments.
*The bankers who moved money into overseas havens.
*The investment managers who sold these vehicles to towns and pension funds.
*Or perhaps we should start with the men in their tasseled loafers who were supposed to govern financial matters for the well-being of the country as a whole, not for the enrichment of their relatives and buddies.
There is no honor among thieves, or else these men would already have shuffled off the mortal coil.
it’s not a manufactured crisis. What’s happened here is that the Bush administration has destroyed all levels of trust. Trust in them. Trust in their opposition. Trust in the media. Trust in elites. Trust in experts.
All of that is true. But this crisis was not fake.
I wouldn’t lie to you. I care about my track record. I’m proud of my track record.
No one’s accusing you of lying man. Seriously. Just understand that there are many people who don’t trust what’s coming from supposed experts with vested interests (Paulson and Goldman Sachs, for example), and who see a pattern with this administration of scaring the shit out of people to get what they want.
Let me respond to this by saying that there is a fairy tale about this. It’s called the ‘Boy who cried wolf’.
If you remember, the boy was put in charge of the town’s flock of sheep. And, because he was very bored watching sheep, which is understandable in my book, he had a habit of sending out the alarm that he had spotted a wolf. The townspeople would mobilize to drive off the wolf before he could carry off and sheep. But they could never find a wolf and eventually concluded that the boy-shepherd was a liar and could not be trusted.
One day, a real-live wolf came along and the boy sent out the alert. No one believed him. And no one mobilized. And the wolf got its sheep.
Well…
This administration cried wolf too many times. And I’m here to tell you that this particular wolf is real.
the scale, the rush to judgment, and the absence of transparency. All smoke, mirrors, and fear. Classic BushCo. No one knows what hit them, whether it will be effective, and so on. This is a fiat government.
Paulson’s three-page plan was a Katrina-like exclamation mark on the Bush presidency. Heckuva a job, Henry.
That’s spot on! Finally, I feel like I was living in a parallel green universe here until your comment. Why and the hell are we supposed to trust these goons? Isn’t leadership supposed to make wise decisions calmly and rationally? There was no such quality present in this elite body today. Plus this bill is bailing out alot of European banks too. What the hell is this?
clusterfucked opacity with “the mother of all margin calls.” Something like that.
This is a terrible bill. But it will pass. Obama and McSame’s support will see to that.
Obama said that Congress could write a better bill if we had 4-6 months to do so.
Well guess what Barry? After passing this, you have about 4-6 months to write a better bill. A much, much better one.
Because come early 2009 when this garbage pile of a bill runs out of steam, when the time we’ve bought with this $800 billion runs out, that “better bill” needs to be ready to go.
Start crafting it now, is my advice.