Archive for September 2008
Not The End Of The Legislative Process
President Bush has just pledged to the American people that the legislative process will continue in an attempt to find a plan to bail out Wall Street that is acceptable to a majority in Congress.
The president’s remarks were directed as much toward Congress as to the rest of the nation. Warning that the result of inaction is that the American people will suffer.
“The reality is that we are in an urgent situation,” he said.
“If our nation continues on this course the economic damage will be painful and lasting.”
Bush seems to be trying to redirect the focus of the bailout from Wall Street to the American people, many of whom feel resentment that the financial industry would be saved from ruin while they are left to struggle.
“We’re facing.” the president said, “a choice between action and the real aspect of economic hardship for many Americans.”
Congress is in recess today for Rosh Hashana. But the president says members of his administration will be working with congressional leaders today in an attempt to get the legislative process back on track tomorrow.
“Congress must act,” he declared.
“The sooner we address the problem the sooner we can get back on the path of growth and job creation.”
It’s clear that if a bailout plan stands any chance of succeeding, Americans must be convinced that it’s really a bill to protect them, not Wall Street fat cats.
Did Hurt Feelings Torpedo Bailout Plan?
“The crisis is still with us.”
So declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose scathing speech near the end of the debate on the bill, blaming Pres. Bush for the economic crisis facing the nation, apparently convinced a dozen Republican members of Congress to vote “no” on a compromise bailout plan that had bipartisan support.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) chided those who may have voted against the bill because of the Pelosi speech.
“Because somebody hurt their feelings they decided to punish the country,” he charged.
“Give me those 12 names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nice to them.”
No Movement On 9/11 Health Bill
Congress is doing a fine job quickly getting a bill through the process to bailout the ailing financial system in the United States. It’s too bad it can’t put a little bit of that effort toward helping those who were sickened as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
After all, it’s “only” been seven years since the terrorists hit New York, Shanksville and Washington.
Today, four members of Congress from New York, two Republicans and two Democrats, are expressing “regret” that HR 7174, the revised bipartisan 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, will not be able to move to passage in these, the waning days of the current House session.
Democrats Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler, and Republicans Vito Fossella and Peter King, have issued a joint statement pledging to renew their efforts to get legislation passed during the next session.
The $11 billion bill would assure treatment of firefighters, medics, police officers, construction workers, clean-up crews, residents, people who work near Ground Zero and school children who are now sick as a result of exposure to toxins from the World Trade Center site. Although most live in the New York/New Jersey area, some 10,000 people from all 50 states responded to Ground Zero to assist in the search and rescue, recovery and clean up of the site. Many are sick. Others are concerned they will still fall ill.
In addition, more than 400,000 people are believed to have been exposed to toxins from the World Trade Center site. The Congress members say nearly 16,000 responders and at least 2,700 residents or people working in lower Manhattan are sick and receiving treatment. More than 40,000 responders are currently in medical monitoring; 71,000 more are enrolled in the WTC Health Registry.
The bill would have assured compensation for those who suffered economic losses as a result of their WTC-related illnesses.
Today’s Vote Fraught With Political Danger
Members of Congress are faced with a difficult situation today.
They’ve been told by Pres. Bush and some noted economists that if they don’t vote for the Wall Street bailout plan that was hurriedly put together the past several days there will be panic in the financial world and banks won’t be able to lend money to keep the economy rolling.
Yet there is widespread constituent dissatisfaction over the bailout. Many Americans resent the government spending $700 billion to save the financial institutions that approved and made loans that are now in default. But is doing nothing to help those who took out the loans.
It’s a classic clash of class.
Leaders of both political parties worked out a plan that they insist sets limits. CEOs of troubled financial institutions would see their salaries capped. And there would be strict oversight to ensure that, this time, the money would be well invested.
If the investments fail, the financial institutions would pay the government back through fees or taxes in five years. Of course, presumably, if things continued to sour, they wouldn’t be in a position to pay back the money. On the other hand, if there’s an economic upswing, this could turn out to be a good investment for the government, which could later sell the assets it would be purchasing at a profit.
In the end, what was approved is a compromise. It’s not exactly what the president first proposed. And it didn’t include everything members of each party wanted.
The House is expected to vote on the proposal today. Congress is in recess tomorrow for Rosh Hashana. But the Senate would vote on the measure as early as Wednesday.
The haste in which this process is being conducted, perhaps, under the circumstances, necessary, puts the American people in a position of having to trust a Congress whose approval rating is already low, to do the right thing.
Bailout Plan Reached, Now What?
Congressional leaders announced they had reached a $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan early this morning. But few details were initially released.
There are, however, reportedly, some safeguards to protect the taxpayers. The plan includes the establishment of an insurance program for mortgage-backed securities that was pushed through by House Republicans.
The concern here is that Congress rushed through this plan so quickly that there may be some key deficiencies.
Some financial analysts had insisted that it was necessary to expedite the process and get it done before Monday trading on the Asian markets. They said as the Asian markets lead, Wall Street will follow. A plan in place before trading began, they argued, stabilizes the markets.
Hopefully Congress has righted things enough that the markets will begin rebounding and the backward slide in the economy will cease. And, hopefully, there are guarantees that this financial history won’t repeat itself.
If so, the focus will now likely shift toward the issue of retribution for those to blame. The FBI is investigating. The results of those efforts are at least as equally awaited as was the congressional bailout plan.
Who Won The Debate? Perhaps The Voters
The first 2008 presidential debate is over and, the morning after the night before finds a raging secondary debate being conducted. Over who “won” last night’s verbal dual.
In The McCain Obama 2008 Debate Room in Paltalk Studio A on Paltalk.com, voters were given the opportunity to share their own reactions. The lively discussion lasted into the wee hours of Saturday morning.
“Obama wiped the floor with McCain,” one Democratic said.
“Everyone is saying McCain won,” was the comment of a Republican.
But does it really matter who “won” the debate? Was that the purpose? To determine who is the better debater? Or is reason they debate to clarify their positions to the American people?
In some areas, the two, naturally, disagreed. In a few, there was agreement. And in several, what they agreed upon was that they “fundamentally disagreed.”
There was also opportunity for each candidate to correct or clarify accusations made by the other.
If one was listening closely, one heard that John McCain and Barack Obama both basically favor a bailout of Wall Street and checks and balances to prevent a recurrence of the financial mess the nation faces. Details remained elusive. So they settled on differing over the reason for the crisis.
McCain made the most dramatic suggestion about how to better prioritize the federal budget as a result of the nation’s financial woes, by cutting out huge amounts of spending … a “spending freeze” is what he called it. Obama countered that would be “using a sledge hammer when you need a scalpel.” This is the kind of fundamental difference that could help someone who is undecided determine who to vote for.
Common Ground In Pre-Debate Debate
Democratic and Republican political strategists Hank Sheinkopf and Jeffrey Wisenfeld sounded like two brothers with different mothers as they verbally clashed on News Talk Online on Paltalk over whether Barack Obama or John McCain should be elected president. But on one issue they agreed completely.
“They should be put in jail,” Democrat Sheinkopf declared, referring to those responsible for the nation’s economic mess.
“Absolutely,” responded Republican Wisenfeld.
Of course, on other issues, the partisans differed. Sheinkopf believes America is not well liked around the world, and that an Obama administration would go far to change that image.
Wisenfeld believes McCain is better suited to protect the nation from its enemies.
Wisenfeld also predicts that McCain will surprise those expecting Obama to handily win tonight’s presidential debate. Time will tell whether that will happen. But, clearly, McCain has a lot more to gain, and Obama more to lose.
Rushing To Fix The Economy
Less than 24 hours after Pres. Bush called for quick congressional action on his economic bailout plan, competing counter proposals were introduced.
Wow, can Congress act quickly when it wants. How our elected representatives can introduce quick solutions to a complex and long-to-mature financial crisis while dragging its feet for years on other issues, like, for example, a revamping of the nation’s health care system defies understanding.
As the government seeks to fix the problem one thing remains consistent. The nation was put in this position by people playing with other people’s money. And the proposed bailouts would be with other people’s money as well … ours.
While everyone agrees the nation is in financial crisis and something needs to be done, everyone should take a deep breath and slow down for a moment.
Let’s give economists opportunity to read, digest and respond to the various proposals. Let’s give the commentators time to explain them to the public. Most importantly, let’s give the public a chance to understand what’s being proposed and to make their feelings known to their representatives.
Democratic, GOP Strategists On News Talk Online
Sheinkopf
Two political strategists, one Democrat, the other Republican, will be my guests Friday September 26 on News Talk Online on Paltalk.com to talk about the presidential race and John McCain’s decision to suspend campaigning due to the economic crisis facing the nation.
Hank Sheinkopf has been a political, public affairs and governmental relations consultant for nearly 30 years. He has worked on political campaigns and issue campaigns in four continents, 10 foreign nations, in addition to more than 600 domestic political and issue campaigns in 46 American states.
Sheinkopf was a member of President Clinton’s re-election media team producing ads for the only Democratic president re-elected since FDR.
Economists Oppose Bush Bailout Plan
Last night, Pres. Bush made an impassioned plea in an address to the American people for swift action on his Wall Street bailout plan. Which he says needs, and is getting, bipartisan support.
The president used dire language to underscore the need for quick action. Asserting that the “entire economy is in danger.”
He needs to sell the $700 billion plan to the American people, because so many citizens are phoning and writing their representatives saying they are opposed to it. And many, on both sides of the congressional aisle, are expressing reservations.
A poll suggests that about one-third of Americans support the plan. One-third oppose it. And the final third are confused about it and undecided.
Among those not confused are 166 economists from colleges and universities across the United States who are in the second third, and are staunchly opposed.
They’ve signed a letter addressed to the House and Senate, explaining why it’s not good for the nation.
While they agree with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s assessment that the current financial situation is “difficult” and there is need for “bold action” to ensure that the economy will continue to function, they see three “fatal pitfalls” in his plan.
First, they say in their letter, it is unfair.
“The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense,” they write. “Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses.”
