What Today's Bailout Vote Says About the New Senate

The Senate today voted to give Wall Street another $350 billion today. The vote tells us a lot about the new Senate (you can see the full tally here - and remember, on this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote against releasing the $350 billion bailout tranche).

For instance, both Tom and Mark Udall (D-CO), who voted against the bailout in the House when running for the Senate, switched their votes to support the bailout. You may recall that Mark Udall said he was against the bailout not because he didn't trust George Bush, but specifically because he was against voting for a bill that had no oversight measures. And yet now he's voting for the same bailout that includes no new oversight measures. This suggests that the Udalls (like lots of political aristocracy) have absolutely no principles - that, in fact, they are the worst stereotype of politicians: The kind of people who go populist when facing election, and then goes corporatist when he's comfortably insulated in Washington.

Same thing for Jeff Merkley - he issued a very strong statement against the bailout as a candidate for Senate (again, not because he didn't trust Bush, but because he said he was conceptually against giving away money to Wall Street), and then voted for the bailout today. Again, this suggests Merkley - who I was previously convinced was a principled working-class populist - is starting his Senate career epitomizing the worst kinds of images people have of politicians - those who sound like they're for "the folks" at election time, and then who sell out "the folks" once in Washington.

So what we've learned is that lots of our new senators - even those who campaigned as populists - are already under the spell of "the most exclusive club in the world." And frankly, I don't care what their public explanations are. These are people who made airtight declarations against the bailout on a conceptual level - and then walked away from those declarations when it came time to vote. We've learned (once again) that if there's not constant pressure on lawmakers to respect the most basic campaign declarations they made, they will sell us out.

So what do we do now? Well first and foremost, we thank our lucky stars that there remain a core group of progressive senators who stuck to their guns. And then we focus on the House. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) gives us our marching orders in this Bloomberg News story:

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said he has "some doubt" Congress will approve his legislation setting terms for releasing $350 billion of financial-rescue funds because the White House's mishandling of the first half of the money has created a lack of confidence.

"The Bush administration did such a bad job of administering the first $350 billion," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, in a Bloomberg Television interview today. "There's a great deal of anger in the country" over the way the funds were handled.

So this means if you don't want to see your tax dollars once again given away to Wall Street fat cats, you have to get in touch with your House member ASAP and tell them to stop the kleptocracy. Make your voice heard.

Comments

[fatnugly]

I like the bailout I'm glad they approved it and I don't mind the hypocrisy I think if left to their own devices in this case the American people would make the wrong decision.

[Javelin 17]

Doesn't necessarily mean they were lying about opposing the lack of oversight -- they could have merely been lying about not not trusting Bush.

[HTooley]

I just sent this to my Congressman...

What is troubling about what I see with the approval of these funds without transparency is the "same old, same old". I, like a majority of voters, voted for change. The status quo is no longer acceptable.

The long term cost of these bailout funds (and in the near future, the stimulus package) is enormous, and will be borne by our children and by us as well. If we fail now, the cost of eventual success becomes even greater (and risker), taking a larger and larger toll on our nation and it's people.

For money to be spent wisely, it requires accountability. And since we have squandered so much for so little, the costs will be enormous. So with the billions, perhaps trillions to be invested, the return on our investment has to be great to be able to provide our nation a decent future. If this 'seed' money ends up in the hands of the greedy, then the future of this country will be bleak indeed.

You've gotta make us believe that a change is taking place in regards to the bailout and the stimulus package. In this regard, this was not a good week for our Congress. I expect a change in words and deeds. This Congress is going to held accountable by the people. So Congress better start demanding accountability or it will be left "holding the bag".

[davidwayneosedach]

I have no doubt that Most House members have their hand oput for a piece of the pie.

[Ben Dixon]

You know the old saying "don't send an honest man to Congress, it will just ruin him".

[1murillo]

There's a saying for any circumstance imaginable.

What about, "Don't believe everything you read"

"Don't cry over spilled milk"

"Your vote is your voice"?

[1murillo]

Sirota is purposefully misrepresenting what the vote was about. He can be a good reporter but oftentimes (like in this case) he takes the simplest view and advertises it to his readers.

It's true that the second half of the $700,000,000,000 from September will be released because of this vote. And it's true that few other provisions were included in the new legislation.

But the Obama administration (that is, the incoming administration) has been working at all levels to ensure that their plans to monitor the loans and to focus the monies toward foreclosures and regional banks will be understood.

It's juvenile to think that a Congress can scrap the existing bill and write/pass another in a reasonable time. If we all went back to the 'drawing board' now, the criticism would be, "They should have accepted the money and moved forward from there."

So it goes, blogging off the handle is the quickest and easiest way to vent misunderstanding, yet it rarely provides solutions.

[RhodaA]

You're totally right, 1murillo; and Sirota is very wrong on this one. Obama is not Bush and nobody expects him to be like Bush. Obama administration sent a letter to Congress about the intentions for the money. To deny these funds to Obama (especially right before the inauguration) would be a hijacking. Congress would be badly blamed and I, for one, would also blame them terribly.

[ignorantwillyharper]

90% of all people sent to and taking a seats in congress are honest when they arrive, that is for about twenty mintues. Then when shown how money and power works, they too become part of criminal element.
Old Adage: Never vote for the same politican twice.

[1murillo]

ignorantwi­llyharper, your "Never vote for the same politician twice" is too simple. Using your guide as a voting public, we'd have freshmen Reps every 2 years and revolving Senate seats.

Address the problem as you understand it, if you think politicians are the foundation then wait until you see every college kid vying for office because few others will be eligible or willing to spend 2 years in a seat.

[hollybork]

Unfortunately, the banks have grown too big to be allowed to fail and they need to be recapitalized.
A failure now will cause a run on the banks and the whole thing could go down like a house of cards.

We are in the situation and we will have to put our finger in the whole in the proverbial dike until we can significantly change the system.

Obama cannot change the system until the government acts aggressively to:
1) prosecute all the thieves in government and finance who ripped the system off on Wall Street, on Main Street, in Iraq, in order to restore the trust of the American people in a fair playing field;
2) rebuild legal fire walls around risk taking (where is the Glass Stengel Act when you need it?);
3) outlaw the securitization of certain risks - for instance, make Credit Default Swaps illegal;
4) imposing consistent & reasonable underwriting standards for mortgage lending;
5) reimplement anti trust laws to break up huge financial corporations that are too big to fail
6) impose reasonable reserve requirements to control outsized risk
7) eliminate short selling
8) impose bonus and compensation limitations upon executives of banks and public corporations;
9) regulate the derivative market
10) Set a limit on interest rates to prevent gouging and usury by mortgage and credit card companies.

[ran6110]

OK, for many decades the president, congress and politicians in general have relied on the voters to:

1. Get irate.
2. Scream, yell and thump their chest.
3. Expect someone else to do the work.
4. See something shiny and get distracted.
5. Move on to the next outrage.

Well, everyone is following the game plan by the numbers.

If the taxpayers don't get up and actually do something then nothing will change!!!

Go to Congress.org and find your Congressional representatives and send them your views and opinions (be polite).



http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt



If you don't tell Congress what you want and how you feel they'll just do like they always do and listen to their rich friends, lobbyist and the special interest groups.



When was the last time you saw a member of Congress at the local grocery store and was truly asked for your opinion?

[theplaintrutho1]

Of course Mr. Sirota is being somewhat deceptive in his piece, as He knows PE Obama needs that money from the start of His presidency and went to the house personally and sold them on the idea to release the rest of it now, so he wouldn't have to wait two months to get it.

Myself, like Mr. Sirota have disdains for these politicians that float with the political-winds. One of the reasons I'm always speaking against Hillary. I think all their feet should be held to the fire unless they genuinely change their thoughts on a subject with good reason and explanation. Since most don't we have to place the blame where it belongs. The voters and complacent MSM.

[beef33]

My congresswoman here in NH Carol Shea-Porter voted against both versions. she is a new type of politician who is not so much a smooth talker as a person with courage not afraid to take on the elitist establishment. We need more of her. We need to stand up to this garbage. This bailout is garbage. Obama is bought and paid for with the 745 million he took while running. There needs to be a movement outside of the red and blue corporate run dog and pony show. A populist progressive movement. That is the only way. Believe it.

[1murillo]

Anti-corporatism rears its head every so often. We can count on Nader's run to say, "Republicrats" and then when there's a disagreement, we sometimes hear "Corporations are evil!"

There are reasons - including the election - that people change votes. Expecting a Rep to vote exactly the same as when that person's a Senator misunderstands "representation."

It's stupid to think that an official should vote exactly the same way every time an issue unfolds (an example of consistency is GWB's unchanging simple world view).

beef, Shea-Porter's obstinance appears to be part of the continuing, "If I stick my head in the sand, no problems will exist" crowd. She should be more intrepid.

[beef33]

Well no not really. She voted against those bailouts because of her courage. Obama lobbied her hard the second time aroundand she held fast. Not enough oversight too much of a giveaway. In addition when she first ran she had no money no one gave her a chance in the primary. she was all grass roots. she connected then she took on Jeb bradley the incumbent and no one gave her a chance there. she beat him. then she beat him again. Really she does not have her "head in the sand". She kept a teen center in Dover open they tried to shut down. so kids could have a place to go. my girlfriends son loves the place. otherwise he would be in trouble. she is a real person I guess is my point. And really corporate america is evil for the most part. look around you. Why should AIG, citicorp, bank of america, etc. treat the treasury like it is an atm machine. Those fuckheads get to play with house money. All sirota and carol shea are saying is "enough is enough". Don't stick your own head in the sand follow that money.

[CatfishJohn]

the corporate plutocracy wins again!.....after a few adjustments to the superficial '"accoutriments" of an obama white house- basketball, cute little kids, a hip, intelliegent prez as opposed to a cowboy- good 'ol boy, lip service to black history- the mainstream corporate media will again resume their role as the Pravda of the ongoing, overriding plutocrati­c/corporat­e agenda- middle class and poor be damned!

[ProudLiberalDan]

Well, David, you makes some good points.

I see three possible courses of action:

(1) Form or join a new party that refuses to accept corporate campaign money as a matter of principle and has this requirement of all candidates.

(2) In the same way that candidates were asked to make "term limit pledges" in the 90's, ask all Democrats running the primaries to take a "no corporate campaign money" pledge. Only candidates who are elected without corporate money will find they are not beholden to them after getting elected.

(3) Complain, yet apologize for the Democrats at election time telling people who are upset that they have no alternative, then complain after the election again when the same thing happens again.

----------­----------­-----

I suggest (2) , then (1) if (2) doesn't work.

[Imabachi]

The Greens have never taken money from the corporates as they know the consequences, and we're certainly seeing the results. What we now have is Fascism. That fact should be obvious to every clear-thinking individual in the country.

[ran6110]

I think Lawrence Lessig has started what your after, please visit

http://change-congress.org/

Here's some of what they say:

"Here at Change Congress, we believe that politicians should work for the people, not special interests. But it’s not enough to push politicians to stay out of the system of corruption—we have to reform the system itself. That’s why we support a hybrid of small-dollar donations and public financing, to keep big money out of politics."

[Oldbuck]

Let put it this way who in his right want to prolong this depression and Obama has convinced me he will be transparent in where the money goes and why that a hell of a lot more than the Republican and Bush administration did for their half of the bail out. Bush has shoved so much stuff down our throats I don't think people know how to act anymore. For you so called conservatives where in the hell where you for the last eight years when the damages was really being done and Bush was deregulating Wall Street.

[grateful4thedead]

Here's the deal people, coming from a Repub finance guy who voted for Obama.

1. The pigs of my ilk caused this mess via their greed and irresponsible risk taking. Let's get that out of the way because it's pretty hard to argue otherwise.

2. Those same pigs likely did nothing illegal, though, again, it was incredibly imprudent risk taking.

3. My ilk, the Repubs, turned their heads and let the wall street pigfarm run wild. Bush is responsible and I would like to point out Cox at SEC as well, most notably for allowing leverage to run to 40.

We are stuck in this present horrific state and for those that don't understand financial institutions and balance sheets, please understand that the banks still are on the edge. If you don't buy that, fine, so be it. If you do buy it, then you understand that a collapse of the financial system would have repercussions that are unimaginable and would cause substantial harm to most Americans (and the rest of the world).

It's tough to see those who created this mess get off with it and have trillions (not a typo) directed their way but there is no alternative, save the collapse of our financial system.

I don't like it any better than you do. Those that voted to release tarp 2 are smart enough to know that they did the right thing for our country in the face of negative political fallout.

[overd0g1]

To some degree the "pigs of your ilk caused this". That is if you mean "American citizens" by the "pigs of your ilk". If the loans hadn't been agreed to by the stupid and/or greedy borrowers, the crisis wouldn't have occurred. They are adults, and they are responsible.

[1murillo]

Your, "stupid and/or greedy borrowers" are all of us. If we all were as farsighted and humble as you suggest adults should be - perhaps that's how you are - then we would have stopped dealing with BofA, WaMu, Citi, Countrywide, AIG, BearStearns, Morgan Stanley, Chase, etc. long ago.

Now that the economy is sinking and jobs are evaporating, perhaps you're next because whatever situation you're in depends on others to maintain itself. If you lose your job - say because few buy the product your company makes - then you are immediately a "greedy and stupid" one.

[Chaimirija]

stupid maybe, but the greed was on the part of the salesmen AND THEY PROFITED NO MATTER WHAT