The Math
Given that the House GOP didn’t deliver the 80 (or whatever) votes that Democrats were making substantive concessions in order to achieve, now I really don’t see why the Democratic leadership doesn’t tear this thing up and start writing a progressive bill. Not only might that produce a good outcome in the end, but it also seems to me like the thing that would be most likely to convince recalcitrant House Republicans to get with the program in order to preempt something more left-wing.
UPDATE: Ramesh Ponnuru says:
If I Were Pelosi [Ramesh Ponnuru]
I would figure out if there were a bill to the left of the one the House just voted on that could pass on a party-line vote and reassure the markets.
People are always talking about how Ramesh is one of the smartest conservative writers out there.
UPDATE II: Brad DeLong says “Bring Congress Back into Session After the Election … and go for the Swedish plan: nationalize the insolvent large financial institutions: dare Bush to veto that after the election.”
60 Responses to “The Math”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 29th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Maybe they don’t want to.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Maybe they don’t want to.
Indeed.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
How many progressive dems voted no? Can they be brought on board by a more progressive bill?
September 29th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Can you explain why there is a chance of a more progressive bill passing if this one can’t?
September 29th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
You have too much faith. I’m really starting to lose any kind of confidence in Pelosi and Reid. They should probably just do whatever Bush wants them to do, as usual.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
No, the Democrats should entirely trust the Republicans once again when they promise to do what Democrats really would like them to do.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
What happened to Mr “I’m suspending my campaign until we have a bipartisan bill”?
Obama comes out of this slightly better.
Bush is more than a lame duck … no President has been lamer since Buchanan. The Democrats need to step up, and fast!
September 29th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I understand the sentiment, Matt, but remember ya gotta get 60 in the Senate.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Republican’s are sticking to the talking point that they would have voted for this, if only Nancy hadn’t given a speech.
It’s madness!
September 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Why would a more progressive bill prevent a more left-wing bill?
September 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Not only might that produce a good outcome in the end, but it also seems to me like the thing that would be most likely to convince recalcitrant House Republicans to get with the program in order to preempt something more left-wing.
Except that the House Republicans don’t care about the program. All they want is a campaign issue.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Do you really need 60 in the senate for this sort of money bill? Or just 50 like the budget?
September 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
No bill should be passed until Paulson resigns and is replaced by a Democrat. If Democrats have to fund the bail-ou. a Democrat should run it.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Let the markets implode until the Republicans receive finer rhetoric! Deference, please.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
This was the plan all along. The Repubs negotiated in bad faith. Why is everyone panicking? Three weeks ago everyone thought the R’s were lying bastards- now we have incontrovertible proof.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Nay votes: GOP 134, Dems 94, total 228
Quick, somebody tell Matt: Wall Street doesn’t pay Schumer, Dodd, Frank, Reid, Pelosi, Reid, etc. to pass “progressive” bills
September 29th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I was on the compromise/political cover side of this originally, but I’m starting to see the wisdom of the “You thought this was socaialism?! F-it, we’ll show you some socialism!” approach.
However, I’m not sure the votes are there for a progressive solution if they’re not here for the compromise? Do we have much evidence of Dems voting against because of no stimulus or homeowner protection or whatever?
September 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Re ““You thought this was socaialism?! F-it, we’ll show you some socialism!” approach.”
—————
Like i said earlier, it’s not too late for the patented
“Don Williams $2 Trillion Income SurTax on Rich Motherfuckers” (copyright)
September 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
What would be part of a more progressive plan?
September 29th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
otto, you need 60 for everything in the Senate, so long as the other side is willing to filibuster. (Which the GOP always is.)
September 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
If they’re doing their job, they already have one.
The senate shouldn’t be a problem. There should be at least a dozen Republicans there that stand to lose more money than their senate seat is worth to them.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
But the Democrats will not jump off a cliff all on their own. It’s an empty threat. We can let things burn for six more weeks, elect President Obama, and then dare to Bush to veto a Sweden-style plan.
I think the best way forward would be for Blue Dogs to get their friends who are lobbyists for businesses other than the financial sector to go tell more Republicans that they need to vote for this bill.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
It’s win-win for the rank&file Republicans in the house. They get to run on killing the bill, and they discredit their caucus leader. They hate Boehner, and want him out.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Brad DeLong floated a nationalization plan. I would assume there also be stuff to protect homeowners etc. Maybe a stimulus package as well?
September 29th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I don’t disagree that a more progressive bill would be ideal, but how would such a bill pass? Is the President going to sign it? Could the Democrats possibly get a veto-proof majority on a more progressive bill?
September 29th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
No, you don’t need 60 Senate votes for the budget. Not sure where this bill stands.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
“How many progressive dems voted no? Can they be brought on board by a more progressive bill?”
That’s the key question, and the answer is probably no (it wouldn’t be more likely to pass). Most of the left wing people that I recognize got behind the bill. A progressive bill would have 100% GOP opposition, in addition to spineless opportunistic Dem opposition and conservative Dem opposition. Same thing in the Senate. The idea that this emergency is a way to ram a liberal program through that wouldn’t get through at some other time is delusional.
A progressive bill would also have to get out from under this black cloud of being known as a “Wall Street bailout”. But in order to change the political frame of the measure, you’d lose much of the market-calming effects. Alas this current mediocre bill is probably the best feasible way to help “Main St” and the financial system at the same time.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
David F- as Krugman said, dare him to veto it. He’s not exactly in a strong position after his own caucus gave him the extended middle finger.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
The Answer: Blue Dog Democrats
It’s a big group and they’re more quote/unquote fiscally conservative than much of the GOP caucus. House.gov is down so I can’t see a roll call, but I’d wager that many of the nay votes came from these people from the right, not the left, and most of them are in hard-to-defend seats on top of that.
No clue why anyone expected the GOP to deliver 80 or 100 votes. The whip and deputy whip spent the whole week bemoaning the bill and the most compelling reason Boehner gave his caucus in an attempt at getting votes was saying something like, “It might be a shit sandwich, but it’s my shit sandwich!” Anyway, I predicted there’d be little GOP support yesterday morning, and the powers that be in the market clearly saw the writing on the wall as well with otherwise unexplained drops this morning… that was probably pricing in substantive GOP opposition leading to confusion during the Senate vote.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I’m with those who would like to see a more progressive bill, but wonder if it will fare any better. BTW, the dichotomy of “progressive” v. “more left-wing” doesn’t work, IMO, because in the republican mind “progressive” = “left-wing.”
September 29th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Bring Congress Back into Session After the Election … and go for the Swedish plan: nationalize the insolvent large financial institutions…
I’m with DeLong here, but, Democrats have to refrain from being so fucking stupid. Don’t call it “nationalization.” Call it “federal restructuring” or somesuch. “Nationalization” sounds positively satanic to large swathes of this country. Moreover, in many (most?) cases, the government won’t need to actually take a majority stake in the firms in question. Indeed, to assuage American sensibilities, you could arrange it so that whenever the required capital injection were so large as to mean majority government ownership, the bank in question could be folded or merged with another institution.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
It’s win-win for the rank&file Republicans in the house. They get to run on killing the bill, and they discredit their caucus leader. They hate Boehner, and want him out.
I still don’t see how it helps. The first time they stand up to Bush is when the economy is going down in flames?
September 29th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
They’re counting on either the flames not being so bad in November, or that the bill will eventually pass without their votes.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
People are always talking about how Ramesh is one of the smartest conservative writers out there.
He is. Isn’t that sad?
September 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Yeah, do the Swedish thing. Actually consult with someone that knows something like Roubini. BTW: his site is a freebie at the moment. Check it out.
And call it just part of the ownership society. Now we all have a piece of pie. Or rock. Or whatever.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“I’d wager that many of the nay votes came from these people from the right, not the left, and most of them are in hard-to-defend seats on top of that.”
My Blue Dog from rural Georgia in an R+8 district that he won by less than 1% in 2006 not only voted for it but gave a speech in favor of it today. Not sure exactly what he was thinking.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
You might lose that wager, Zach. From what I’ve heard — still hearsay, though — most of the Dem nays were fairly left, and a lot were black or Hispanic.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
There’s also a report that Pelosi told people to go vote their consciences when it looks like the Republicans weren’t coming through.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
The Dem nay votes are either a) in a tight race, or b) on the left side, seeing this as a blank check.
I would LOVE to see a new pass and be filibustered, bc Reid would damn well make them take the floor and do it for real. Then it would be pass-the-popcorn time.
But I do think it’s either a quickie done by Thursday, or the 3rd week of November.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
They’re counting on either the flames not being so bad in November, or that the bill will eventually pass without their votes.
But it’s still a gamble, no? Isn’t obstructionist a dirty name?
September 29th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Why wouldn’t Bush veto it? What does he have to lose? The rhetoric that he’s invested in getting a deal passed in the first place? Big deal.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
This Paulson plan amounts to jumping through a lot of hoops to give vast sums of money to the investment banks, or whatever they are today, while protecting the interests of the stockholders and executives. They should all get the AIG/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac treatment and that is a conservatorship with the execs fired and the shareholders SOL when the taxpayers recapitalize the entity and later sell the shares to recover the taxpayers investment.
September 29th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Don’t you need something quick? Even if the Swedish plan is adopted, you need to be executing it very quickly, e.g. FDIC inspectors sent out that night and reorgs finished fast. Would this President do that? We might need to wait til 1/20.
There’s another catch. There are really smart people in the financial industry and the longer we have to wait for a perfect plan, the more gaming of the perspective plan will go on.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I notice that no one has suggested that the “no” vote was because the GOP actually thought that the bill was a, you know, bad idea.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Considering how fundamentally, well, silly the GOP alternative bill was, I’m not surprised that nobody’s really taking their reasons for voting against the bill seriously.
And Bush certainly does have an incentive to vote for a bill, socctty. Right now he still thinks his place in history might be salvageable. But if the economy crashes and burns, he goes down as Herbert Hoover 2 no matter what.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
If Kucinich voted against it we can go more progressive.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:40 am
NEW YORK (AP) — Sen. Charles Schumer plans to hold a statewide Internet lottery to handle the deluge of New Yorkers wanting to attend President-elect Barack Obama’s historic inauguration. Schumer, who has received nearly 100,000 ticket
March 1st, 2009 at 5:53 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:49 pm
cialis
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:49 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:34 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:33 am
thanks !! very helpful post! viagra