Conservative Republican Opposes Bush's Bailout Plan

by Deb Cupples |  Truthout's Matt Renner reports:

"Conservative Republican Representative Mike Pence of Indiana was the first to loudly oppose the bailout plan from within the Republican Party.

"'The Administration's request amounts to the largest corporate bailout in American history. Congress should act, but should act in a way that protects the integrity of our free market and protects the American taxpayer from more debt and higher taxes," Pence said in a statement Saturday.'"

That's not all.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank and Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd have been negotiating with the Bush Administration, pushing to include taxpayer-friendly provisions in the $700+ billion, Wall Street bailout plan.

According to Truthout, the Bush Administration may be willing to "allow" some accountability provisions into the bailout legislation -- but not any provisions that prevent Wall Street executives from personally pocketing portions of the 700+ billion tax dollars via compensation or golden parachutes. 

Yes, you read that correctly.  Rep. Frank's take:

"'The notion that while they are getting this help from the federal government we can't tell them not to have golden parachutes, not to pay millions to some of the very people who made bad decisions, as a retirement gift, is unacceptable to us.'" (CNN)

It's nice to know that some of the people we taxpayers pay to represent us in Congress are actually thinking straight. 

Fortunately, as I mentioned in another post, Sen. Chris Dodd has proposed a plan to save our ailing credit markets (and economy) while improving accountability and oversight.

What's scary is that the Bush Administration would so blatantly try to protect and enrich the same Wall Street execs who helped create the gargantuan crises our nation now faces -- that and  Administration officials' use of questionable, Iraq-war-style sales pitches (i.e., stretching the truth beyond recognition) to pressure Congress to approve the free-for-all bailout plan.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:

* Wall Street Bailout Plan and Iraq-War-Style Sales Pitch

* Bailout: Ignore the Sales Pitch -- Bush Plain is Not the Only (or best) Option

* Bailout Plan: Dem Thinks Congress Will Allow Lobbyists to Shaft Taxpayers

* Executives Skate out of Disaster with Millions

* Skeptics Question the $700 Billion Bailout

* The Virtually Undebated Plan to Save the Economy 

.

Comments

[Peggy McGilligan]

When Bill Clinton loosened banking regulations in California, he was able to lend $8-billion for "community loans.” Of course, this money and much more would never get paid back. It was a blank check. Undoing regulations sets a precedent, as does "comping" real estate. With the influx of capital, houses overvalued at $125,000 became valued at $525,000. The only way to afford was through "creative financing.” When these schemes fell through, as they invariably will whenever 30-million Mexican nationals buy inflated properties in another country and default, it left bankers around the world in the lurch (see global, or new economy). Never mind that the aforementioned demographic is the new face of the Democratic Party; Congress simply cannot determine the worth of the financial instruments, because of the rampant “creativity” and subsequent artificial prices. So, it should be a $90-billion dollar bailout at best. But if you want to thank someone, thank Hillary Clinton. She knew all along who’d get the bogus loans; she knew whose votes she’d need: http://theseedsof9-11.com

[Deb Cupples (Buck Naked Politics)]

Peggy,

Thanks for the info. How do you arrive at the $90 billion figure?

Did CA houses become overvalued (e.g., at $525K) because the influx of capital created a seller's market and encouraged speculation?

How is it that Hillary is at fault for the $700+ billion plan that the Bush Admin. proposed?

[J4nitor01]

Deb,

"How is it that Hillary is at fault for the $700+ billion plan that the Bush Admin. proposed?"

True, it wasn't Hillary's bailout plan, but I think her main point was how we got into this mess.

Simply blaming "Walls Street fat cats" is not really the at root of this problem.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307149667289804

[Bruce]

Nothing For Nobody!

[Bruce]

Nothing For Nobody!

[Deb Cupples (Buck Naked Politics)]

Bruce,

I suspect that the consequences of not devoting some funds to this problem would be tremendous -- but I don't know whether $700 billion (or even $350 billiion) is a fair figure.

Apparently, Treasury officials and the Bush Administration don't know either: they've admitted to guessing the price tag.

Shameful!