Summit degenerates, but a new plan emerging

Meh, the Republican plan in principle is much better than the first bailout plan, but I’m seeing a few things that could cause problems in both the adoption of it and possible side effects.

Because the plan is new, details have yet to be hammered out on it, but it has my approval already on one dimension: it seems to have stopped the first plan!

The only thing I can find on the new plan is more like a general goal outline. A couple of the goals are pretty dodgy, but it’s still much preferable to the first.

The text of the new plan can be seen at http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2553493020080926

Like I said, several of those goals aren’t so great, but given the alternative, I’ll still take this one. Maybe as details get hammered out my feelings might change. We’ll see. Frankly, doing nothing would be my (possibly realistic) preferred response. Sort of like the Socratic Oath – “First, do no harm.”

I read a guy once who said he votes on who he thinks will be the least likely to seriously hose things up, not on who he thinks will actually solve problems. There’s a certain amount of truth in that when it comes to government!

I personally get a kick out of the bizarre teammates this has formed. It seems to be (in broad strokes)

Bush+Obama+most Democrats
v.
McCain+most Republicans

Reports are that Democrats are trying to attach lots of irrelevancies to a bailout bill, including pork for activist groups, including reinstating the ban on shale oil leasing.
This is when Congress doing nothing might be better.
And this is when we should pay attention to more than our favorite news source, from mainstream to blogs, but ‘get out more’ and ‘search the scriptures [apologies--I mean the presses]‘ to see what’s going on. Forget the posturing; pay attention to the facts (which remain extremely fluid, as only political facts can).
It’s one thing to say McCain was playing politics or engaging in a stunt, but it’s dishonest not to note what all sides appear to be doing: posturing, stalling for political effect, blaming/not accepting blame, loading up for constituencies.
And the debate? We don’t need no stinking debate. Not tonight. We’d do just as well to go to high school football games.
Except to take time to call our congressman or senator and offer our encouragement or otherwise.
Then go to a game.

WebMonk (@2), there’s a Socratic Oath? Given the way I constantly try to teach others by asking questions (to their great annoyance), I should take it.

Susan (@3), you said, “Congress has a duty to sometimes do nothing.” And you think McCain’s being in D.C. is helping them in this? Is it his leadership that lead to this impasse?

Again I’ll ask, how has “suspending” his campaign affected McCain’s presence there — it hasn’t affected Obama’s. What need is there for ads to be “pulled” and other campaign stuff to cease as long as the candidates are in D.C.?

And what is McCain’s being in D.C. doing, anyhow? How has his stunt helped anyone but him and his campaign?

“Mr. McCain, whose support of the deal is critical if fellow Republicans are to sign on, declined to take a stand.” [1]

“‘All he has done is stand in front of the cameras,’” Mr. Reid said of Mr. McCain. ‘We still don’t know where he stands on the issues.’” [2] (I mean, of course he would say that, but can anyone claim otherwise?)

“Both candidates made the rounds on network evening news programs after meeting on the crisis with President Bush and bipartisan congressional leaders at the White House. McCain did not participate in late-night negotiations on Capitol Hill but worked the phones from his Virginia home. A senior McCain official said McCain hasn’t signed on to any one proposal, though he does agree there needs to be a greater protection for taxpayers. … As McCain returned to Washington at midday, Democratic and Republican negotiators emerged from a closed-door meeting to report an agreement in principle. An Obama campaign official said the Illinois senator called into the meeting. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said McCain didn’t participate, but held talks with Republican leaders afterward.” [3]

“It was McCain who had urged Bush to call the White House meeting. … McCain spoke surprisingly little after asking for the meeting.” [4]

“McCain, who dramatically announced Wednesday that he was suspending his campaign to deal with the economic crisis, stayed silent for most of the session and spoke only briefly to voice general principles for a rescue plan. … Neither Bush, McCain nor Obama have been deeply involved so far in this week’s scramble to hammer out a package.” [5]

[1] “Talks Implode During a Day of Chaos; Fate of Bailout Plan Remains Unresolved” by DAVID M. HERSZENHORN, CARL HULSE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG, NYTimes.com, 9/25/2008
[2] “Bailout Talks to Resume After Impasse” by SHERYL GAY STOLBERG, DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and CARL HULSE, 9/26/2008
[3] “McCain-Obama debate prospects uncertain” by Liz Sidoti, News.Yahoo.com, 9/25/2008, 11:44 PM
[4] “Wild day, no deal” by David Rogers, Politico.com, 9/25/08 11:58 PM
[5] “Amid GOP revolt, bailout deal breaks down” by Jennifer Loven and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, News.Yahoo.com, 9/24/2008, 11:58 PM

Actually, McCain was brought back to Washington to shore up Republican support for a resolute solution to this serious financial crisis. Yesterday he listened carefully to all sides on the issue and urged the recalcitrant Congressmen who are blocking Paulson’s proposal, to get back into the discussion, resulting in Rep. Blunt being delegated as the House’s spokesman in the negotiations.

The McCain campaign has issued the following statement that is a good summary of the situation:

The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday where Barack Obama’s priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands. John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners. The Democratic interests stood together in opposition to an agreement that would accommodate additional taxpayer protections.

Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon. Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners.

One hopes that McCain will have sufficient energy and wit tonight to thoughtfully debate Obama.

tODD @ 8 & 9: I guess you’ve already decided how this whole thing is going down, based on the statements of Harry Reid (that paragon of fairness and good judgment) and snippets from the press (ditto). No need to wait until things are resolved — we know it’s McCain and those wascally Wepublicans, so we know it must be self-serving and horrible.

Well, despite your certainly, I prefer to wait until the dust settles a bit before I pass judgment. I do have some observations. 1) Apparently, Bush and the Democrats and the Senate Republicans are on board with a modified version of the Paulson plan, and it is the House Republicans who are gumming up the works. OK, fine. Last I checked, the House Republicans are in the minority, and have no filibuster option like the minority party in the Senate. So, why, exactly, if this plan is so wonderful, is everyone letting the House Republicans stop the whole process? Just pass it, already! On the other hand, if it’s not so great that the Democrats feel comfortable passing it without House Republican support, than I would say this extra effort to further vet the possibilities is a good thing for the country; 2) 63% of the public currently do not favor the Paulson bailout proposal, which calls for further consideration, not necessarily because we should be poll-driven, but rather because it is our government’s duty to serve the public, at least by giving a controversial matter full consideration; 3) Harry Reid originally said this thing could not go forward without McCain’s approval. Then when McCain said, OK, I will drop everything and come to D.C., Reid said he didn’t mean McCain should come to town. Nice try, but it is not really fair to ask McCain to approve something without being part of the discussions; 4) Reid says that injecting presidential politics into the discussions is harming things, but the Democrats reportedly had Obama take the lead in negotiating for them during the meeting with the president yesterday, and that didn’t go well; 5) I think McCain’s idea in shutting down his campaign was that both candidates would kind of take their foot off the throttle and re-focus their efforts this week on this liquidity issue. Obama would have none of it — his eye is on the prize no matter what, so McCain is having to ramp up again; 6) it seems to me from the statements Democratic leaders are making that they are more interested in how this plays relative to the presidential race than they are in the issue itself. They seem to be making a full press effort to blame McCain for everything that is going wrong.

Brilliant summation, Don S

Don (@12), given that you’ve announced who you’re voting for and I haven’t, I find it ironic that you’re accusing me of having “decided how this whole thing is going down”. I know you think I’m in the tank for Obama, but that’s probably because of your partisan filter, not mine — the main position my comments have revealed is that I am not a fan of McCain’s campaign. But don’t pretend you’re some sort of nonpartisan paragon.

Anyhow, if you actually read my comments (and don’t just file them into one of two files labeled “pro-McCain” and “stupid crap”), you’ll see that I’m not blaming the “wascally Wepublicans” for their maneuverings in this matter. Over on the other thread, where you commented to me after my comment (so I’m assuming you read mine), I even said that, while I’m no great shakes at economics, I think I might favor the breakaway Republicans here, since I’m no fan of a massive bailout that only helps the corrupt industry that caused this problem.

The only thing I’m complaining about is McCain’s ridiculous posturing here. There’s no compromise yet, but he’s decided his work there is done, I guess, because he’s now “resuming” his campaign and attending the debate, proving that this whole thing was a fraud, anyhow. And what, exactly, is he supposed to have done that is so full of Presidential Leadership, anyhow? Can anyone point to anything besides him being there physically and listening? Is he making proposals? No, he hasn’t staked out an opinion that I’ve seen. Is he even in the middle of the relevant committees such that he could have an effect?

In short: can anyone prove that his day-or-so of flying around and getting headlines has been of any value to anyone but John McCain?

Also, WebMonk (@2 & 13), “first, do no harm” doesn’t appear in the Hippocratic Oath, either. Sorry.

Oh shoot! I would have sworn it was! Thanks tODD, I’ll try to remember that for future use.

Maybe I’ll be able to use it to correct someone else sometime. Obviously I won’t give you credit and I’ll pretend I’ve always known that because of my superior erudition.

Don (@19), are you seriously arguing that McCain is going to the debate “because Obama and the media are forcing him to”? Waaah. Poor baby. Is this yet another example of Leadership from McCain? “I didn’t want to, but the mean media made me!” Perhaps the media will also force him to pick another running mate? Or quit his campaign entirely? Who knows what those evil puppet masters will do next with their compliant mannequin? Please.

“When Obama refused to throttle back his own campaign …” Hello? In what way did McCain throttle back his campaign? Due to the ad lag time, at best his ads will be suspended for a short while today, maybe tomorrow. He himself was working the phones rather than attend an evening discussion on the crisis. His campaign offices were open and working. His surrogates were on TV. Palin was out and about in the open. And yet you blame Obama for not shutting everything down, “forc[ing]” McCain to “gear back up”, even though he hadn’t geared down in the first place?

You said, “McCain said he viewed his initial role as being a listener and a facilitator, to give the House Republicans a place at the table.” In what meaningful fashion could this not have occurred without McCain? Were the House Republicans too timid to speak up without the physical presence of a True Maverick?

“Good leadership is about bringing people together and helping them to reach consensus.” Let me know when McCain has done this. As I’ve heard, there is no consensus, but McCain is leaving the negotiating table for the debate, anyhow. Leadership!

“As for committees, they are irrelevant at this point. This thing isn’t going through committees.” If it’s going to be a bill, it’s going through the committees, isn’t it? Leadership(tm) doesn’t actually have the power to manifest laws ex nihilo.

“It’s been one day, for goodness sake.” Yes, and that was apparently enough, because McCain is headed for the debate. So his work is clearly done, as his campaign is no longer “suspended”. So, again: what did he do in that day?

just fyi on the bailout. I’m no expert, but lots of economists have signed this:

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm

Yes, tODD @ 23, thank you. Just as McCain’s decision to return to D.C. “forced” Obama to return to D.C., so did Obama’s decision to do the debate no matter what ultimately “force” McCain to do the debate on its original scheduled night. Same thing, and that is all I meant by my original comment.

The House Republicans are legitimately trying to negotiate an agreement which reflects their values DESPITE the fact that the pressure is overwhelmingly on them to fold and sign onto the Paulsen plan. The Democrats are the ones who have been whining (this morning’s presser with Reid and Dodd was the low point) that McCain came in and “ruined” everything, trying to turn a legitimate national crisis into a presidential race political win. The funny thing is how transparent it all is. On the one hand, they claimed that he came in and didn’t do anything but listen — hardly spoke at all. But, on the other hand, somehow, without doing anything, he screwed up the whole deal, by himself! They also claimed that he inserted presidential politics into the deal, and should have stayed away, but on the hand, they made Obama their front and center guy at the big meeting. Way to NOT insert presidential politics into the negotiations! That’s some serious grandstanding, McCain should take notes from the expert.

As for your last paragraph, you have still to wait for two whole days. Patience isn’t your strong point, is it?

The point is that he’s done nothing useful, and this may be, in part, because he further politicized the debate.

Not really, McCain was brought back to Washington at Paulson’s personal request to get the House Republican conservatives aboard with the bailout package. In the White House meeting he made it clear that the House Republicans concerns about the plan had not been respected in the formulation of it. McCain is working with Paulson and the House Republicans to make some compromises. McCain was, also, instrumenal in making the House R. Whip a conservative spokesman in the high-level bail out plan negotiations.

Somehow the Democrats convinced Paulson, among other Christmas tree goodies, to allocate 20% of any bailout profits to radical community organizing outfits like Acorn and La Raza. This was a compromise much too far that needs to be axed. These outfits played a major role in the lowering of credit standards that caused the mortgage credit meltdown.

After the debate McCain has returned to Washingtpn to continue to play a valuable role in this serious national financial crisis.

Don (@27), I still think you don’t know what you want. On the one hand, you say (@21) that “[McCain] thought [Democrats] would rise to the occasion of trying to resolve a national crisis in a bipartisan manner, and they would have none of it.” You extol the virtues (@27) of “encourag[ing] consensus by making sure all parties get a chance to get their ideas on the table and have them be heard, then move people together.”

Oh, so you want a bipartisan solution? Then why did you say (@19) “Pelosi says this thing needs to get done, is essential for the country’s well being, but she is so political that she will let the country go down rather than have to bear the risk of passing the plan without House Republican support. Says a lot about her and the state of the Democratic party,” urging her (@15) to “ensure that it does happen, regardless of whether House Republicans fall into line” with cries of “Lead, already! You have the votes. Lead!” and (@12) “Just pass it, already!”

What, exactly, do you want? Other than, of course, for McCain to win?

And you’re still missing my point abouut demanding evidence of what good McCain’s physical presence is doing. The only answer you seem ready to provide is at some point in the indefinite future, when a bill comes around. At that point, no doubt, you and the Congressional Republicans will claim that, whatever bill there is, it only could have happened with McCain’s Bold Leadership. I don’t expect otherwise.

But that doesn’t mean he’s actually doing anything. He could sit in a broom closet while the negotiations continue and still claim in the end it couldn’t have happened without him. My point is: what evidence can you point to now that he is doing something besides being there physically and preparing to ultimately take credit? What is he doing?

I found two articles ([1][2]) that discuss the actual negotiations. Here is the list of people they indicate are actually involved: Judd Gregg (R-NH), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), John Boehner (R-OH), Harry Reid (D-NV), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Henry Paulson, Barney Frank (D-MA), John Thune (R-SD), and George Bush. Not John “Maverick Leadership” McCain.

Meanwhile, here is how the Post characterizes both candidates’ roles in the negotiations:

Presidential politics again played a role in the bargaining. Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama called key negotiators and portrayed themselves as helping without getting directly involved in the talks.

They also add:

McCain, who flew to Washington after Friday night’s presidential debate in Mississippi, spent part of Saturday working the phones and “helping out as he can,” aide Mark Salter said. But McCain did not enter the Capitol, where his colleagues were voting on a $634 billion spending bill.

Now, those who choose not to think about things can simply say, oh, that’s just the liberally biased media, without actually reading the articles or contending their claims. Myself, I see no evidence that McCain has done anything, though I have no doubt he will claim credit for whatever is done by those who are actually involved.

[1] “Key lawmakers revive rescue talks”, Money.CNN.com, 9/27/08 5:18 ET
[2] “Senate leader: Significant progress on bailout” by Charles Babington, WashingtonPost.com, 9/27/08 5:21 PM

tOdd, your missing the point that the House reform Republicans were not really consulted about their views on the bailout until Sen. McCain came on scene, heard them, and is now making sure that their views are being integrated into the overall plan. It’s, also, why the House Whip, Roy Blunt bas replaced Rep. Boehner in the negotiations. It is a good sign that in a McCain presidency he will pay more attention to the views of reform Republicans in Congress.

In the meeting at the White House Thursday, McCain had the guts to stand up to the consensus that had been reached on the bailout plan in order to achieve an even better consensus that involved the House reform Republicans.

Powerlineblog has an article, “The Bailout Deal: What is Is?” that provides side-by-side comparision of key features for the original Paulson plan; the Barney Frank-Chris Dodd version proposed by the Democrats; and the compromise legislation that emerged last night.