Senate passes $700B rescue; House votes lured

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Senate passes $700B rescue; House votes lured stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and CHARLES BABINGTON | October 1, 2008 11:52 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., pauses during a news conference on the passage of the Senate version of the bailout package on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2008 in Washington. From left, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., Reid, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Senate Minority Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

WASHINGTON — After one spectacular failure, the $700 billion financial industry bailout found a second life Wednesday, winning lopsided passage in the Senate and gaining ground in the House, where Republicans opposition softened.

Senators loaded the economic rescue bill with tax breaks and other sweeteners before passing it by a wide margin, 74-25, a month before the presidential and congressional elections.

In the House, leaders were working feverishly to convert enough opponents of the bill to push it through by Friday, just days after lawmakers there stunningly rejected an earlier version and sent markets plunging around the globe.

The measure didn't cause the same uproar in the Senate, where both parties' presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, made rare appearances to cast "aye" votes, as did Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.

In the final vote, 39 Democrats, 34 Republicans and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted "yes." Nine Democrats, 15 Republicans and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont voted "no."

President Bush issued a statement praising the Senate's move. With the revisions, Bush said, "I believe members of both parties in the House can support this legislation. The American people expect and our economy demands that the House pass this good bill this week and send it to my desk."

The rescue package lets the government spend billions of dollars to buy bad mortgage-related securities and other devalued assets held by troubled financial institutions. If successful, advocates say, that would allow frozen credit to begin flowing again and prevent a deep recession.

Even as the Senate voted, House leaders were hunting for the 12 votes they would need to turn around Monday's 228-205 defeat. They were especially targeting the 133 Republicans who voted "no."

Story continues below

Their opposition appeared to be easing after the Senate added $110 billion in tax breaks for businesses and the middle class, plus a provision to raise, from $100,000 to $250,000, the cap on federal deposit insurance.

They were also cheering a decision Tuesday by the Securities and Exchange Commission to ease rules that force companies to devalue assets on their balance sheets to reflect the price they can get on the market.

There were worries, though, that the tax breaks would cause some conservative-leaning "Blue Dog" Democrats who voted for the rescue Monday to abandon it. The bill doesn't designate a way to pay for many of the tax cuts, and Blue Dogs typically oppose any measure that swells the deficit.

"I'm concerned about that," said Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the majority leader.

Raising the deposit insurance limit _ along with the SEC's accounting change _ helped House Republicans claim credit for some substantive changes. And with constituent feedback changing dramatically since Monday's shocking House defeat and the corresponding market plunge, lawmakers' comfort level with the package increased markedly.

Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., who voted "no" on Monday, said he was leaning toward switching, and Rep. Steve LaTourette,R-Ohio, said he was "getting there." Several others were weighing a flip, said Republican officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the lawmakers had not yet announced how they would vote.

Leaders in both parties, as well as private economic chiefs everywhere, said Congress must quickly approve some version of the bailout measure to start loans flowing and stave off a potential national economic disaster.

"This is what we need to do right now to prevent the possibility of a crisis turning into a catastrophe," Obama said on the Senate floor. In Missouri, before flying to Washington to vote, McCain said, "If we fail to act, the gears of our economy will grind to a halt."

Critics on the right and left assailed the rescue plan, which has been panned by their constituents as a giveaway for Wall Street, and has little obvious direct benefit for ordinary Americans.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., a leading conservative, said the step was "leading us into the pit of socialism."

Sanders, a self-described socialist, said the rescue was fundamentally unfair.

"The masters of the universe, those brilliant Wall Street insiders who have made more money than the average American can even dream of, have brought our financial system to the brink of collapse," Sanders said, and are demanding that the middle class "pick up the pieces that they broke."

Still, proponents argued that the financial sector's woes were already being felt by ordinary people in the form of unaffordable credit and underperforming retirement savings and without the bailout would soon translate into even more economic pain for working Americans, including more job losses.

"There will be no balloons or bunting or parades," when the rescue becomes law, said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman. But lawmakers will have "the knowledge that at one of our nation's moments of maximum economic peril, we acted _ not for the benefit of a particular few, but for all Americans."

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said the intense, at times contentious, 11-day round of bipartisan talks to craft the bailout _ which followed dire warnings of impending economic meltdown from Bush's economic chiefs to congressional leaders _ was an "extraordinary experience."

"This is the way government's supposed to work, folks, and it did," Gregg said.

The Senate specializes in high-stakes legislating by enticement, and the long list of sweeteners it added was designed to attract votes from various constituencies.

In addition to extending several tax breaks popular with businesses, the bill would keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million middle-income Americans and provide $8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana.

Tax cuts new and old are favorites for most House Republicans. Help for rural schools was aimed mainly at lawmakers in the West, while disaster aid was a top priority for lawmakers from across the Midwest and South.

Another addition, to extend the deductibility of state and local taxes for people in states without income taxes, helps Florida and Texas, among others.

Increasing the deposit insurance cap was a bid to reassure individuals and small businesses that their money would be safe if their banks collapsed. It was particularly geared toward small banks that fear customers will pull their money and park it in larger institutions seen as less likely to fold.

The FDIC would be allowed to borrow unlimited money from the Treasury Department through the end of next year as a way to cover the increased insurance limit. If used, it would be the first time the agency has tapped Treasury for a loan since the early 1990s.

The rescue bill hitched a ride on a popular measure that gives people with mental illness better health insurance coverage. Before passing it, senators voted by an identical 74-25 margin to attach the massive bailout and the tax breaks.

(This version corrects vote breakdown of yes votes to 39 Democrats, 34 Republicans and one Independent.)

WASHINGTON — After one spectacular failure, the $700 billion financial industry bailout found a second life Wednesday, winning lopsided passage in the Senate and gaining ground in the House, whe...
WASHINGTON — After one spectacular failure, the $700 billion financial industry bailout found a second life Wednesday, winning lopsided passage in the Senate and gaining ground in the House, whe...
Filed by Dave Burdick  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
135
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: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
photo

OK------ the Senate looked like the upper chamber----they patted each other- and the repubs paid great deference to Sen. Dodd- so now the dems look good in the Senate- and our guy Sen. Obama looks even better to the American voters who will not let a six pack of budweiser come between the new rightful heir to the 1st real democratic election since 1992!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:32 AM on 10/02/2008
photo

Swing votes Ided in House (but contact the Blue Dogs too):
Their FAX Numbers in Washington offices (all area codes are 202):
Frelinghuysen 225-3186
Ramstad 225-6351
Shadegg 225-3462
LaTourette 225-3307
Hastings 225-3251
Biggert 225-9420
Becerra 225-2202
Scott 225-4628
Solis 225-5467
Berkley 225-3119
Delahunt 225-5658
Herseth/Sandlin 225-5823
Tell them:Congressional Budget Office estimates indicate that the net impact of the sweetened Senate bailout will be to add almost $150 billion to an already large deficit next year, and fiscal conservatives are being straight-armed by the Senate which has refused to do more to offset the costs. There is no fee on Wall Street transactions to reimburse the taxpayers for their $Trillion. I join Speaker Pelosi when she said in a statement Tuesday night that, “House Democrats remain strongly committed to a comprehensive bill that stabilizes the financial markets, restores confidence, and protects taxpayers, and we hope Congress can agree on legislation in the very near future." But massive deficit spending is not the answer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 AM on 10/02/2008

hmm, frankly I'm torn on this one- we recently went through the debacle formerly known as a home purchase and it was HELL. We make in excess of 500K a year, have absolutely NO debt, and have stakes in a multi-million dollar partnership. We were seeking a mortgage that represents rougly 1/8 of our income in monthly terms. It took three months and four extensions to finally get our loan approved, we were given seven or eight NEW sets of conditions before we finally got our "free to close." I was under the impression that the bank was simply hoping we would give up and go away at some point- if this was my experience, I cannot imagine how the average homebuyer with an average salary and an average credit rating could possibly hope for any credit if any kind in the current economic climate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:04 AM on 10/02/2008
- MsDoc I'm a Fan of MsDoc 49 fans permalink

It really doesn't matter what a person's income level is...the problem is the same wherever it appears on the scale.

I haven't enough economic wisdom to understand the ins and outs of this mess...maybe because I get halfway through whatever I'm reading and throw the article across he room....

But something just keeps coming back at me....how can a person ( or government ) solve a debt problem by creating MORE debt.

I was infuriated when the Senate prot i tuted itself by adding MORE debt to the package.

In a civilized world that would be called "bri bery".

And now the French want their slice of the American Pie???

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 AM on 10/02/2008

I once read a conspiracy theory, about 3 years ago that predicted this very thing. The conspiracy theory alleged that the government would create a huge financial crisis and then try to fix it by robbing the people blind. It also alleged some other things and I wish I remember what those things were. Darnit!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 AM on 10/02/2008
photo

http://tiny.cc/M8jmS it saddens my heart to beat on these crooked sumsa bitches who holed us
Two Loans

Conrad received two loans from Countrywide, one for $1 million to refinance a vacation home and another for an eight- unit apartment building in Bismarck, North Dakota, according to Portfolio. Countrywide Chairman Angelo Mozilo told an employee to ``take off one point'' from the vacation-home loan, which saved Conrad $10,700, the magazine said. The apartment loan violated Countrywide's policy of not loaning money for buildings with more than four units, Portfolio said. The story said Mozilo told an employee to make an exception for Conrad.

Dodd got two loans in 2003, borrowing $506,000 to refinance his Washington townhouse and $275,042 to refinance a house in East Haddam, Connecticut, Portfolio reported. Countrywide waived three-eighths of a point, or about $2,000, on the first loan, and one-fourth of a point, about $700, on the second, the magazine said, citing internal documents.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:38 PM on 10/01/2008
- fignozzle I'm a Fan of fignozzle 15 fans permalink
photo

i think obama, when elected, will be able to tweak the heck out of this bill....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 PM on 10/01/2008
photo

IF elected.

Obama has shown me that he's just another lackey.

I've had enough of them to last me a lifetime.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 PM on 10/01/2008
- Indubio I'm a Fan of Indubio 25 fans permalink

I agree with you but guess what pal... Obama is really the only option until we change from a two party to a multi party form of democracy. Not voting for Obama isn't an option unless you want more Bush-like policies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 PM on 10/01/2008
- AxelDC I'm a Fan of AxelDC 86 fans permalink
photo

Tax breaks and irresponsible spending are what triggered this debt crisis to begin with.

Larding up an already bloated corporate give away with more corporate give-aways hardly improves things.

How are we going to solve our debt crisis by issuing more debt?

Why is "bipartisan" considered such a wonderful thing? It just means that neither party listens to the will of the people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 PM on 10/01/2008
- Indubio I'm a Fan of Indubio 25 fans permalink

I agree with you statement on bipartisanship especially when one considers that for Republicans bipartisanship means they and Democrats lose. In this case, when we consider that we only have two viable parties to chose candidates from, bipartisanship means that neither party can point the finger at the other. All bipartisanship does is provide some degree of safety for legislators who ignore popular will. At times of course Congress should ignore popular will since they are changed with proving good governance and pandering to the will of the majority often provides the opposite.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:54 PM on 10/01/2008
- mounthood I'm a Fan of mounthood 5 fans permalink

This may be a long-shot bet -- a trillion dollar bet -- that this proposal will reverse the economy. There are experts on both sides of this issue. I think this is a better bet than Bush's bet he could pacify the Middle East with 4 trillion dollars. That bet didn't payoff.

We hire our representatives to vote what they think is best for the country -- not to take a poll and vote based on the results. Their jobs are not sinecures.

Most of us don't know diddly-squat about economics. And greed is the American way of life -- not just the prime motivator of Wall Street.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:23 AM on 10/02/2008
- MsDoc I'm a Fan of MsDoc 49 fans permalink

I'm both old and old-fashioned, but numbers at that level scare me simpler than I already am.

I have a built-in aversion to debt... and these "experts" are playing havoc with the financial futires of the US populace.

Why are we giving more money to the theives that stole it ( or mis-managed it ) in the first place?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:37 AM on 10/02/2008
- MsDoc I'm a Fan of MsDoc 49 fans permalink

I just said the same thing before reading your post. Obviously I agree with you.

I wonder if these "representatives" have any idea of how angry the American people are...or if they would care if they did know.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:31 AM on 10/02/2008
- katok I'm a Fan of katok 5 fans permalink
photo

I am torn. Obama thinks we neeed to move on this plan now based upon his speech prior to tonights vote. Kucinich still calling it a bailout for bankers. DNC sending me emails of Pigs in lipstick? Is the difference between Obama and Kucinich merely that Obama has many Wall Streeters in his ear? Will the sun rise tomorrow?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:26 PM on 10/01/2008

DENNIS HAS NEVER BEEN WRONG....He is of the people, for the people & truly by the people. Obama should have him as hi has advisor. Obama, do'nt cave in to Bush!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:00 PM on 10/01/2008

Maybe they'll pass Dennis Kucinich's bill of impeachment of Bush after this. Go Dennis

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 PM on 10/01/2008
- Samalabear I'm a Fan of Samalabear 71 fans permalink
photo

Yes, Kucinich may seem a little nutty to some, but he is definitely of the people and speaks the truth, as does Ron Paul for the Republican side. Obama has a lot of Wall Streeters in his pocket.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:51 PM on 10/01/2008
- Indubio I'm a Fan of Indubio 25 fans permalink

Include Bernie Sanders of Vermont as one with the people. But lets keep in mind that politician who speak to the people can be little more than demagogues (Huey Long comes to mind). So we have to be careful about politicians who speak to the popular will; political motives do matter.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:57 PM on 10/01/2008

The dream ticket right there: Ron Paul and Kucinich. What a shame the system doesn't allow for this. We should def. bring back the old school way of doing things: president and VP from different parties

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 AM on 10/02/2008
- joebhed I'm a Fan of joebhed 47 fans permalink
photo

Yes.

And, yes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:52 PM on 10/01/2008
- pjean I'm a Fan of pjean 12 fans permalink

Why can't someone provide "we" the people with a detailed list of how much money is going to who and why. I understand there has to be a bailout of some kind but why are NOT given an itemized bill so that we know exactly how the money is being distributed. We have a right to know.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:27 PM on 10/01/2008
- rabrophy I'm a Fan of rabrophy 22 fans permalink

BECAUSE....
Nobody knows, cept', old Hank Paulson, Cause if he came out with the truth, that he's going to bail out his old buddies on wall street , then go back to wall street in January, 2009. He'd be lynched

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 PM on 10/01/2008

Because the money is going overseas. Wait and see.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 PM on 10/01/2008
- ChrisLogan I'm a Fan of ChrisLogan 3 fans permalink

.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/01

Published on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 by The Nation
The “No BAILOUTS Act”

by John Nichols

There is nothing more frustrating than listening to defenders of fundamentally flawed bailout plan that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top Democratic and Republican leaders . . .

Pelosi's plan is based on Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's wrongheaded scheming. Democrat leaders may have tinkered a bit with the Bush aide's proposal, but certainly not enough to make it acceptable -- let alone wisely enacted.

Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio says, correctly, that the problem with the Democratic speaker's bailout measure, which the House rejected by a 228-205 vote - with progressive Democrats joining fiscally conservative Republicans to say "no" - is that it "is still built on the Paulson-Bush premise."

DeFazio, a Democratic dissenter, says that the bill Pelosi tried to get the House to back Monday demands that taxpayers take on too much of the risk which creating openings for Wall Streeters to pocket millions (perhaps billions) in federal dollars. . . .the Pelosi plan . . .still allows for what DeFazio describes as "camouflage parachutes"--hidden payouts to the corporate CEOs who created the crisis.

"We can do better," says DeFazio. "We should start again on a new package."

That's exactly what the Oregon populist is doing with a new proposal, the "No BAILOUTS Act" (Bringing Accountability, Increased Liquidity, Oversight, and Upholding Taxpayer Security). Introduced Tuesday with co-sponsorship from some of the most outspoken critics of the Paulson machinations . . .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:49 PM on 10/01/2008

This bill is no good and should be voted down. Even if you're pro-bailout we can get a better bill by throwing this one out and having the Dems come up with a new one. Unfortunately, the media wants this bill bad. Really Bad. I'm seeing at least 10 to 1 pro bailout opinions on TV. We're gonna have to call our representatives and blast their phones and emails. PLEASE call your congressmen and say no to this bill. Otherwise they will cave and this bill will pass.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 10/01/2008
photo

Wan't the world supposed to end? the market would crash and Hank Paulson would hyperventilate and his heart would pop out of his chest and explode all over Barney Frank an d Nancy Pelosi ?
Im waiting cause that would be entertainment not the crapfest Theater of the absurd that the Senate is serving up.

The longer this goes on both parties expose the banality and utter clueless ability to affect real change.
They seem incapable of thinking beyond the current crisis moment and thoughtfully consider the magnitude and consequences of their actions and how the bailout will forever alter the face of America.

Their Answer seems to take a lousy bill and heap garbage on it and make it worse until the worst possible solution's formed in the most incomprehensible form.
And we should want more of this government? I'm beginning to believe that Reagan entering his second childhood was right when he said enough less is more. and that is a scary thought indeed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 10/01/2008

The ONLY plan that is fair to taxpayers is one with stock and 2X collateral. Nothing less.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:37 PM on 10/01/2008
- avraamjack I'm a Fan of avraamjack 21 fans permalink
photo

BETTER PLAN:
.
Would it not be easier to create new banks with the .7 trillion ?
.
You could create 20 hefty banks and in 5 years sell the stock to the public.
.
This would be much more popular with the voters.
.
No more credit crisis, No moral hazard, Main Street gets loans. All stated goals are met.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 PM on 10/01/2008
- Ping I'm a Fan of Ping 63 fans permalink

This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

The Federal Government would have to run/oversee this bank and that's a major pain in the arse,

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:17 PM on 10/01/2008
- avraamjack I'm a Fan of avraamjack 21 fans permalink
photo

.
It only has to hire and maybe fire the board and top level executives.
.
Any other oversight would be what any other company would get.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:40 PM on 10/01/2008
- rrpnyc I'm a Fan of rrpnyc 2 fans permalink

Congress is rushing to make a decision under the same fear and urgency tactics used to get us into the War in Iraq. Everyone (Administration, Congress, media, Wall Street) telling us this crisis is real lost all credibility a long time ago.

What we have is a "pricing crisis". Wall Street has assets that it wants $700 billion for, when their actual value is less. If Wall Street can convince the Government to purchase these assets, then Wall Street doesn't have to report additional losses. Wall Street management is paid to get the best deal possible and to enhance shareholder value, not look out for the interests of taxpayers. I don't blame them for this. If they can get $700 billion from the Government, versus $300 billion from the market, why wouldn't they do that? Wall Street called the Administration, and said: “We're going to hold our breath until we turn blue, unless you do what we want.”

There is an old saying which goes: “If you owe the bank a million dollars the bank owns you. Owe the bank a $100 million and you own the bank.” Right now, Wall Street "owns" us, and is threatening to shut down the economy if we don't yield to its wishes. Its time to stand firm and call their bluff. It may cause some pain, but if we are going to invest $700 billion, then invest it in health care, education, jobs, and loans to homeowners in trouble.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 10/01/2008
Page: 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