Sirota’s Bailout
David Sirota says I’ve mischaracterized what he said back in October about the $700 billion financial system rescue package:
But the progressive opposition had to do with the structure of the bailout being proposed, not the concept of government intervention. In fact, many of us said the government should intervene, only on very different terms than it did (for instance, on terms that bought voting shares of stock, included oversight measures, seriously limited executive pay, etc.).
That wasn’t how I remembered it, but I’m sure Sirota remembers his own work better than I do. If that’s correct, then he and I had basically the same position on the merits. My feeling, heavily influenced by Paul Krugman, was that voting down the $700 billion in hopes of getting a better deal would be too big a risk to run. But I can understand if other people saw things the other way. One thing I really don’t like is when people elevate questions of tactics (should we vote “yes” and try to change it later, or should we vote “no” and hope the bargaining will shift in our favor) to the level of principle. But on the substance, Sirota and I are on the same page — we need voting share, oversight, and control that would include limits on compensation among other things.
32 Responses to “Sirota’s Bailout”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
“My feeling, heavily influenced by”…
Anyone care to finish this sentence?
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Josh Marshall’s opinion about the Pravda debacle:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/249136.php
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Is David Sirota a partner with Third Way?
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Matt – Let’s talk about us.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Hey guys. Anybody care to comment on me?
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
only 14 more posts to go! and every will forget it… all will be spotless again…
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Andrew Sullivan’s take on DLC/Third Way seizing control of Matt’s blog:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/special-note-cr.html
Last sentence: wink wink, nod nod?
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Bad day? Fuck it!
kneecapped by CAP and entirely wrong in supporting knee jerk bailout that was misused.
Let me remind you that Robert Reich was also against the bailout – he is kind of Serious. I mean, he doesnt work for CAP, the most important institution in America. But he probably knows Jennifer from his DOL days. You should talk to him.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
If you look up “douchebag” in the dictionary, there is a picture of David Sirota. Serioulsy, that guy is such an egotistical, self-promoting metrosexual. The only time that he makes a post that doesn’t promote his stupid books or his stupid newspaper column is when he’s too busy plucking his eyebrows.
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
“metrosexual…plucking his eyebrows…”
Paying a little to much attention to Mr. Sirota, are we.
Paging Mr. Sirota’s counsel: issuance of civil restraining order to one BillyBob.
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
BTW:
Yglesias just reached the pantheon of irrationality: The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/12/the_center_for_american_progre_1.asp
The Standard, surprisingly, is not make political hay out of this – at least explicitly. They are, like me, supporting Yglesias. Sorry if I seem like such a dick. I just hate self- styled progressive organizations that are actually organs of power and privledge. But we want your set free of the shackles.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I’ve never been called a metrosexual before. That’s actually pretty cool – I think my wife will think it means I’m (finally) cool.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
You’re married? Larry Craig had a wife as well.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
One thing I really don’t like is when people elevate questions of tactics (should we vote “yes” and try to change it later, or should we vote “no” and hope the bargaining will shift in our favor) to the level of principle.
Fair enough, but remember that you’re usually talking about principle only because one tactic or another been in the news. The bailout commentary reminded me the Iraq war and Duncan Black’s opinion of the liberals who supported it even years later. They didn’t get their war, waged with UN approval to set up a genuine democracy and leave ASAP, with the Red Cross inspecting the prisons and Sunnis willing to peacefully surrender their power. They got Bush’s war, with the graft and incompetence and unilateralism, and it should have been obvious from the start that that’s what they would get. (I don’t have a direct quote or link handy, but I know atrios was saying stuff like that for a while.)
Likewise with the bailout. Any bailout bill proposed back in October would be Bush’s bill if it got signed, or a tepid, middle-of-the-road corporatist bill if it even got to Bush’s desk.
While Bush is still in office, if you say “I support the bailout bill only if it comes with better worker protections and executive salary caps and regulations to prevent future disasters like this,” then what you’re really saying is “I oppose the bailout bill.” Unfortunately, people only notice the first five words.
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I think Cyrus nailed it. I love Krugman except for his “support” of the bail out bill (and that goofy “who needs the middle class” post a few days ago, WTF?) But giving even tepid support to the bill as written instead of fighting for a good bill is the same result as supporting it whole heartedly.
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Leaving Sirota aside, I think this post does not at all do justice to what actually happened with the bailout. And referring to a vote on a $700 billion bailout as a matter of tactics doesn’t seem to really do justice to the distinction between tactics and principles, per what I take to be your own pragmatist outlook.
Among many other things, don’t forget that the bailout was voted down. And there was another opportunity to make the bailout bill much better. In fact, there was a brief shining moment immediately after the first House vote against the bailout where the prevailing assumption was that now the Dems were going to write a better bill – one that reflected their own viewpoint more purely – and forget about trying to gain Republican support.
But that never happened. Instead, mystifyingly, the Senate basically just added some completely unrelated stuff to the bill to try to buy off some folks. And even more mystifyingly, there was no powerful push from Dem side of the public sphere – that means you! – for such a plan. Instead, as I recall, folks from Krugman on down used the opportunity to bash the Republicans. And so the opportunity for a better bill was lost. The public sphere was a lot like before the Iraq war, everyone crying that something needed to be done, that it had to happen fast. The Dems could have capitalized on that and passed a bill that was really really good. Instead, they totally capitulated. And sold the purported restrictions in the bill, on things like executive compensation, as meaningful, which was deeply misleading, because they were totally bogus fig leaves, as anyone who read the bill would know. Which is also to say, it’s bogus to blame the Bush administration for its implementation of the bill. The bill was written in very deliberate fashion principally by the Dems, and all the stuff about restrictions and constraints on how the money would be spent, and so on, were completely bogus and designed to be meaningless.
All that doesn’t descend to the level of tactics. That is principle.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:31 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:17 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra