Could A Bailout Bill Come Sooner Than Later?

September 25th, 2008 By: Michael Merritt | Tags:

It’s possible that a bailout bill might come sooner rather than later.  Earlier, CNN was reporting that Democrats and Republicans in Congress were making a good amount of progress.  Then a couple hours ago, Reuters had an interview with House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank that House and Senate Democrats say they have come up with a bill.

CNN:

In a show of unity, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Minority Leader, John Boehner, R.-Ohio, said Tuesday evening that they are working closely with the administration and “have made progress” on hammering out a deal.

“We agree that key changes should be made to the administration’s initial proposal,” they said in joint statement. “It must include basic good-government principles, including rigorous and independent oversight, strong executive compensation standards, and protection for taxpayers.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said that the Senate is getting closer, but will not rush through a plan that “will have implications for decades to come.”

Reuters:

Democratic Rep. Barney Frank said on Wednesday Democrats had reached an agreement to stem one of the worst U.S. financial disasters in decades, and that there would be enough votes to pass the measure and send it to President George W. Bush to sign into law.

“We now have between House and Senate Democrats an agreement on what we think should be in the bill, and we have a meeting scheduled at 10 a.m. tomorrow to meet with the Republicans,” said Frank, chairman of the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee.

According to the CNN article, Treasury Secretary Paulson has additionally agreed to CEO compensation limits for companies who participate in the legislation’s bailout program.

So, House Democratic leaders say they have a bill, and unless it’s drastically different than what was being worked on earlier today, the Republican leadership shouldn’t have many qualms with it.  So now it’s a thing of making sure it is loaded with a bunch of crap meant to either balloon the price or kill it.  You can bet that the free marketers in Congress will have their bit to say, particularly once it gets to the floor.

Yet, they might be silenced for this one.  I have some sympathy for them, but I also understand something has to be done, and on the whole, it’s probably a good thing that for once, the Democrats are not passing a bill blindly.  As for the politics involved in it, they might have some good points, but they’d better hope that anything they do doesn’t kill the bill, or there will be explaining to do back in their home districts come November 4th.

In all, I can see the merits of the program, but it needs some pretty tight oversight by Congress.  I don’t care who gets the White House next January.  This needs oversight, and passing any bill without it would be insane.

I assume the bill will pass the House quickly, but it might take longer in the Senate.  I would be surprised to see anything sent to the President by the end of this week.  Very surprised.

Then again, weirder things have happened.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. C Stanley
    September 25th, 2008 at 10:02
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Sure, let’s give 700 billion dollars to Congress with instructions for them to determine the value of distressed properties and buy them, hold and later sell, with oversight rules that they write themselves. What could go wrong?

  2. Michael Merritt
    September 26th, 2008 at 03:09
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Am I wrong in thinking that the Treasury Secretary will have the powers you enumerate, and not Congress?

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.