Two things on the agenda make this a very special Thursday for political junkies like me. Sarah Palin and Joe Biden meet in their one and only debate in St. Louis. This one has all the trappings and metaphor of a boxing match. Palin comes in with low expectations. If she holds her own, she wins. If Biden is seen as bullying her, she wins. If she can pronounce the name of one world leader (you see where I'm going with this?) she wins.
Joe Biden comes into the debate with most people believing he's better suited to be president than Palin, but at the same time less likable. Never underestimate likable. As head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he's fluent on issues that Palin appears to be just learning about.
Biden's best strategy is to take advantage of Palin's attempts to soft peddle her most extreme positions. When Katie Couric asked her about her position against abortion even in the case of rape or incest, she responded with some nonsense about counseling for life. Joe Biden needs to take advantage of that, and Palin's attempts to focus on Obama rather than him.
The other agenda item probably won't get finished until Friday, but is no less important. The House is taking up the bailout bill later today. After Monday's drama, an awful lot of people are hedging their bets on whether the Senate version passed last night will make it through the House. There are sweeteners for those Republicans who scuttled the bill Monday, but there are questions about whether all the Democrats who voted yes will do so Friday.
And then, of course, there are the American people. Many folks still aren't happy with this bill, in part because it hasn't been properly explained any better than the one voted down Monday. There is a profound lack of trust in this country. It extends from politicians, to bankers, to the media, and nobody wants to adjust their thinking to take it into account. That's too bad.
It will be here long after the current economic crisis is history.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Now the Senate Goes First- Meaning What?
I was in on a conference call with Senator Hillary Clinton Tuesday morning when she let drop that the Senate, rather than the House, might vote first on a revised bailout (Did I say bailout? They're calling it rescue) plan. Sure enough, by day's end, that was the plan. That, and a lifting of the insurance on bank deposits by the FDIC from $100,000 to $250,000. In that same conference call, Senator Clinton talked about the possibility of "commerce grinding to a halt". The full court press by lawmakers supporting a bailout seems to have worked, just a little. Voters who gave an unequivocal thumbs down the other day are reporetdly starting to change their minds.
Yet the Congress could still blow it with the American people. There are fundamental questions that need to be answered. The fact this bill was rushed in the first place gave voters the impression lawmakers think they're too stupid to understand the complexities of high finance. That's led to the simmering anger of the public, to the Wall St. vs. Main St. mentality promoted by the media. Everyone involved needs to do better in explaining this bill.
Don't expect GW Bush to do it. As one writer said the other day, he looks more like a commentator on the economy than anyone who is trying to fix it. There are some basic questions. If the Treasury is going to buy up the bad debt of financial institutions, what price will they pay? How long will the government hold onto this paper? Do the distressed firms have sufficient hard assets for the government to recover in a worst case scenario? What specific relief is there for homeowners facing foreclosure? Is there any provision to stimulate the economy through jobs creation? And of course, what's Plan B if all this doesn't work?
I'm an idiot when it comes to most matters economic. Yet the questions asked above are pretty basic, and I'm not sure the answers are forthcoming from either house of Congress.
Who goes first, the House or the Senate, may not matter if the American people remain in the dark.
Yet the Congress could still blow it with the American people. There are fundamental questions that need to be answered. The fact this bill was rushed in the first place gave voters the impression lawmakers think they're too stupid to understand the complexities of high finance. That's led to the simmering anger of the public, to the Wall St. vs. Main St. mentality promoted by the media. Everyone involved needs to do better in explaining this bill.
Don't expect GW Bush to do it. As one writer said the other day, he looks more like a commentator on the economy than anyone who is trying to fix it. There are some basic questions. If the Treasury is going to buy up the bad debt of financial institutions, what price will they pay? How long will the government hold onto this paper? Do the distressed firms have sufficient hard assets for the government to recover in a worst case scenario? What specific relief is there for homeowners facing foreclosure? Is there any provision to stimulate the economy through jobs creation? And of course, what's Plan B if all this doesn't work?
I'm an idiot when it comes to most matters economic. Yet the questions asked above are pretty basic, and I'm not sure the answers are forthcoming from either house of Congress.
Who goes first, the House or the Senate, may not matter if the American people remain in the dark.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Splat! Bailout Fails, and So Do Stocks
In the end, it wasn't just House Republicans who had a problem with the Bush crafted $700 billion dollar bailout of US financial markets. 95, count 'em, 95 Democrats also failed to get on the bus, sending the bill to a crashing defeat. So confident were most people the bill would pass that John McCain was bragging about his role beforehand on the campaign trail. But then, he also placed an ad saying he won Friday's debate before it happened.
The financial mess is now rippling across the globe. The inability of banks to raise capital has hit European and Asian markets, causing both to skid as credit dries up. What's worse, politicians here are waking up to the very real question, "Now what"? There seem to be no easy answers. Some, like Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, think there ought to be more hearings on crafting a better bill. Some social Darwinists among the House Republican block say simply that the markets need to correct themselves.
Others, in particular those who crafted the bill that went down, want to go back to the drawing board quickly and come up with another measure to vote on this week. One thing is for sure. Too many more days like yesterday and the New York Stock Exchange will need a full time staff of grief counselors.
How about doing something that directly benefits the American people? My good friend John Nichols at The Nation says split the bailout 50-50. Give half to the bankers and let them generate the rest through smart investing that's not exploitative. Use the rest to help homeowners, fund job training and creation, improve health care, the environment, education, you know, the things ordinary Americans are having to pay more for every day. Part of the reason why this bill failed is because the average person saw nothing in it for them.
Why not invest in Americans for a change?
The financial mess is now rippling across the globe. The inability of banks to raise capital has hit European and Asian markets, causing both to skid as credit dries up. What's worse, politicians here are waking up to the very real question, "Now what"? There seem to be no easy answers. Some, like Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, think there ought to be more hearings on crafting a better bill. Some social Darwinists among the House Republican block say simply that the markets need to correct themselves.
Others, in particular those who crafted the bill that went down, want to go back to the drawing board quickly and come up with another measure to vote on this week. One thing is for sure. Too many more days like yesterday and the New York Stock Exchange will need a full time staff of grief counselors.
How about doing something that directly benefits the American people? My good friend John Nichols at The Nation says split the bailout 50-50. Give half to the bankers and let them generate the rest through smart investing that's not exploitative. Use the rest to help homeowners, fund job training and creation, improve health care, the environment, education, you know, the things ordinary Americans are having to pay more for every day. Part of the reason why this bill failed is because the average person saw nothing in it for them.
Why not invest in Americans for a change?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Deal on Bailout? Yeah, Sort Of
So they worked all weekend, those cabinet and congress people struggling to craft a bill to bail out the US economy. In the end, they gave Bush something to say at 7:35AM Eastern, when he addressed the nation on the need to get the bill through the House and Senate. It took him all of four minutes. Meanwhile, world markets don't seem impressed. Most are down, and a couple more banks have been nationalized.
The US bailout has been made to sound like the risk to taxpayers is minimal. It doles out up to $700 billion dollars in stages, $250 billion here, $100 billion there, the rest later. There is some help for homeowners facing foreclosure, but not too much (that would be socialism)! And all this, as best I can tell, to get banks to trust each other enough to lend each other money. Maybe it's a lot more complicated than that, but who knows?
Speaking of which, who knows if it will actually work? The House is expected to vote later today, but who knows whether the Republican block, which last I checked is a minority, will go along? Most of the fighting here has been GOP against GOP. That battle is almost as interesting as Obama vs. McCain.
Around the world, some nations are putting out harsh critiques of this peculiarly American financial mess. China has called for a new world economic order, one that's less dependent on the US. Their central bank ordered a halt to business with their US counterparts last week. Brazil's president says the bailout is for the rich, not the poor. Iran's Ahmadinejad, never one to miss an opportunity, slammed this country from the podium at the UN.
These are the real wages of greed. Those that got the country into this mess don't really care. Their salaries may be limited if the bill passes, but it won't make them miss a tee time at the country club. Real and imagined Masters of the Universe don't go out that easily.
Why? They've got us!
The US bailout has been made to sound like the risk to taxpayers is minimal. It doles out up to $700 billion dollars in stages, $250 billion here, $100 billion there, the rest later. There is some help for homeowners facing foreclosure, but not too much (that would be socialism)! And all this, as best I can tell, to get banks to trust each other enough to lend each other money. Maybe it's a lot more complicated than that, but who knows?
Speaking of which, who knows if it will actually work? The House is expected to vote later today, but who knows whether the Republican block, which last I checked is a minority, will go along? Most of the fighting here has been GOP against GOP. That battle is almost as interesting as Obama vs. McCain.
Around the world, some nations are putting out harsh critiques of this peculiarly American financial mess. China has called for a new world economic order, one that's less dependent on the US. Their central bank ordered a halt to business with their US counterparts last week. Brazil's president says the bailout is for the rich, not the poor. Iran's Ahmadinejad, never one to miss an opportunity, slammed this country from the podium at the UN.
These are the real wages of greed. Those that got the country into this mess don't really care. Their salaries may be limited if the bill passes, but it won't make them miss a tee time at the country club. Real and imagined Masters of the Universe don't go out that easily.
Why? They've got us!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
