Congress has apparently reached a deal on the financial crisis. I won't have to travel to Washington after all, and may now resume blogging, after a brief suspension of all work-related activities.
Regarding that earlier -- and difficult -- decison, my boss informed me that suspending my normal work activities during the crisis would lead to suspending my paycheck, an unforeseen development. So I very much welcome the news that a deal has been reached on the bailout.
I also welcome the prospect of tomorrow night's opening presidential debate being held on schedule. Pending further crises, of course. And perhaps John McCain can find time to meet with David Letterman.
Who knew you had such pull, the mere threat of going to Washington and they got down to business, and we were so much looking forward to getting your blog from the lawn of the White House.
Unlike you Russ, Senator McCain is actually being paid to represent the people of his state in the U.S. Congress and it's his job to be there to work on legislation such as this.
What you were initially offering to do was what Senator Obama has already been doing: keep collecting a paycheck while taking a vacation from work to pursue his next job.
Before we pin any more medals on Sen. McCain for doing his Senate job, consider this:
As of Sept. 9, 2008, Sen. McCain had missed 63.8% of the Senate votes in the current Congress. That gave him the worst Senate attendance record in the 110th Congress.
Obama was not much better. His attendance record was third-worst in the Senate. He missed 45.5% of the votes.
That said, both these senators are running for president and their current "job" is campaigning around the country to meet as many voters as possible and have their ideas and proposals tested on the campaign trail. Most Senate business is routine by comparison.
Given the extraordinary financial crisis the nation is in, it makes sense for both candidates to be in Washington, D.C., right now.
But we need to cut them some slack when it comes to Senate attendance records. Do you want your nominees spending all their time in the Senate, or campaiging nationally for the nation's most important job? That's a no-brainer for me.
When their votes are needed in the Senate, both have jets to get them to D.C. in time for the rollcall.
You can fairly criticize anyone for not doing their jobs.
Russ' post was satirizing McCain for actually doing his job.
Not really. McCain "suspending" his campaign actually has nothing to do with doing his job. It was just another political ploy to make it look like he was doing something about the crisis, while trying to get out of or postpone a debate that he wasn't prepared for. Looks like it pretty much backfired.
It read:
"Without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold," Bush said as he worked to resurrect the unpopular bailout package. "Our entire economy is in danger."
I say:
I don’t think many, even in Congress, realize the magnitude of the danger. I tend to try and discern worse case scenarios (byproduct of having bad luck all the time) and I don’t think I even realize the extent of the domino effect that will occur.
It read:
This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe."
I say:
Call me goofy but if this country, and state for that matter, actually did this all the time, I truly believe we wouldn’t be in this situation on the federal, state and local level.
As an observer of history and human behavior:
It is very surreal to feel and have the same type of thoughts that my grandparent’s did when they faced the Depression as adults. Kind of like looking down the barrel of a loaded shotgun with a stranger’s finger on the trigger, huh.
Tony,
The people actually get more value from Obama then McCain.
Obama can help work with legislators as well as be involved in his campaign.
On the other hand McCain has suspended his camapaign. Campaign supporters did not give him money for him to bail out because of a bail out.
History will show that we have had campaigns durring the depression, WWI, and WWII without candidates suspending themselves like McCain.
McCain is showing his age by not being able to do multiple tasks.
Mike(D) Using your analysis...then Obummer is trying to make it look like he's doing nothing about the crisis?K.T...you're not goofy.Goofy makes much more sense.I've looked down the barrel of a gun twice in my life and both time it was no stranger's finger on the trigger so I don't get the analogy and exactly what thoughts and feelings are you having.Sometimes just saying them out loud helps.I'm listening.
Carl Marx is laughing at our country from his grave.
Capitalism socailized by the people at the initiative of the Republicans?
Let the sky fall, forget this 700 billion bailout.
Brian, Obama is doing what he needs to do, without injecting presidential politics into the negotiations. Isn't it curious that the deal that was brokered by Bush and Congress fell apart after McCain went back to Washington to "help"?
Mike, the "deal that was brokered by Bush and Congress" was garbage. If McCain's trip to Washington created the opening for House Republicans and other opponents to be heard then that's exactly the kind of help we needed.
If you have a better plan, let's see it. I don't like it either, but the alternative could be far worse. The last time we let you "free-market" Republicans handle a major Wall Street meltdown, we ended up with the Great Depression.
Mike, any plan would be better if it addressed an actual problem.
That's common sense step 1: define the problem. You say there's been a "Wall Street meltdown," whatever in the world you mean by that. Has the stock market crashed? No. Has the U.S. economy stopped growing? No. Is there a specific liquidity crisis among financial sector institutions that is limiting their ability to make extremely short-term inter-bank loans (overnight loans etc.)? Yes.
Common sense step 2: identify the cause. Has more than a tiny minority of borrowers at all levels of the economy defaulted on any of their loans? No. Have the fundamental assets and cash flows of any of these banks declined recently? No. Have the government's 'mark-to-market' requirements for valuing mandatory reserves made banks excessively vulnerable to market price fluctuations of their assets? Yes. Are those asset values being affected by fraud, mismanagement and corruption at the Congressionally-protected housing titans FNMA & FDMC? Yes.
Step 3: address the actual cause of the problem.
The Paulson plan had two parts. The first part was to have the government purchase all of the country's mortgage-backed securities that were underperforming or otherwise impossible-to-value. This would solve the liquidity problem by creating certainty for the banks' balance sheets.
The second part of Paulson's plan was to re-capitalize the banks with massive infusions of cash. This would solve a 'problem' that doesn't exist.
It is not a given that the government is responsible for managing the economy. It is certainly not a given that the government should use taxpayer money to provide liquidity to private markets. And it is absolutely not government's responsibility to capitalize private banks.
The ideas that 'government' will 'participate in upside profits, if any' and the 'net cost' will be 'much less than $700 billion' do not in any way mitigate those core principles.
Want a better plan than Paulson's? Try the House alternative being shared by U.S. Reps. Cantor, Ryan & Hesserling. It's easy to find. Just don't look for it in the Bee.
My understanding is the meeting melted down when all the Democrat leadership deferred so that Obummer could look presidential and speak.Clueless as usual he starts lecturing everyone and the #$%# hit the fan.Rich is right...the deal stinks and the only hope we have is the House Republicans.Loan money...don't give it away,cut the capital gains tax to zero and solve this thing without taxpayer dollars at risk.I think Paulson is trying to take us on a ride we don't want to go on.The Dems want a few Reps on board so they don't take all the heat for this stupid bailout should it happen."Mickey D" points out correctly that the Dems need zero Reps to shove this down our throat so why the delay?