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

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)
- FogBelter I'm a Fan of FogBelter 300 fans permalink
photo

Oh, so I guess it's time for the American Taxpayer to bend over again ...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:26 PM on 09/25/2008

I cannot understand how they came up with the $700 billion figure for the bailout. Seems as if they pulled it out of thin air.... at least according to this Forbes article....
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9973c5b0-8a6d-11dd-a76a-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1

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

It's totally a ball park figure. It COULD be $500 billion, it COULD be over a trillion. Either way, it's not a 'check' in any semblance of the world...

The federal government is buying debt, they're not giving out money. They're buying this debt because the banks overextended themselves, and now cannot afford to wait for the debtors to pay it off and still run their businesses. The government CAN afford to hold the debt.

The debt, for the most part (because we're talking home financing more than credit card financing) is tied directly to physical property, meaning even the percentage of debt that NEVER gets paid back is tied to an asset. The debate is what rights does the government hold to that asset if they purchase the debt? The treasury secretary feels that little details like getting paid back don't need to be included in this plan while pretty much everybody else in the country, including BOTH sides of congress, disagree with him.

Even scarier, TS Paulson took the time to add a caviat to his deal saying basically, and I paraphrase, even if I TOTALLY screw the pooch on this deal, you can't question me. This is my football, and if you don't let me play QB, wide reciver, tailback, and kicker I'm taking my ball and going home. Seriously... a 4 year old knows this is a BAD idea... That's why our Pres is all for it...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 PM on 09/25/2008

I am not sure a "mortgage backed security" or a "credit default swap" is the same thing as a mortgage. Near as I can tell, these are just fancy looking pieces of paper that were sold to suckers. If the Congress goes along with this, and it appears they are planning on it, who's the sucker now?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 PM on 09/25/2008

I thought that this country, and President Bush, have taken a vow to fight terrorism and yet the Wall Street Terrorists blew-up the U.S. economy and now they want to go to heaven with 700,000,000,000 dollars of U.S. Taxpayer money as their reward. Unbelievable.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 09/25/2008

I just don't understand how agreement on this bailout can be near when Congressional offices are being overwhelmed by negative e-mail and phone calls. Can anyone enlighten me?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:02 PM on 09/25/2008

It probably means that congress is going to approve something whether their constituents support it or not.

An expensive plan will not make people happy, but is it worse than the alternative - voting no on a plan and getting blamed if the economy completely tanks? Would you want to be the guy who had a chance to save the economy (even if it's expensive) but voted no?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:17 PM on 09/25/2008

Let the economy tank and then let's rebuild a better economy versus the continual bandaid (bandaid being more money requested as we all know the current proposal is not a fix). As it stands with the current plan the people at the top suffer no consequences while the American taxpayer shoulders even more unfathomable burden—they are only going to take it for so long and the breaking point is now! Cease this madness today!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:30 PM on 09/25/2008
- DuPageDem I'm a Fan of DuPageDem 24 fans permalink

The economy's already tanked. It started years ago. Now, the only question is whether we want to struggle through this with another $700 billion yoke on our shoulders.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 PM on 09/25/2008
- texanna I'm a Fan of texanna 32 fans permalink

It's really very simple - we get the same deal that Warren Buffet got on this loan AND we get somebody from Congress as the co-signer for any check that Paulson or any other Treas Secy writes AND we get monthly or at the most quarterly review AND we don't give them the whole $700 BN all at once AND the Dems get some kind of quid pro quo from the Repubs to consider a similar bail out of those in the throes of foreclosure. Anything else is unacceptable.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:41 AM on 09/25/2008

Prepare to be disappointed, dear.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 AM on 09/25/2008
- OCKerouac I'm a Fan of OCKerouac 5 fans permalink

You're right, it's really pretty easy, especially considering that the Democrats are the party in power... It sure would be nice if they acted like it...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:58 AM on 09/25/2008

Another M o r o n talking about the Dems being in power. They do not have a legislative majority and cannot override a Presidential veto or a Republican filibuster.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:44 PM on 09/25/2008
- bk13 I'm a Fan of bk13 permalink

the only solution to the economic crisis facing the us is the dismantling of the federal reserve and the outlawing of fractional reserve lending and monetary reform

down with the federal reserve!!! we should not be paying interest on our own money!!!

don't know what i'm talking about? watch and be ready to have your mind blown.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
http://www.themoneymasters.com/

please watch this documentary. people need to know this

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 AM on 09/25/2008

I recommend Aaron Russo's "America, From Freedom to Fascism" as well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:00 PM on 09/25/2008
- OCKerouac I'm a Fan of OCKerouac 5 fans permalink

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the democrats have the majority in the House and Senate? I realize it's not a 'true majority' that can block a Presidential veto, but why aren't they standing up for their principles, putting in the protections for home owners and the clause to send profits back to the taxpayers and letting Bush be the one to make the tough choice?

This isn't 'playing politics', this is putting the people ahead of the system, and is what EVERY politician should strive to do. The American people voted to put a majority of democrats in these governing bodies, and I'm pretty sure we didn't do it to watch them cower to the will of a lame duck President...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 AM on 09/25/2008
photo

...because they have the same principles that the repugs have.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:52 AM on 09/25/2008
- OCKerouac I'm a Fan of OCKerouac 5 fans permalink

Unfortunately, no they don't. If they DID they would TOTALLY be playing the majority card. The problem with the Democrats currently in congress is they're so afraid to play by the Republicans rules that instead they act like abused wives...

Gee honey, I'm really sorry my face ran in to your fist like that... I'll make sure to get dinner started earlier next time...

I'd leave, but the FAMILY is more important...

But I LOVE him...

We're the kids stuck here wondering why daddy hits mommy and why mommy lets him...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 PM on 09/25/2008

Absolutely.

The dems should just create a plan they're happy with and tell Bush take it or leave it. And if he vetoes it, blame him when the economy tanks, as well as any GOP folk who don't vote to override a veto.

The guy is the ultimate lame duck, stand up to him and make a real proposal already.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:19 PM on 09/25/2008
photo

THROW THE BUMS OUT who give our money away to the fat cats on Wall Street who already raped us.

No bailout. Nothing. Not a dime. Voters are watching.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 AM on 09/25/2008

amen...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 09/25/2008

LOL! They don't care about the voters.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 09/25/2008

And you're OK with that even if it means those companies go under, the economy crashes, and the domino effect takes out many other companies and many jobs?

As much as I hate the idea of bailing these companies out, I can't say I'd prefer the possibility of another great depression.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:21 PM on 09/25/2008
- OCKerouac I'm a Fan of OCKerouac 5 fans permalink

Creepy... It's like talking to myself... :)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:24 PM on 09/25/2008
- Zeje I'm a Fan of Zeje 9 fans permalink

It's not a bail out. It's a give away. Read today's article by Michael Hudson on Counterpunch. http://www.counterpunch.org

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:30 PM on 09/25/2008

I am five years away from retirement and my 401(k) is going to go belly up, according to Bernanke. The value of my home has gone down 30% but the county appraiser says it went up, so my taxes are higher this year. I am no worse off if the economy crashes and at least I won't be further enriching the guys who put us here.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:48 PM on 09/25/2008
photo

Food for thought did you know that seven billion dollars divided by three hundred million citizens would give each person over two million dollars, this could go a long way in helping the economy plus it would replace the money stolen by the banks, when home owners paid off their mortgage. The money could pay for college, and help with health care!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:18 AM on 09/25/2008

Let me guess...you received your MBA from Harvard, too, right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 AM on 09/25/2008
photo

Do you own a calculator do the math. What I’m saying instead of corporate welfare congress could give the money to the people!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 AM on 09/25/2008
photo

The cost of the bailout is $10,000 per American family.

Can you afford that? What do we actually get out of this? For 99.9999999999999% of America what we get is MORE DEBT

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 AM on 09/25/2008
- OCKerouac I'm a Fan of OCKerouac 5 fans permalink

Don't buy the fear. The final cost will be closer to $200 billion than $700 billion and could end up even or in the black if the proper steps are taken to manage the loans responsibly. It's fine to get mad and vote for change, just don't get scared and think that a Democratic vote will send our country into depression, because that's the lie the GOP is trying to sell you for '$700 billion'...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:57 AM on 09/25/2008

No, not 2 million. Get a calculator.

$7 billion divided by $300 million is around $23 -- that's twenty-three dollars. But I'll assume you're talking about the actual figure of $700 billion, which works out to $2300 per person. Still a far cry from $2 million per person.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 AM on 09/25/2008
- OCKerouac I'm a Fan of OCKerouac 5 fans permalink

First, $700 billion divided by 365 million people is $1917.81, not quite $2 million. You seem to have confused Billion with TRILLION...

Second, you assume that a $700 billion dollar bailout means we 'write a check' for $700 billion dollars and walk away. If the government buys the worst loans these banks have there will be SOME return on that investment, likely 70 to 80 percent. When this is all said and done, we're probably looking at $140 to $200 billion in lost funds based on the proposal submitted by the treasury secretary, or 14 to 20 months in Iraq...

Third, Chris Dodd's plan, allows the government to take ownership of these organizations and run these loans the same way a business would. We could potentially MAKE money on the investment. The Republicans don't buy that for a second, because that would mean the federal government has the ability to do something private sbusiness couldn't, which is the antithesis of conservative financing. Not to mention Wall Street CEO's are far less likely to offer Bahamas vacations to politicians who take their companies away and make money off of them...

Finally, $700 Billion is a number that keeps geting thrown out there to scare you. It's the same as 'threat level red'. The current administration and their protegee in the wings believe that if you're scared, you won't vote for Democrat. They've just substituted 'The Economy' for 'The Iraq War'.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 AM on 09/25/2008
photo

your right I screwed up on my math sry

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:00 PM on 09/25/2008
- GSMRaleigh I'm a Fan of GSMRaleigh 3 fans permalink

Excellent interview on Salon Radio with Professor Richard Sheehan (RS) at the University of Notre Dame's Department of Finance by Glen Greenwald (GG). You can read the entire transcript at: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/09/23/sheehan/index1.html

Read partial transcript below:

GG: So it's hard to say that a lot of this was unanticipated -- so what about the people who are now offering their expertise up as our salvation, led by Hank Paulson? Were they largely people who have been warning about the problems of deregulation and these derivatives, or were they people who were kind of participating in their exploitation and growth?

RS: Unfortunately, Mr. Paulson was among those who were creating the problem, rather than warning about the problem. In his role as CEO of Goldman Sachs, Goldman under his watch created a whole lot of CDO's that are now --

GG: "CDO's" meaning, "collateralized debt obligations."

RS: Exactly

GG: The kind of instrument that we've been talking about.

RS: And a lot of them now would be under the heading of toxic waste. So, it's amusing in a twisted way to look at him now as the one that's going to save us from imminent financial collapse, which was, at least in part, brought on by the actions of Goldman in terms of being so liberal in their willingness to create new and improved collateralized debt obligations.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:07 AM on 09/25/2008
- mosh I'm a Fan of mosh 10 fans permalink
    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:04 AM on 09/25/2008

The Dems are still missing key pieces of restrictions to Paulson's proposed $700,000,000 blank check.

First, make loans, not gifts! Wall street is not my preferred charity!

take due bills from any financial firms that get to hand off their spoiled assets, that is, a hard contract that repays government from any future profits once the crisis is over.

Second, Ban lobbyists!

Wall Street firms must be prohibited from exercising their usual manipulations of the political system. Call off their lobbyists, bar them from the bribery disguised as campaign contributions. Any contact or conversations between the assisted bankers and financial houses with government agencies or elected politicians must be promptly reported to the public, just as regulated industries are required to do when they call on government regulars.

These are recommendations by National affairs correspondent William Greider that I found on Truthout.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:03 AM on 09/25/2008

What ever happened to "letting the market work?" Let Wall Street burn until something trickles down to douse the flames!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 AM on 09/25/2008
- MPeter I'm a Fan of MPeter 25 fans permalink

Absolutely. These guys pay themselves obsene amounts of money and now that their corruption has caught up with them, they want mainstreet to bail them out? McCain and his campaign team were always part of this crowd. Now he looks like a tired Igwana as he screams for help. Is it helping Wall Street or his crumbling campaign? We will not be fooled. This man tried to create a small war in Georgia but failed and now, he wants to pretend that he is taking a lead on an issue he has cheerled for, for 26 years!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:06 AM on 09/25/2008

right on...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 AM on 09/25/2008
- Dredd I'm a Fan of Dredd 19 fans permalink
photo

URGENT

A democratic representative from California was just interviewed by CNBC (wall street journos) and he said he is getting calls from his constitutents 300-2 against the bail out. He says if leadership goes back home and talks to their constituents, the bill is toast.

At the same time the democratic leadership announced that it has the votes to pass the bail out, but they won't do it unless an equal number of republicans come on board.

SO ... the democrats have aligned with BUSH and PAULSON in favor of the bail out when the voters are dead set against it????

This is not compromise and bi-partisanship ... it is political SUICIDE in an election 30 days from now...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 AM on 09/25/2008
- Erdgeist I'm a Fan of Erdgeist 83 fans permalink
photo

It is easy to pay for this bailout just rescind the Bush tax cuts for the rich in 2001. And the way we get money into the hands of the people (the demand side) is to raise the Personal Income Tax Deduction to at least 10,000 dollars.

But in order to do this (to give money to the working folks of Main Street), one has to dust off some old books on economics (those books which were easy to read and to understand). After sneezing a few times - lo and behold we find the term "revenue tariff"!

Yep, with a modest revenue tariff of 20% (it was once has high as 40%) we could generate 200,000 billion a year! That money would be used to offset the Personal Income Tax deduction which would be raised to 10,000 or more if need be. Talk about a booming economy! Additional tariffs could be imposed to keep factories and jobs from going to China. Yes, it is that simple. It is back to the future.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:57 AM 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