taxes.pngTo cure the spendthrift ways of the lending industry it created, our glorious lenders passed a porky bill. 

In a nail-biter, the House Friday approved the Bush administration’s historic $700 billion financial markets rescue package, a measure promoted as a means to prevent a U.S. economic collapse.

Lawmakers voted 263-171 to pass the bill, a comfortable margin that was 58 more votes than the measure garnered in Monday’s stunning defeat.

Of the 263 supporters, 172 were Democrats and 91 were Republicans. On Monday, 133 House Republicans joined 95 Democrats in rejecting the measure.

At the White House, President Bush declared, “We have acted boldly to prevent the crisis on Wall Street from becoming a crisis in communities across our country.”   (from here)

Now for the sake of stupid rich investors, we will become the proud owners of a bunch bad loans.  Supposedly, we might even make a profit.   🙄

Where did all the pork come from?  That wise and deliberative body we call the Senate is responsible.

Senate leaders quickly took custody of the measure, adding on $110 billion in tax and spending provisions designed to attract additional support, then grafting on legislation mandating broader mental health coverage in the insurance industry.

The revised measure won Senate approval Wednesday night, 74-25, setting up a furious round of lobbying in the House as the administration, congressional leaders, the major party presidential candidates and outside groups joined forces behind the measure.  (from here)

What is in the bill?  Well, here (Wall Street Bailout Bill) is the text.  This article includes the highlights.

Many of the tax breaks were put in place years ago and were set to expire. But their inclusion is complicating efforts in the House to pass an economic rescue plan; an earlier attempt failed Monday. Several House Republicans railed on Thursday against the pork-packed bailout bill.

“One thing we didn’t appreciate in the Senate’s action was that they decided that this bill should become Christmas in October,” said Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio. “We just don’t think (the earmarks) should be in this piece of legislation.”

The tax earmarks were scarcely noticed during the Senate debate over a bill that featured a $700 billion bailout package and a $112 billion tax package, including the renewal of popular tax breaks for businesses and renewable energy projects and a one-year effort to shield at least 20 million Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax. (from here)

Why didn’t the House pass the bill the first time?  My guess is that right before an election, the House has a higher price than the Senate.



  1. When President Bush first submitted the bailout bill two weeks ago, I agreed that it was urgently necessary. I also understood that the Senate and Congress would need to refine the terms. It needed to have more control to protect taxpayers. Our elected representatives have added weak oversight to limit Secretary Paulson’s complete discretion and control of all $700 billion. It minimally addresses CEO pay restrictions, but not foreign owned institutions, leaving them in the bailout pool. Nothing in the bill addresses citizens facing foreclosures. All of these things seem at least related to the current financial crisis, but promise little in the way of protecting the tax dollars we will be investing in the economy. It ultimately does appear to be the powerful giving our money to the rich, again. Adding insult to injury, unrelated issues have found their way into the bill, such as energy and tax bills, as well as pork barrel, which take up over three-quarters of the verbiage.

    If we had any faith in the way our government worked before this bill, citizens must now acknowledge that our elected representatives aren’t capable of addressing our country’s business needs quickly, sufficiently, or without taking care of their own wants first. At this point, I don’t trust the legislative or executive branches of our government to handle any of our nation’s concerns. They have proven their complete ineptitude while formulating this bill.


  2. Donna – Politicians bear some share of the blame for our economic problems, but the voters share most of the blame. We are suppose to keep our leaders in check. There is no one else who can do that job.

    When a politician promises us something, we need to go back to the Constitution and check a couple of things.
    1. Would keeping this promise violate the Constitution? When a politician makes a promise that violates the Constitution, we know that he is a liar. After all, when a politician takes office, he must promise to support and defend the Constitution.
    2. Does this promise have anything to do with his job? When people do not know how to do their own job, they often try to do somebody else’s job. When politicians do this, it just creates a mess. We can no longer pinpoint responsibility. For example, who is failing our public schools? Is it the Federal Government (doing somebody else’s job)? Is it the state government (doing somebody else’s job)? Is it our local government (still trying to do their job after being deprived of the authority to do their job)?

    There is one other item we need to check. Where is the money coming from? Everything cost something. When a politician promises us something for free, he is lying. Even when a politician promises to tax the rich to give to poor, he is lying. That is communism, and communism does not work. Almost anyone smart enough to get themselves elected knows that. Communism has been tried more than once. We know for certain it does not work.


Comments are closed.