Richard WarnickSpeaker Pelosi’s ‘Partisan’ Speech ‘Poisoned’ the Bailout?
What the Democrats should have done: Told President Bush to wait until after Election Day, and then taken the time to write progressive legislation aimed not at bailing out Wall Street billionaires, but at restoring the financial regulatory system that the Republicans wrecked, and helping out their victims.
What the Democrats did: Went along with demands from Bush and the Republicans (not to mention a swarm of lobbyists) for a quick fix that would send the National Debt soaring to more than $11 trillion. All they asked was for 80 or so House GOP members to vote for it.
Apparently, that was too much to ask. Neither President Bush, nor Rep. Boehner, nor Senator John McCain could persuade members of their own party. The House of Representatives voted to kill the bill, 228 to 205. Even though the bailout was proposed by the Bush administration, 60% of Democrats in the House voted for this bill but only 33% of Republicans.
In an “oops” moment if there ever was one, McCain and his top aides rushed to take credit for the bailout compromise hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked.
Why did the GOP abandon Bush? It was clearly the fault of the Democrats…
House Republican Leader John Boehner said in a press conference, “I do believe that we could have gotten there today, had it not been for this partisan speech that the Speaker gave on the floor of the house. I mean, we were — we put everything we had into getting the votes to get there today, but the speaker had to give a partisan voice that poisoned our conference, caused a number of members who we thought we could get to go south.”
Matt Yglesias offers what I think is the real explanation for what happened:
The House conservatives …sank the plan by accident. They were trying to double-cross the Democrats. First, they wrung lots of concessions out of Democrats at the negotiating table as the price for delivering 80 votes. Then, by not delivering 80 votes and forcing Pelosi to pass the bill as a partisan Democratic bill, they were going to wage a demagogic anti-bailout campaign. But Pelosi refused to be played for a sucker and so the conservatives inadvertently sank a bill that, all evidence suggests, they actually wanted to pass. They just wanted to vote “no” on it for short-term political gain.
Judge for yourself. Speaker Pelosi’s speech is in the continuation of this post.
Here is the speech that allegedly caused Republicans to forget about solving the economic crisis because of hurt feelings…
Rep. Pelosi’s Remarks on Floor Ahead of House Bailout Vote
“Madam Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion?
It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration’s failed economic policies–policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.
Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.
That chaos is the dismal picture painted by Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke a week and a half ago in the Capitol.
As they pointed out, we confront a crisis of historic magnitude that has the ability to do serious injury not simply to our economy, but to the American people: not just to Wall Street, but to everyday Americans on Main Street.
It is our responsibility today, to help avert that catastrophic outcome.
Let us be clear: This is a crisis caused on Wall Street. But it is a crisis that reaches to Main Street in every city and town of the United States.It is a crisis that freezes credit, causes families to lose their homes, cripples small businesses, and makes it harder to find jobs.
It is a crisis that never had to happen. It is now the duty of every Member of this body to recognize that the failure to act responsibly, with full protections for the American taxpayer, would compound the damage already done to the financial security of millions of American families.
Over the past several days, we have worked with our Republican colleagues to fashion an alternative to the original plan of the Bush Administration.
I must recognize the outstanding leadership provided by Chairman Barney Frank, whose enormous intellectual and strategic abilities have never before been so urgently needed, or so widely admired.
I also want to recognize Rahm Emanuel, who combined his deep knowledge of financial institutions with his pragmatic policy experience, to resolve key disagreements.
Secretary Paulson deserves credit for working day and night to help reach an agreement and for his flexibility in negotiating changes to his original proposal.
Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street.
The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardize the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilization bill.
So we insisted that this bill contain several key provisions:
This legislation must contain independent and ongoing oversight to ensure that the recovery program is managed with full transparency and strict accountability.
The legislation must do everything possible to allow as many people to stay in their homes rather than face foreclosure.
The corporate CEOs whose companies will benefit from the public’s participation in this recovery must not benefit by exorbitant salaries and golden parachute retirement bonuses.
Our message to Wall Street is this: the party is over. The era of golden parachutes for high-flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will the U.S. taxpayer bailout the recklessness of Wall Street.
The taxpayers who bear the risk in this recovery must share in the upside as the economy recovers.
And should this program not pay for itself, the financial institutions that benefited, not the taxpayers, must bear responsibility for making up the difference.
These were the Democratic demands to safeguard the American taxpayer, to help the economy recover, and to impose tough accountability as a central component of this recovery effort.
This legislation is not the end of congressional activity on this crisis. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will continue to hold investigative and oversight hearings to find out how the crisis developed, where mistakes were made, and how the recovery must be managed to protect the middle class and the American taxpayer.
With passage of this legislation today, we can begin the difficult job of turning our economy around, of helping those who depend on a growing economy and stable financial institutions for a secure retirement, for the education of their children, for jobs and small business credit.
Today we must act for those Americans, for Main Street, and we must act now, with the bipartisan spirit of cooperation which allowed us to fashion this legislation.
This not enough. We are also working to restore our nation’s economic strength by passing a new economic recovery stimulus package–a robust, job creating bill–that will help Americans struggling with high prices, get our economy back on track, and renew the American Dream.
Today, we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership that has left us left capable of meeting the challenges of the future.
We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a New Direction to a better future.”
September 30th, 2008 at 8:13 am
There are only a couple of partisan snippets in Pelosi’s speech. To me it seems to be an inspiring and well-thought-out speech. The partisanship of which she is blamed likely resides in the fact that she is criticizing the Bush administration so near to an election. As much as McCain might like to separate himself from Bush, party ties are stronger than words, and Republicans will (just as Democrats would in the same circumstances) oppose anything that compromises the view of one of their party leaders.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I agree with the no discipline but the “no regulation” is patently false. It was the very regulations created by the government that helped create the problem. And this issue, goes deeper then the Bush administration.
Remember this statement for later on.
A catastrophic outcome that could have been avoided if it wasn’t for the desire to use the government to interfere with the marketplace in the name of “social justice”.
The protection of the financial security of my family or others isn’t the job of the federal government, its the job of my family or others.
Hm, recognizes two democrats but not a single republican representative or senator by name….nope no partisan politics there.
Yes, let’s thank Paulson for being willing to accept less then complete dictatorial control over the “bailout” plan.
Gee, I remember something about Republicans from the House insisting on something about protection for the taxpayers. Guess it must be an oversight and those sensitive conservatives are just getting their feelings hurt at being overlooked. Partisan or not?
Actually, many of the American people did make unwise and financially risky deals. Mortgages with no money down, no verifiable income, interest only mortgages, speculation on homes based on the hope market won’t go down, spending too much for a home based on their income. Not all the people did this, but enough did.
And those that are defaulting on the mortgages should pay the cost.
If we are going to have a bailout, this is a must but do we really need a bailout?
Why? Why not allow those who made bad decision to suffer the consequences of their actions?
My family chose to purchase less house then what we qualified for because we wanted to make sure we could afford the payments. Shouldn’t those that deliberately chose another path receive the consequence for their bad decisions, how else are they going to learn?
Again, if we are going to bail out the companies, I agree.
Remember that section from above? Let’s look at it again?
So we have a free market but we are going to tell people how much they can make, how much they can receive in the normal course of their business. I think the name for that isn’t the free market but socialism.
Why not let the people who are ready to risk their money in this recovery do so without the government stepping in. Markets are up today, it’s what markets do - go up go down. For ever seller in the market, those people are taking the risk and should get the reward. The problem with the governments plan is the it spreads the reward indiscriminately. Those that made bad financial decisions will benefit as much as those that made good decisions.
There is it again, no mention of the Republicans’ efforts to safeguard the taxpayers. Guess I’m reading too much into this speech, right?
Hey folks, I can save you a couple hundred million dollars of taxpayers money, watch the frakkin’ news. It will provide all the information on how this happened! Shouldn’t Congress whose job it is to make the laws, know how it happened? If they don’t know how it happened, why the devil are they trying to fix it????
Beware anybody who tells you that immediate action is required (excepting medical care)! High pressure salespeople don’t want the victim reading the fine print or looking over the contract in too much detail.
Please ignore the partisan politics behind the curtain….I mean behind the speech.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Well, I’m not sure if it is the spam filter or I’ve finally made the bad boy list but:
This is a comment about Pelosi’s speech; awaiting moderation.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Bob– I went in and approved your comment. I guess it got hung up in moderation due to the length, not because you want to blame the victims and the Democratic Party for the catastrophic Republican-caused economic fiasco.
I’d be interested to know what you think of Matthew Yglesias’ explanation of what happened yesterday (see post, above).
September 30th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Richard,
I think it is a lot simpler then Matt is trying to make it. I think that 80% of the Republicans and 40% of the Democrats remembered they have to be re-elected soon.
The sentiment is against the bail out. Do you support the bail out?
It wasn’t a double cross, it was self -preservation of their jobs.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Bob S.– No, I don’t support the bailout– particularly the bill voted on yesterday. My opinion is stated in the first paragraph of this post. I’ll also refer you to what I wrote a week ago.
There are enough House members of both parties in safe seats to find a majority for even this stinker. Rep. Boehner called it a “mud sandwich,” using a three-letter word in place of a familiar four-letter word. I think it will pass on Thursday.
On HuffPo, Bob Creamer explains the ideological dilemma facing the right-wing House members:
What to do? Blame the Democrats– that’s the GOP default option for everything.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Additional alternative explanations for the House vote:
House members voting for the bailout got a lot more money in campaign contributions from banks and securities firms.
Newt Gingrich deliberately sabotaged the House leadership, McCain and Bush.
Or, we could keep on saying that right-wing politicians couldn’t cope with their emotions after hearing Speaker Pelosi’s speech.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:33 am
That’s a great juggling job, Bob. First you say that Pelosi gives no credit to Republican congressmen or senators, then you downplay the credit she gives to a Republican cabinet-member…Pelosi’s a monster, isn’t she?
You know, I agree that this is mildly partisan–but would you expect anything different from the Republicans? Let’s be honest: the partisanship claim is at best a whining matter–”Hey, she didn’t say I helped! Well, then, I’m not gonna vote for it, that’s what I’m not gonna do!” Pelosi may be acting like the Little Red Hen without due cause, but the Republicans are responding by becoming a bunch of Chicken Littles. If “partisanship” is the best excuse they have for opposing a massive bill regarding a crisis that has already arrived, we’re in deep waters in Washington.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Dwight,
Let’s see a cabinet member that proposes one of the most socialist power grabbing schemes ever and I “downplay” the credit Pelosi gives him?
Should be thankful that I wasn’t trumpeting it from the rafters that Pelosi supported this ill advised idea. The bail out as Paulson proposed was horrendous, the bailout as “compromised” stunk.
In case you didn’t notice, I was supporting the Democrats and the Republicans that voted it down.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I did notice, Bob. Don’t be all offended on me, here. I’m just pointing out that your analysis possessed a clear bias. What motivates the bias? Only you know that. I’m simply observing that it exists. It is my perception that you are demonizing Pelosi. Personally, I am disappointed that she promoted this bill. As a matter of fact, I haven’t yet heard of anything that Pelosi has done that I have agreed with. When her policy is good, her presentation and dogmatic approach take over and corrupt it.
So I’m not supporting Pelosi, and you don’t need to be indignant. But you aren’t being entirely fair in your analysis of her partisanship. And I’m curious: are you capable of distinguishing between “power-grabbing” and “socialism?” Totalitarianism and socialism are not the same thing, you know, and I don’t know what about this bill is so socialist–I consider it to be more of a pseudo-socialist form of fascism.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Last Saturday, KUED showed the great Humphrey Bogart film “Casablanca” (1942). You remember the scene where Captain Renault (Claude Rains), needing a pretext to shut down Rick’s Cafe, suddenly announces “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
On Monday, the House Republicans were shocked, shocked, to discover partisanship going on in Congress. What an outrage!