Matt Yglesias

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.