Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Roll Call
The bailout roll call is up here, and the "no" votes came from a crazyquilt coalition of left-wing Democrats and conservative Republicans.
Notable Nos...
The Democratic Danger Mice: Rep. Jason Altmire (PA), Rep. John Barrow (GA), Rep. Nancy Boyda (KS), Rep. Tim Carney (PA), Rep. Don Cazayoux (LA), Rep. Travis Childers (MS), Rep. Kirstin Gillibrand (NY), Rep. Baron Hill (IN), Rep. Paul Hodes (NH), Rep. Steve Kagen (WI), Rep. Nick Lampson (TX), Rep. Harry Mitchell (AZ), Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Rep. John Yarmuth (KY)
All of them were elected in 2006 or 2008 (in special elections) and face tough races this year.
The Republican Danger Mice: Rep. Vern Buchanan (FL), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL), Rep. Mario Diaz Balart (FL), Rep. Tom Feeney (FL), Rep. Robin Hayes (NC), Rep. Ric Keller (FL), Rep. Joe Knollenberg (MI), Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (CO), Rep. Dave Reichert (WA), Rep. Jean Schmidt (OH), Rep. Tim Walberg (MI), Rep. Don Young (AK)
Same deal. All of them facing stiff Democratic challenges.
The Safe Lefties: Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH), Rep. Barbara Lee (CA)
None of them are in danger; all of them opposed any corporate bailout.
The Black Caucus: By my count, 20 members of the Congressional Black Caucus opposed the bailout.
Here's Rep. Jeff Flake (AZ) on why he voted no.
TallDave|9.29.08 @ 3:34PM|#
I'm surprised to see the GOP standing on anything like principle here. No doubt they'll pay for not being myopic political opportunists in November.
Elemenope|9.29.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Waiting for the post of the list of vulnerable GOPers.
I'm pretty pissed at my state's congressional delegation, but they
acted just as expected.
Elemenope|9.29.08 @ 3:41PM|#
No doubt they'll pay for not being myopic political
opportunists in November.
As someone noted earlier in the week, there is not a little crass
scary populism embedded in the House GOPers new set of balls. This
isn't principle, exactly, so much as simply doing what their
constituents are telling them to do.
The only person who I predict will *really* suffer is McCain, as he
was the one who rushed back to Washington to corral them there
wayward House Republicans. Whoops. He made a big deal out of it
*and* mentioned the House GOPers by name in the debate. Not so
smart.
sage|9.29.08 @ 3:42PM|#
I'm pretty pissed at my state's congressional delegation, but
they acted just as expected.
I just copied you, LMNOP. Too lazy to type much.
The market is down 700, yet the lights are still on and the
internet works? WTF? I had my rifle out ready to go.
|9.29.08 @ 3:43PM|#
Elemenope,
Go to www.fivethirtyeight.com
Nate breaks out the vote by whether the candidate is deemed "safe"
in November's election.
Other Matt|9.29.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Roscoe P. came through, though his reasoning is somewhat
dubious:
U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-6th, voted against the financial
bailout plan today.
The bill was defeated 228 to 205.
In a statement, he said that the bill failed basic tests he
outlined last week to prevent privatizing profits and socializing
losses.
That sounds good, but....
Bartlett is advocating another plan that he introduced.
The Main Street Protection Act would provide an unlimited amount of
insurance for accounts insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp.
It also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to protect the
principal in money market accounts through the Treasury's exchange
stabilization fund.
So, perhaps it isn't as good as it appears on first look.
Kucinich/Paul, 2012
Kucinich?!?
|9.29.08 @ 3:44PM|#
The Safe Lefties: Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI), Rep. Dennis
Kucinich (OH), Rep. Barbara Lee (CA)
And Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick. Surprised the heck out of me. As I
had not read anything from her on the subject, I figgered she'd go
party line. I figgered wrongly.
sage|9.29.08 @ 3:46PM|#
I stand corrected. Jay Inslee voted against this bill. Probably for the wrong reasons, but damn!
Tom Walls in Fla. (<i>not |9.29.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Tom Tancredo voted for it; what a jerk. As if we didn't know that.
Ironic|9.29.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Perhaps if McCain does somehow win a majority of electoral votes the Repubclicans will NOT march in lockstep with him. After all, a great many of them have memories of HIM not marching in lockstep with them. It is time they return the favor.
jmd|9.29.08 @ 3:57PM|#
$700 billion = $2300 of my tax dollars
the dow's drop today = $8000 i lost in one day.
as a libertarian i am supposed to look out for my self-interest,
no? so why would i choose to lose an additional $5700 just to keep
some of you from being pissed off?
BDB|9.29.08 @ 3:57PM|#
There were a lot of black Democrats voting against it. They tend to be liberals.
|9.29.08 @ 4:00PM|#
anyone else find the title of the bill hilarious?
"To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings
assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services,
volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other
purposes"
Ah the other purposes, how important you are!
Donny|9.29.08 @ 4:00PM|#
"There were a lot of black Democrats voting against it. They
tend to be liberals."
Their Gerrymandered districts are where all the foreclosures are
and the bill didn't have provisions to bail them out. So of course
they voted no.
Xmas|9.29.08 @ 4:00PM|#
jmd,
Unless you actually sold your stocks today, you haven't lost
anything yet. Unless you're following mark-to-market rules. :)
Ironic|9.29.08 @ 4:02PM|#
"Their Gerrymandered districts are where all the foreclosures
are and the bill didn't have provisions to bail them out. So of
course they voted no."
I never thought I would say this but thank the gods for
gerymandering!
BDB|9.29.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Yeah. I live in one of those districts, and I'll actually vote for my Congresscritter instead of writing in the name of my cat like I usually do just cause of this vote.
Gamble|9.29.08 @ 4:05PM|#
I'm glad the housing market imploded. Drove the gangs out of my neighborhood. They were firebombing each other's houses. Shooting each other became too passe', I guess
dfd|9.29.08 @ 4:13PM|#
as a libertarian i am supposed to look out for my
self-interest, no?
As a libertarian, looking out for your "self-interest" does not
mean taxing other people to protect your investment, dumbass. If
you were a libertarian nobody would need to tell you
that.
Hey, as long as your just looking out for your self interest, why
not just steal the money you lost from your neighbor? I mean, why
choose to lose that $5,700 just to keep them from being pissed
off?
|9.29.08 @ 4:14PM|#
as a libertarian i am supposed to look out for my self-interest, no?
Not by using government coercion you're not.
You were probably joking but just in case...
|9.29.08 @ 4:14PM|#
I never thought I would say this but thank the gods for
gerymandering!
Montana only has one Congressman, so gerrymandering is not an
issue. I believe Rehberg voted "nay". Can't say I'm surprised, but
it pleases me nonetheless.
|9.29.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Looks like dfd beat me to it! I think I might have fed a troll (jmd that is). Sorry!
|9.29.08 @ 4:17PM|#
Heh.
John McCain's presidential campaign claimed credit as Congress
readied Monday to vote on an emergency economic package, but
Democrats said the Republican's last-ditch intervention had been no
help.
Mitt Romney, McCain's erstwhile rival for the Republican
nomination, said the deal on a Wall Street bailout worth up to 700
billion dollars would never have happened without the Arizona
senator.
Speaking on NBC television, the former Massachusetts governor said
"this bill would not have been agreed to had it not been for John
McCain."
"That doesn't mean that he's the only guy doing that. And there
many people ... who have been critical to it," Romney said.
"But, you know, this is a bipartisan accomplishment, a bipartisan
success. And if people want to get something done in Washington,
they just watch John McCain," he said.
"He's been the guy whose name is at the top of major pieces of
legislation for a long time."
Follows nicely on the heels of his statetment from Friday MORNING
that he won the debate Friday night.
Ed Burley|9.29.08 @ 4:18PM|#
jmd wrote: "$700 billion = $2300 of my tax dollars
the dow's drop today = $8000 i lost in one day.
as a libertarian i am supposed to look out for my self-interest,
no? so why would i choose to lose an additional $5700 just to keep
some of you from being pissed off?"
No, as a libertarian you are supposed to support the free markets
and oppose government intervention in those markets.
You actually sound like the typical rich liberal Obama supporter
who expects to always make money, and all the working people be
damned.
go to hell.
BDB|9.29.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Biggest point drop in history.
Joe-
Wow, Maverick and Mittens really shit the bed.
|9.29.08 @ 4:23PM|#
the dow's drop today = $8000 i lost in one day.
Ah, yes, the newest welfare entitlement. The value of your house
and your stock portfolio are guaranteed by the Federal
Government.
Kolohe|9.29.08 @ 4:24PM|#
You can add Hirono from HI as as safe D even though she only got elected in '06
|9.29.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Does anyone else find it hard to believe nobody other
than the federal government will ever buy these mortgages
at some point?
Maybe it'll take a few months, but I think the whole premise of
this is bogus.
|9.29.08 @ 4:26PM|#
$700 billion = $2300 of my tax dollars
the dow's drop today = $8000 i lost in one day.
Apparently, you can no longer afford capital letters as well.
That $2300 of your tax dollars probably assumes that everyone pays
the same for the bailout. If you pay income taxes at all (that is,
you are not in the majority that doesn't), your share of the
bailout could easily exceed $8,000. You probably came out ahead
today, my friend.
as a libertarian i am supposed to look out for my
self-interest, no?
Your long-term self-interest is served by not having the government
even more intertwined with the economy.
|9.29.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Their Gerrymandered districts are where all the foreclosures
are
Only if there's a lot more black folks in SoCal and AZ than I
thought there were.
|9.29.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Adamness,
The fact that the mortgages will someday be worth money again was
the POINT of the bailout proposal. The illiquid companies get a
cash infusion, but in the long run, the government (which is more
patient and has deeper pockets) makes money playing the waiting
game then selling them.
Eventually, the reasoning goes, those MBSs would have been worth
something. But until that "eventually" comes, the capital markets
are dried up, because the lenders have no cash.
|9.29.08 @ 4:32PM|#
BDB,
Want to read the worst political prognostication in history?
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/70a8ce64-3147-4cd9-8754-fa9a6531d0ef
"Obama Bounce: Dead Cat or Trend?"
ROTFLMAO funny. It's like a message from an alternative universe.
Riker's in command, the Borg have taken over, and Barack Obama is
doomed by the might of talk radio.
|9.29.08 @ 4:45PM|#
joe,
Yeah, I'm aware, but it seems unnecessary, to say the least, that
we'd spend $700 billion+ on these mortgages simply because we're
impatient. Granted, there will be repercussions on many of us, but
throwing taxpayer money at it isn't the solution.
matt2|9.29.08 @ 4:45PM|#
JMD, you should do some research on the word "unrealized."
Unless you really did unload long-term investments today, in which
case there's probably no hope for you anyway.
Neu Mejican|9.29.08 @ 4:52PM|#
Democracy's hard.
I am a bit annoyed that the read by the politicians on the negative
attitudes towards this bail-out comes from a misunderstanding by
the public. If there is a misunderstanding by the public that is
putting pressure on their representatives, then it is the job of
the politicians to convince the public by making, ya know,
arguments and things, that make sense.
This bill failed because enough PEOPLE see it as a bad idea to put
pressure on their representatives to vote against. Effrorts at
convincing the representatives to vote one way or the other are
wasted. IF this is a good idea, then the efforts need to be be
aimed at convincing the public, not the Congress.
Government of, for, and by the people...yadda, yadda...
|9.29.08 @ 4:54PM|#
I believe that's the wrong roll call vote. I've been having the
same problem. It's supposed to be the right vote, but it's not. Not
bill title:
BILL TITLE: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed
services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and
for other purposes
|9.29.08 @ 4:59PM|#
More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of
Democrats opposed the bill.
The numbers that count...no surprise from me that Weigel forgot to
mention them.
|9.29.08 @ 5:03PM|#
Gwen, I was wondering the same thing about the bill's
title...
The Peace Corps is getting $700 billion to fight fires? or
something.
|9.29.08 @ 5:03PM|#
I see my guy, Trent Franks, voted no. So I did what I have never done before, called him up, said thanks and told him I might actually vote and for him.
|9.29.08 @ 5:04PM|#
Democratic yes 140 no 95
Republican yes 65 no 133 1
How is this "a crazyquilt coalition of left-wing Democrats and
conservative Republicans"?
Looks more like Republicans defeat Democrat bill to me.
Neu Mejican|9.29.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Looks more like Republicans defeat Democrat bill to
me.
Well, let's see. 95 Democratic votes against makes up 42% of the
opposition to the bill.
Hmmmm...
Sounds like the members defeated the leaders bill.
Harry Mitchell Watch|9.29.08 @ 5:20PM|#
Harry Mitchell obviously voted against the bill because he's running scared and that's not because he's a vulnerable Democrat in a Republican district. It's really because he's trying to cover his tracks and record from earlier votes in which he voted to give more authority to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and broaden this crisis. For example, Harry voted for HR 5140 which provided for a temporary increase in the size of mortgages Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can purchase, as well as an increase in the size of mortgages the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) can insure (source: Harry Mitchell, January 29, 2008 Press release)
Kolohe|9.29.08 @ 5:20PM|#
I believe that's the wrong roll call vote. I've been having
the same problem. It's supposed to be the right vote, but it's not.
Not bill title:
BILL TITLE: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed
services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and
for other purposes
Gwen-
It's the right roll call vote
Note:
According to the House Majority Leader, H.R.3997 will be used as
the vehicle for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
See documents on the House Financial Services Committee website and
H.Res.1517 on the House Rules Committee website.
Nigel Watt|9.29.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Looks like the Texas delegation did pretty well. Good.
(Fuck you, Pete Sessions.)
|9.29.08 @ 5:25PM|#
The American people killed this bill. Had the calls and polls been running favorable rather than negative, this bill would have passed 534-1. Like it or not, no one wants to bail out Wall Street. I am not sure if that is a good thing, but that is the fact. Before we start blaming politicians, we better start blaming the public or crediting the public depending on your view.
|9.29.08 @ 5:26PM|#
Well, let's see. 95 Democratic votes against makes up 42% of
the opposition to the bill.
Hmmmm...
Sounds like the members defeated the leaders bill.
The Dems made up nearly 70% of the yes votes....this was a Democrat
bill and it got defeated by Republican opposition.
Anyway you, like joe, have been clear shills for the Dem party for
a long time. So your comments are pretty much worthless in looking
at this from a libertarian perspective.
By the way Frank and Pelosi agree with me.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080929/D93GJQD82.html
|9.29.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Here is what I think happens. The Democrats come back to
tomorrow with a new bill that has a million pay offs to the left
and is much worse than this one but passes on a party line. The
President will then sign it to avoid a meltdown. We are going to
get a lot worse bill I think than this one.
The question is do the Democrats get credit for saving the day or
get blamed for handing out billions to wall street? I really don't
know.
Neu Mejican|9.29.08 @ 5:27PM|#
John,
That's what I said.
I, as is typical, just used more words.
Those who support this plan need to convince the public, not the
congress. The congress will toe the line if the public is behind
the bailout.
|9.29.08 @ 5:28PM|#
"The Dems made up nearly 70% of the yes votes....this was a
Democrat bill and it got defeated by Republican opposition."
How can the opposition defeat a bill when they are in the majority?
Had Pelosi had her act together, she wouldn't have needed one
Republican vote. The Dems control Congress, yet someone the failure
to pass a bill is all the Republicans fault. Yeah that makes
sense.
|9.29.08 @ 5:29PM|#
Like it or not, no one wants to bail out Wall Street. I am
not sure if that is a good thing,
You invest in things you had no idea how they worked there
John?
Ouch...that sure sucks for you. The rest of the country is pretty
happy we don't have to pay you for your mistake.
|9.29.08 @ 5:32PM|#
The Dems control Congress, yet someone the failure to pass a
bill is all the Republicans fault. Yeah that makes
sense.
Ummm....fault? failure?
More like "intent" and "success" in my book.
This libertarian cheers "good job Republicans" on this day.
Neu Mejican|9.29.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Joshua Corning,
Anyway you, like joe, have been clear shills for the Dem party
for a long time. So your comments are pretty much worthless in
looking at this from a libertarian perspective.
Hmmmm....
What an odd interpretation of my history comments on H&R.
Not surprising, given the source, but certainly odd.
I will point out that you were critiquing the idea that the bill
was defeated by a patchwork of Dem. and Rep.
To make that argument, the numbers need to be a lot cleaner than
60-40 for the Dems. Sure the 30-70 numbers for the Reps. are a bit
stronger on the "no" side, but that doesn't make the opposition,
which is 60-40 Rep-Dem anything but a coalition of
Rep&Dem.
Unless you think only the Reps. count.
|9.29.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Unless you think only the Reps. count.
Last I checked they are the ones who voted.
|9.29.08 @ 5:57PM|#
I'm proud to say that my political hack of a representative voted "No". Its almost enough for me to forgive the fact that his no vote was probably not from any sort of principle, but the fact that the democrats weren't nice enough to him personally.
Neu Mejican|9.29.08 @ 7:02PM|#
Joshua Corning,
Reps. was intended to be short-hand for Republicans...but nice
dodge.
joe|9.29.08 @ 7:22PM|#
This libertarian cheers "good job Republicans" on this
day.
Ah, it must be Monday. Or Tuesday. Or Wednesday. Or Thursday. Or
the weekend.
Or Friday.
joe|9.29.08 @ 7:24PM|#
Hey, joshua, I haven't seen you around in a while.
So, can you answer my questions yet?
How would a bill that compels Fannie Mae to buy more
mortgage-backed securities have prevented a problem caused by the
proliferation of mortgage backed securities?
And how does a Senator vote against a bill that never made it out
of a committee he doesn't serve on?
Heinrick|9.29.08 @ 7:40PM|#
"Well, let's see. 95 Democratic votes against makes up 42% of
the opposition to the bill"
"The Dems made up nearly 70% of the yes votes....this was a
Democrat bill and it got defeated by Republican opposition."
So the Dems made up 112% of the votes?
joe|9.29.08 @ 7:45PM|#
No, those are the %s of the yeas and neas that were Democrats, not percents of the Democrats that were yeas and nays.
|9.29.08 @ 8:34PM|#
I don't think you can blame a minority party for defeating a
majority party's bill. In the end, the democrats knew there was
going to be significant opposition and they couldn't convince their
own members to rally around the leadership's cause.
I think this could be considered a bipartisan rejection, not a
failure in bipartisanship.
|9.29.08 @ 8:46PM|#
Very simple - if my representative voted FOR the people and
AGAINST the bailout, I will vote for him. So we won't be able to
get credit when the problem is we are too far in debt now. Sounds
like an oxymoron to me. Here are the profiteers... WAKE UP AMERICA
!
$700 Billion for Paulson's Buddies
Today's telecast of The McLaughlin Group showed 10 of the biggest
losers from the current mess on Wall Street. 9 of the 10 could be
described as friends of Secretary Henry Paulson and the other one
is Paulson himself. Here's the list biggest CEO losers based on
their personal portfolio of company stock...
Maurice Greenberg - Former CEO AIG
Jan '07 - $1.25 Billion | Sep '08 - $50 Million (96.0% Loss)
Henry Paulson, Former CEO Goldman Sachs
1/07 - $809 Million | 9/08 - $523 Million (35.4% Loss)
Daniel Mudd, Former CEO Fannie Mae
1/07 - $26 Million | 9/08 - $476k (98.2% Loss)
Richard Syron, Former CEO Freddie Mac
1/07 - $11 Million | 9/08 - $130k (98.8% Loss)
Martin Sullivan, CEO AIG
1/07 - $3.2 Million | 9/08 - $173k (94.6% Loss)
John Thain, CEO Merrill Lynch
1/07 - $28 Million | 9/08 - $16 Million (42.9% Loss)
Richard Fuld Jr. - Former CEO Lehman Brothers
1/07 - $827 Million | 9/08 - $2.3 Million (99.7% Loss)
John Mack - CEO Morgan Stanley
1/07 - $225 Million | 9/08 - $80 Million (64.4% Loss)
Charles Prince III - Former CEO CITIGROUP
1/07 - $89 Million | 9/08 - $33 Million (62.9% Loss)
James Cayne - Former CEO Bear Stearns
1/07 - $1.1 Billion | 9/08 - $61 Million (94.5% Loss)
It is undeniable that $700 Billion will help Paulson and his
friends' portfolios to rebound. Do you think that the bailout is
going help the average American family as much as it will Paulson's
friends?
pilight|9.29.08 @ 10:58PM|#
20 of the 41 voting members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted against. That's pretty much the same percentage as the House as a whole.
Paul|9.29.08 @ 11:43PM|#
Cyberlady,
Funny, this whole thing reminds of that scene in Saving Private
Ryan where the Americans took a flamethrower to the rear
entrance of that bunker, causing german soldiers to leap, burning,
to the beach below. I feel a bit like the American soldier on the
beach who stood up and yelled "Don't shoot! Let 'em burn!"
|9.30.08 @ 12:24AM|#
"wake up America" might be my favorite kitschy-phrase from this
score (by that I mean twenty years or so...is it older than
that?)
I wanna put it on a T-shirt because it makes me laugh.
Nick|9.30.08 @ 12:25AM|#
Fuck you, Pete Sessions.
I wrote a long thank you letter to Sam Johnson for voting against
the bill, only to find out that my half of my zip code is actually
in Pete Sessions' district. Then I saw that Sessions voted for the
bill.
I'll just say - ditto.
|9.30.08 @ 3:11AM|#
Barbra Lee speeks for me!
That's a relatively popular bumper sticker where I live, Berkeley,
California, because she is our safe lefty congresswomen. Anyway I
think I'll write her a thank you note. But I know she'll vote for
some CCC to provide jobs so maybe I'll save my time.
Mr. X|9.30.08 @ 2:44PM|#
You didn't mention Donna Edwards (D-MD4) who voted against her
party and the bailout, but with her constituents. If anyone else
lives in the close-in MD suburbs, I urge you to call her office to
(a) thank her for voting No and (b) urge her to stand firm if they
bring this bill back on Thursday.
Actually, regardless of where you live, you should call today and
tomorrow to urge your Representative to vote No on Thursday.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245