by Deb Cupples | Matt Stoller posted the following email, apparently written by a Democratic Congressman to his or her colleagues, which was leaked to the press:
"Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said that there can't be any 'add ons,' or addition provisions. Fuck that. I don't really want to trigger a world wide depression (that's not hyperbole, that's a distinct possibility), but I'm not voting for a blank check for $700 billion for those mother fuckers."
"Nancy [Pelosi] said she wanted to include the second "stimulus" package that the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans have blocked. I don't want to trade a $700 billion dollar giveaway to the most unsympathetic human beings on the planet for a few fucking bridges. I want reforms of the industry, and I want it to be as punitive as possible.
"Henry Waxman has suggested corporate government reforms, including CEO compensation, as the price for this. Some members have publicly suggested allowing modification of mortgages in bankruptcy, and the House Judiciary Committee staff is also very interested in that. That's a real possibility.
"We may strip out all the gives to industry in the predatory mortgage lending bill that the House passed last November, which hasn't budged in the Senate, and include that in the bill. There are other ideas on the table but they are going to be tough to work out before next week.
"I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me.
"I'm open to other ideas, and I am looking for volunteers who want to hold the sons of bitches so I can beat the crap out of them." (OpenLeft)
I could do without the extreme expletives, but my main reaction was "Hell yeah!" I don't mean that I want to see anyone literally beaten up.
But I fully agree that giving a $700 billion free-for-all to the same Wall Street folks who created this mess.
Fortunately, as Politico points out, many economists are also skeptical of The Plan. Economist Paul Krugman sees the Bush Administration's proposal as "an enormously expensive plan that doesn’t seem to address the real problem."
Great: a plan that costs a ton up front but doesn't solve the real problems, thereby likely costing us taxpayers even more in the future (as though $700 billion isn't enough).
Even Newt Gingrich is skeptical about the Bush Administration's bailout plan. I strongly disagree with his perspective on Sarbanes-Oxley -- and his so-called "free market" (i.e., anti-accountability) leanings, because those attitudes helped get us into this enormous economic mess.
That said, I do agree with Gingrich's urging of caution with respect to the bailout plan:
"Watching Washington rush to throw taxpayer money at Wall Street has been sobering and a little frightening.
"We are being told Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has a plan which will shift $700 billion in obligations from private companies to the taxpayer.
"We are being warned that this $700 billion bailout is the only answer to a crisis.
"We are being reassured that we can trust Secretary Paulson 'because he knows what he is doing.'
"Congress had better ask a lot of questions before it shifts this much burden to the taxpayer and shifts this much power to a Washington bureaucracy.
"Imagine that the political balance of power in Washington were different.
"If this were a Democratic administration the Republicans in the House and Senate would be demanding answers and would be organizing for a “no” vote...."But because this gigantic power shift to Washington and this avalanche of taxpayer money is being proposed by a Republican administration, the normal conservative voices have been silent or confused.
"It’s time to end the silence and clear up the confusion.
"Congress has an obligation to protect the taxpayer. Congress has an obligation to limit the executive branch to the rule of law. Congress has an obligation to perform oversight." (National Review)
Memeorandum has commentary.
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* Executives Skate out of Disaster with Millions
* Skeptics Question the $700 Billion Bailout
* The Virtually Undebated Plan to Save the Economy
* Economic Crisis: Sen. Clinton Nails it (video)
* Wall Street Bailout Plan and Iraq-War-Style Sales Pitch
* Hoping Congress Really Thinks Through "Solutions" to Economic Crises
.
Comments