Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
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.
The Roll Call
Comments to "The Roll Call":
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 | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 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.
joe | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 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?!?
J sub D | September 29, 2008, 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.
Boston | September 29, 2008, 3:45pm | #
Teh write your congressperson website crashed. I find that funnyI stand corrected. Jay Inslee voted against this bill. Probably for the wrong reasons, but damn!
Tom Walls in Fla. (not | September 29, 2008, 3:52pm | #
Tom Tancredo voted for it; what a jerk. As if we didn't know that.Ironic | September 29, 2008, 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.BDB | September 29, 2008, 3:56pm | #
FiveThirtyEight.com is the best election site ever.Ironic | September 29, 2008, 3:56pm | #
Is Neil Abercrombie a blue dog?| September 29, 2008, 3:57pm | #
Close italics tagjmd | September 29, 2008, 3:57pm | #
$700 billion = $2300 of my tax dollarsthe 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 | September 29, 2008, 3:57pm | #
There were a lot of black Democrats voting against it. They tend to be liberals.Donny | September 29, 2008, 3:58pm | #
Who was the one that abstained?Joe fucking Courtney voted against it? Color me surprised.
Jacob | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 4:00pm | #
jmd,Unless you actually sold your stocks today, you haven't lost anything yet. Unless you're following mark-to-market rules. :)
Xenu | September 29, 2008, 4:00pm | #
Teegeeack will pay for its disobedience!Ironic | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 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.mattbrains | September 29, 2008, 4:05pm | #
Tim Carney (D-PA) is actually Chris Carney (D-PA)Gamble | September 29, 2008, 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 guessdfd | September 29, 2008, 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?
Soda | September 29, 2008, 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...
P Brooks | September 29, 2008, 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.
Looks like dfd beat me to it! I think I might have fed a troll (jmd that is). Sorry!
joe | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 4:18pm | #
jmd wrote: "$700 billion = $2300 of my tax dollarsthe 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 | September 29, 2008, 4:20pm | #
Biggest point drop in history.Joe-
Wow, Maverick and Mittens really shit the bed.
Isaac Bartram | September 29, 2008, 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.
Matthew | September 29, 2008, 4:23pm | #
JMD,Just do what your heart tells you.
I'm sure we'll manage ok, regardless.
Kolohe | September 29, 2008, 4:24pm | #
You can add Hirono from HI as as safe D even though she only got elected in '06Adamness | September 29, 2008, 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.
R C Dean | September 29, 2008, 4:26pm | #
$700 billion = $2300 of my tax dollarsthe 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.
R C Dean | September 29, 2008, 4:27pm | #
Their Gerrymandered districts are where all the foreclosures areOnly if there's a lot more black folks in SoCal and AZ than I thought there were.
joe | September 29, 2008, 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.
joe | September 29, 2008, 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.
Bingo | September 29, 2008, 4:44pm | #
Oh my god, Mitt Romney hitched his horse to that thing? LMAOAdamness | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 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...
Gwen | September 29, 2008, 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
joshua corning | September 29, 2008, 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.
the OverKiller | September 29, 2008, 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.
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.
joshua corning | September 29, 2008, 5:04pm | #
Democratic yes 140 no 95Republican 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 | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 5:24pm | #
Looks like the Texas delegation did pretty well. Good.(Fuck you, Pete Sessions.)
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.
joshua corning | September 29, 2008, 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
John | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 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.
John | September 29, 2008, 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.
joshua corning | September 29, 2008, 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.
joshua corning | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 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.
Kolohe, thank you for clearing up my confusion about the roll call vote!
joshua corning | September 29, 2008, 5:56pm | #
Unless you think only the Reps. count.Last I checked they are the ones who voted.
Lost_In_Translation | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 7:02pm | #
Joshua Corning,Reps. was intended to be short-hand for Republicans...but nice dodge.
joe | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 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 | September 29, 2008, 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?
No, those are the %s of the yeas and neas that were Democrats, not percents of the Democrats that were yeas and nays.
Lost_In_Translation | September 29, 2008, 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.
cyberlady | September 29, 2008, 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?
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 | September 29, 2008, 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!"
The Angry Optimist | September 30, 2008, 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 | September 30, 2008, 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.
Ian B | September 30, 2008, 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 | September 30, 2008, 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.
the flake video | September 30, 2008, 2:53pm | #
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LymRr0CEIwk