Bailout deal breaks down; Paulson back to Capitol

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Bailout deal breaks down; Paulson back to Capitol stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

JENNIFER LOVEN and JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS | September 25, 2008 11:37 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
President Bush, center, meets with Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., far left, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., far left, and congressional leaders in the Cabinet Room of the White House Thursday, Sept. 25, 2008, in Washington to discuss the proposed bailout of the financial industry. Also seated with them from left to right, Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

WASHINGTON — A Republican rebellion stalled government efforts Thursday to avoid economic meltdown, a chaotic turnaround that disrupted the choreography of am extraordinary White House meeting meant to show joint resolve from the president, the political parties and the presidential candidates.

After six days of intensive talks on the $700 billion financial industry bailout proposed by the Bush administration, with Wall Street tottering and presidential politics intruding six weeks before the election, there was more confusion than clarity.

An apparent breakthrough was announced with fanfare at midday by key members of Congress from both parties _ but not top leaders. Wall Street cautiously showed its pleasure, with the Dow Jones industrials closing 196 points higher.

But the good news and the market close were followed by a rash of less-positive developments.

Washington Mutual Inc. was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in the largest failure ever of a U.S. bank, after which JPMorgan Chase & Co. Inc. came to its rescue by buying the thrift's banking assets.

And a late-afternoon White House summit bringing together President Bush, presidential contenders John McCain and Barack Obama, and top congressional leaders, described as "a full-throated discussion" by one person in the room and "a contentious shouting match" by McCain's campaign, broke up with conflicts in plain view.

Conservatives were in revolt over the astonishing price tag of the proposal and the hand of government that it would place on private markets.

Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, emerged from the White House meeting to say the announced agreement "is obviously no agreement." McCain's campaign issued a statement saying, "the plan that has been put forth by the administration does not enjoy the confidence of the American people as it will not protect the taxpayers and will sacrifice Main Street in favor of Wall Street." The White House, too, acknowledged there was no deal, only progress.

Story continues below
advertisement

Meanwhile a group of House GOP lawmakers circulated an alternative that would put much less focus on a government takeover of failing institutions' sour assets. This proposal would have the government provide insurance to companies that agree to hold frozen assets, rather than have the U.S. purchase the assets.

Inside the White House session, House Republican leader John Boehner announced his concerns about the emerging plan and asked that the conservatives' alternative be considered, said people from both parties who were briefed on the exchange. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the session was private.

Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, the feisty Democrat who has been leading negotiations with Paulson, reacted angrily, saying Republicans had waited until the last moment to present their proposal.

Meanwhile McCain, who dramatically announced Wednesday that he was suspending his campaign to deal with the economic crisis, stayed silent for most of the session and spoke only briefly to voice general principles for a rescue plan.

Weary congressional negotiators then resumed working into the night, joined by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in an effort to revive or rework the proposal that Bush said must be quickly approved by Congress to stave off potentially "a long and painful recession." They gave up after 10 p.m. EDT, more than an hour after the lone House Republican involved, Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, left the room.

Talks were to resume Friday morning on the effort to bail out failing financial institutions and restart the flow of credit that has begun to starve the national economy.

The Bush administration plan's centerpiece remained for the government to buy the toxic, mortgage-based assets of shaky financial institutions in a bid to keep them from going under and setting off a cascade of ruinous events, including wiped-out retirement savings, rising home foreclosures, closed businesses and lost jobs.

The earlier bipartisan accord establishing principles and important details would have given the Bush administration just a fraction of the money it wanted up front, subjecting half the $700 billion total to a congressional veto. The treasury secretary would get $250 billion immediately and could have an additional $100 billion if he certified it was needed, an approach designed to give lawmakers a stronger hand in controlling the unprecedented rescue.

The Bush administration had already agreed to several concessions based on demands from the right and left, including that the government take equity in companies helped by the bailout and put rules in place to limit excessive compensation of their executives, according to a draft of the outline obtained by The Associated Press.

Democrat Obama and Republican McCain, who have both sought to distance themselves from the unpopular Bush, sat down with the president at the White House for the hourlong afternoon session that was striking in this brutally partisan season. By also including Congress' Democratic and Republican leaders, the meeting gathered nearly all Washington's political power structure at one long table in a small West Wing room.

"All of us around the table ... know we've got to get something done as quickly as possible," Bush declared optimistically at the start of the meeting. Obama and McCain were at distant ends of the oval table, not even in each other's sight lines. Bush, playing host in the middle, was flanked by Congress' two Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

But neither Bush, McCain nor Obama have been deeply involved so far in this week's scramble to hammer out a package. The meeting was intended more to provide bipartisan political cover for lawmakers to support a plan in the face of an angry public and their own re-election bids in six weeks.

At day's end, Frank said he told Paulson "this whole thing is at risk if the president can't get members of his own party to participate."

Layered over the White House meeting was a complicated web of potential political benefits and consequences for both presidential candidates.

McCain hoped voters would believe that he rose above politics to wade into successful, nitty-gritty dealmaking at a time of urgent crisis, but he risked being seen instead as either overly impulsive or politically craven, or both. Obama saw a chance to appear presidential and fit for duty but was also caught off guard strategically by McCain's surprising gamble in saying he was suspending his campaigning and asking to delay Friday night's debate to focus on the crisis.

___

Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann, Martin Crutsinger, Christopher Wills and Beth Fouhy in Washington and researcher Judy Ausuebel in New York contributed to this story.

(Corrects quote in 13th paragraph, Weary congressional ..., to 'painful' instead 'deep' recession.)

WASHINGTON — A Republican rebellion stalled government efforts Thursday to avoid economic meltdown, a chaotic turnaround that disrupted the choreography of am extraordinary White House meeting m...
WASHINGTON — A Republican rebellion stalled government efforts Thursday to avoid economic meltdown, a chaotic turnaround that disrupted the choreography of am extraordinary White House meeting m...
Filed by Katharine Zaleski  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
134
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)

China has ordered its banks to stop lending dollars to US banks. Not that this is a surprise at all. China has been dumping the USD in favour of other currencies for well over a year now. Is it any surprise we are in this mess?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 PM on 09/25/2008
- DeanAdams I'm a Fan of DeanAdams 8 fans permalink
photo

After 9-11 when the govt loaned money to the airline industry, the govt took equity stakes in the airlines. Why should this be any different?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 PM on 09/25/2008

Here is my number one problem with this (other than how we got to this point) where are the facts. All I can find is that the sky is falling. I think we are being scammed. Once again they back the democrats into a corner. Once the administration says a bailout is necessary to save the world as we know it, the question becomes one of details only. Is this really necessary at all. Are we being sold another load of fear.

If there is so much money to be made on this deal let Warren Buffet finance it, leave the taxpayers out of it. Then Congressional time can be better spent writing regulation legislation. This legislation should bring back the trust busters. No company should ever be allowed to be too big to fail. Once a corporation has been is existence for X number of years and its capitalization exceeds Y then the corporation dies and is split in to 10 competing corporations with a prohibition against recombining for 50 years. Then we would have true competition. All true conservatives should support this legislation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:06 PM on 09/25/2008
- mcostello I'm a Fan of mcostello 9 fans permalink

The only real reform is to either dismantle or nationalize any institution that is so big that the government HAS to save it if it goes down.
This is called a monopoly folks, and they can hold us for ransom for more money whenever they want.
Big oil is in the same position. MONOPOLY

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 09/25/2008
- MikeGuy I'm a Fan of MikeGuy 3 fans permalink

A government regulated monopoly is far different from a fully private oligopoly like big oil. In the latter, there is no mechanism for ensuring the public interest.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:14 PM on 09/25/2008
- mcostello I'm a Fan of mcostello 9 fans permalink

My point exactly.
History has shown us the damage monopolies can do, even recent history. Walmart has put scores of companies out of business by breaking the letter and intent of all of our anti-trust laws.
As a side-bar, H. Clinton sat on Walmart's board while much of that went on.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:18 PM on 09/25/2008

Injecting 700 billion dollars to mortgage companies because they speculated on what the housing market would be seems like it would cause quite a bit of inflation. Just because you can temporarily swindle someone into asking for $300,000 of credit for a poorly constructed home doesn’t mean that anyone else will ever be willing to pay that or that the home’s construction material is worth that. The buyer doesn’t have the money to pay for it and the mortgage companies nicely create a 5 yr rental plan where the "home-owner" has no equity in it making it a little easier for the buyer to leave the mortgage company and their mortgage-backed securities with a less than $300,000 asset. Was that really all that hard to predict? You make crap houses and sell them for ridiculous prices to people who can’t pay you back because they're compensated as minimally as possible for a full-time job and then also increase interest rates on them and then sell the mortgages like you’re actually going to get interest on this valuable asset. It’s just speculation creating more of our already unbacked money. Sorry I guess that’s what is called "economic growth". Right now inflation rates exceed the interest rates I’m getting from the bank. How is 700 billion dollars going to be a real solution and not just drop the dollars worth severely.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:54 PM on 09/25/2008
- FogBelter I'm a Fan of FogBelter 290 fans permalink
photo

The real concern that Paulson, Bernanke and Wall Street have must be the 58 trillion dollar Credit Default Swap cloud seizing up and collapsing due to lack of liquidity. A 700 billion dollar infusion will postpone that from happening but not solve the overriding issue that the economy is incapable of processing through trillions and trillions of dollars worth of kited swaps.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 PM on 09/25/2008

Do we really create so little in this country that now we are absolutely dependent on imaginary credit money that creates "economic growth"?

Are banks so undiversified that mortgage securities taking a hit will leave normal people’s bank accounts severely depleted?

Are mortgage securities such a huge part of the economy that companies not involved in housing speculation will be drastically affected?

If meddling needs to be done, wouldn’t it be more effective and less of a hit to help prevent people from defaulting on their mortgages by easing up on monthly payments and allowing them and companies to absorb the ridiculous price they paid for their home slowly and over time?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 PM on 09/25/2008
- schatsie I'm a Fan of schatsie 87 fans permalink

There is so much that could be done with the 700 billion by the borrowers....Wall Street created this Pandora's box and now has let out the gremlins, so there is no point in expecting them to behave well now!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 PM on 09/25/2008
- FogBelter I'm a Fan of FogBelter 290 fans permalink
photo

Textbook example of Moral Hazard.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 PM on 09/25/2008
- optech007 I'm a Fan of optech007 6 fans permalink

Is it possible to offset this bailout by cutting a $800 billion in future Social Security benefits? I know that idea won't go over well with many people but look at it this way:

$4.2 trillion of the national debt is owed to the SS Trust Fund, which will have to be repaid in the future to pay out benefits. However if we cut the future benefits and the SS Trust Fund forgives $800 billion of the govt.'s debt, than we should be no worse off debtwise than we are today.

I'm not saying cut benefits now or for anybody retiring in the near future but maybe 15-20 years down the road and tell those people to start planning now because you can expect less from SS. Plus, if in the future are financial situation is much improved, the benefits could be restored. Or is SS so sacred that no one would ever propose this?

I'm not an economist so I don't know for sure if this would work, but the actual economist don't know for sure if the bailout will work. I would like to hear any opinion you have on this idea.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 PM on 09/25/2008
- mcostello I'm a Fan of mcostello 9 fans permalink

Hey, it works as well as any of the other plans.
Unfortunately, none of the plans work.
This economy is going to crash, and the only question is: now or later.
This bailout is just the super-rich wrapping their paws around more of the relative dollars before the thing goes down.
(the reason I say relative dollars, is that the dollars you and I currently own won't buy so much, but if you had millions more of them you wouldn' t care. Get it?)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 09/25/2008
- OCKerouac I'm a Fan of OCKerouac 5 fans permalink

Unfortunately, the option for most of us not retiring in the near future is to rest our savings plan in a 401K. Asking people to 'plan now' and then making the only real planning option to put your savings on the market isn;t a very comfortable feeling. I'm still a long way from retirement, and honestly never planned on SS still being there by the time I'm of-age anyhow, with this latest crisis however, the slight comfort I take is that SS funds ARE still there and weren't 'privatized' like Bush/McCain wanted.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 09/25/2008
- mcostello I'm a Fan of mcostello 9 fans permalink

In my opinion, the stock market is the last big bubble, and all that 401k money will dissapear also.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:07 PM on 09/25/2008

I'm sure Bush would like nothing better than to take the money for the bailout out of social security. Remember who is getting the money--big wall street banks (a.k.a. the rich)--and who gets money from social security--the poor. The biggest risk of the bailout from my perspective is that it ties up all the government's money so that we can't get the stuff we really need, like roads and schools and healthcare. Please don't suggest that they also take away the stuff we already have, like social security or medicare.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 PM on 09/25/2008
- schatsie I'm a Fan of schatsie 87 fans permalink

I would go for that IF and ONLY IF the income cap was removed from the Payroll taxes!!! and it was also applied to dividends and capital gains...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 PM on 09/25/2008

Time to connect the dots, kids.

Last year Goldman Sachs, Hank Paulson's "former" employer, purchased Texas-based Litton, a "loan servicing" company.

The $700 billion will be used to pay Litton and other PRIVATE firms to untangle this subprime mess, meaning Goldman Sachs will once again make out like the bandits they are.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&av8fOkC1HHEc&refer=home

Just Google Litton Goldman Sachs. It's all there.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 PM on 09/25/2008
- schatsie I'm a Fan of schatsie 87 fans permalink

and that is exactly what BUFFETT WAS THINKING....Not only does he have a guaranteed return of 10% interest, plus 10% when he sells the stock etc...

The man loves money and investments and is very good, it is too bad he pockets the Sales Taxes from Mid American Energy and he doesn't pay his taxes for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS....

I wonder if we collected ALL OF THE DEFERRED TAXES, then we would have the money to fund this bailout and not dump the load on Main Street....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 PM on 09/25/2008
- JamesR. I'm a Fan of JamesR. 206 fans permalink
photo

Everyone else seems to be against this socialist approach.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/22/business/euro.php

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 PM on 09/25/2008
- artistcain I'm a Fan of artistcain 24 fans permalink
photo

They hold a gun to you head and tell you there saving Main Street,their not saving Main Street or any other street except the dirt alleys of Wall STREET

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:42 PM on 09/25/2008
- SCG I'm a Fan of SCG 110 fans permalink
photo

$ 700bil = The principal + borrowing costs + small % gain to the treasury.

Total mortgage payment = added to capital gains tax

Those that make money on their money would bear the cost of this "rescue" by supply-side.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:40 PM on 09/25/2008
photo

Ya know, with $700 billion dollars, we could build 1750 Bridges to Nowhere...or a bridge to Hawaii from LA!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 PM on 09/25/2008
- DuPageDem I'm a Fan of DuPageDem 21 fans permalink

Leaders pushing this theft are on the financial industry's take. Our hopes now have to rest in true conservatives and true liberals who can gum this up before the floor vote. NO WELFARE FOR BILLIONAIRES.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:37 PM on 09/25/2008
photo

I wonder how much Warren Buffet stands to profit off taxpayers from his $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs the other day?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 09/25/2008
- nellie I'm a Fan of nellie 502 fans permalink
photo

So much for the "Free Market" rhetoric.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:34 PM on 09/25/2008
- DA12 I'm a Fan of DA12 6 fans permalink

Attack of TINA

Wikipedia explains a dangerous narrative that is poking its head up:

"There is no alternative" (shortened as TINA) was a slogan of which Margaret Thatcher, the radical British Prime Minister was fond. In economics, politics, and political economy, it has come to mean that despite capitalism's problems, "there is no alternative" to the status quo of their economic system and neoliberalism.[1][2] This is the central slogan of neoliberalism, arguing that free markets, free trade, and capitalist globalization are the only way in which modern societies can go, as any deviation from their doctrine is certain to lead to disaster.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:27 PM on 09/25/2008
- OCKerouac I'm a Fan of OCKerouac 5 fans permalink

Ah, but There IS An Alternative... It's called OBAMA...

OBAMA=TIAA

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 PM on 09/25/2008

LOL!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:50 PM on 09/25/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect