The financial crisis has put "issues", or the economy back at center stage, but in a way that is awkward for Democrats. Joe Garcia was the only local candidate to go on the record supporting the bailout package, though he did call it "flawed". This was, in my mind, the responsible position to take, and I think it compares well with the craven populism of someone like Raul Martinez or the ideological conservatism of the Diaz-Balarts. But, oh, the irony! The same rigid, anti-regulation, laissez-faire, and largely Republican ideology that helped cause this crisis is now being wrapped up in populism by those same Republicans and used against Democrats and moderates who are trying to clean the mess up. Yes, the same people who brought you "No regulations" have now released "No government interference in the problem caused by the lack of regulation."
You could credit the Republicans who voted against the bailout for being principled conservatives, but the record says otherwise. As Daniel Gross put it in Slate yesterday, referring to the Republicans who killed the bill “having approved an expansion of Medicare, massive increases in all sorts of spending, and huge tax cuts that led to the addition of trillions of dollars in public debt, this is a strange moment to stand on principle.”
And joining them were a certain kind of left-winger, people like: Michael Moore who see everything and anything in terms of class. Make no mistake though, the numbers speak for themselves – lack of Republican support caused the bailout to fail.
It ultimately failed, of course, because it was deeply unpopular. "Bail me out first!" seems to be the settlement I hear on the local news, but the government could send everyone a check tomorrow and the economy would still collapse if the credit market dried up, and no one could get favorable rates on a mortgage or a car loan, and small businesses couldn't get loans period.
So Garcia may pay for taking a principled stand. I can see the attack ad now, featuring a female narrator saying "fat cats" with a sneer. That's just idle speculation and I hope I'm wrong, just like I hope the Garcia-Diaz-Balart debate actually happens, so we can, for once, see two candidates get into an exchange over policy and economic ideology.
7 comments:
Sunshine stop the spin please. It is what it is. A large number of Democrats voted down the bailout along with the Republicans.
When these officials vote they please some people and piss some off. Thats part of the process, but what is rather peculiar is what some of the Dems that voted for the plan are saying- that its flawed, that it could be improved, that it needs to be tinkered with some more...Then why the hell did you vote for it?
Take a stand, be principled, have b lls!!!
what i do not understand is that the house has a democrat majority and they are still blaming republicans. they could not even rally their own people?
and what does joe garcia have to do with this? he is not in the house.
come on he is just trying to get votes for the the election. when in reality who cares what he thinks, he doesnt get a vote.
To address the comments: I mentioned left-wingers like Michael Moore, or populist like Raul Martinez because I wanted to make clear that there were many Dems opposed to the bailout as well. But maybe I didn’t put enough emphasis. Mea culpa.
Of course it matters how candidates stand on the most important issue facing congress right now. Do we really need to argue that?
As far as representatives saying the bill was flawed but supporting it away – the legislative process is inherently about compromise. If reps only voted for bills they thought were perfect, nothing would ever get passed. As Floyd Norris put it in his NYT blog today, “The defeated plan was not assured of working, but it was a serious attempt to get the credit system functioning again.” I hope congress can get another “serious attempt” passed, but if each rep waits for the ideal bill, one that perfectly matches his or her ideology, than nothing will get done and the problem will get worse. So, as you say reps need “have some balls” and vote for something that don’t necessarily like.
To address the last comment: The Democrats got 60% of their caucus to support the bill. Neither party wants to own the bailout because there is no guarantee that it will work and even if it does the economy will not improve overnight. So the Dems aren’t going to pass any bill on their own, but they certainly could do better than they have so far.
Statement from Congressman
Lincoln Diaz-Balart:
September 29, 2008
DIAZ-BALART OPPOSES MASSIVE WALL STREET BAILOUT BY TAXPAYERS
Washington, DC – Following please find a statement by Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) regarding his opposition to the massive bailout of Wall Street by taxpayers:
“American taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for the irresponsible behavior of Wall Street executives. The average citizen is forced to play by the rules, yet many who did not now get a massive bailout from taxpayers in this plan. This is fundamentally unfair. By bailing out reckless behavior we encourage future reckless behavior.
Although the legislation is an improvement over the initial Paulson proposal, I could not support a massive bailout for Wall Street firms that does too little to help homeowners stay in their homes and is totally paid for by the American taxpayer, not Wall Street.
I strongly supported the inclusion of Section 102 in the bill, in order for the Federal government to provide insurance to guarantee troubled assets held by financial institutions. But this insurance program needs to be mandatory, not voluntary as in this bill, and it should be our first option, before we commit hundreds of billions of the taxpayers’ dollars. By requiring mandatory government insurance we could greatly reduce the cost to the taxpayer.
The principles that guided my decision are:
o Wall Street, Not Taxpayers should fund Wall Street’s recovery.
o Private Capital, Not Unlimited Tax Dollars should be injected into financial markets.
o Immediate Transparency, Oversight and Market Reform are needed.”
Apologies for the type-os in my first comment. I cut and past from the wrong window. It’s embarrassing but my meaning was still clear.
I disagree with the posting. The vote was the principaled stand, not the principled stand. I thought Dennis Kucinich, on his way to vote "no," made some very good points:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/29/is_this_the_united_states_congress
You can agree that the financial system is in crisis and that some government role is needed and yet still think this particular bill is a piece of crap, without regard to where one falls on the political spectrum.
Sunshine,
I must disagree with your premise that this was caused by lack of regulation. This happens because of excess government regulation in the market.
It is not a free market system, is a system of corporatism and corruption.
Nobody has talked about keeping the fed in check. Nobody talks about government trying to artificially keep interests low and prices high when the market says otherwise.
Post a Comment