Votes on the Administration-backed $700 Billion Wall Street bailout have come and gone. The stock market plunged some 778 points and both sides have begun to cry foul. On the bright side, the dollar rose 5 cents against the British pound.
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
According to the AP, the bill was roughly supported and opposed by equal proportions.
Given the potential of the economic crisis to spread throughout the economy, it strikes me as reasonable to apply a tourniquet to stop the bleeding- in paraphrase of NH Sen. Judd Gregg. The consequence of doing nothing seems too high.
At the same time, I understand well the reluctance of some conservatives to support a $700 Billion Wall Street bailout. Anything backed by the Democrat leadership, by definition, must be suspect. Indeed, House Republicans were already skittish when Speaker Pelosi excoriated them during the floor debate earlier this morning. Why she would alienate the very Republicans she needed in order to pass the legislation remains a mystery. For a seasoned politician, one might expect the Speaker to be familiar with my Grandfather's adage, 'You catch more flies with honey.'
But in the end, maybe the Speaker is on to something. Perhaps the vote before the people's House of Representatives is ideologically emblematic of something greater than Wall Street largess?
Before the bailout went down in flames, Newsweek Columnist, Howard Fineman gloated that Republicans consenting to the bailout was tantamount to a fundamental, seismic shift in American public opinion on the free market. Though his point is inflated with liberal orthodoxy (among other fictions), the crux of his argument is worth considering: the bailout represents the end of American capitalism, and marks the new era of government intervention.
In other words, limited government is dead, and big government is here to stay:
Of course, this is not to say that some type of bailout plan isn't in the offing. I would still expect the Congress to cobble together some amalgam of a plan that better incorporates House Republican concerns into the package. I would also look for Speaker Pelosi to make some paeans toward bipartisanship as an antidote for her vitriolic speech.
But when the history books are written, today could well be the day that House Republicans saved conservatism.
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
According to the AP, the bill was roughly supported and opposed by equal proportions.
More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill. In all, 95 Republicans joined 140 Democrats in voting "yes," while 133 Republicans and 65 Democrats voted "no."Apparently, the only thing Congressional Democrats and Republicans can agree on in the midst of an economic crisis is that they disagree. Oddly enough, both Presidential candidates supported the latest package. Stranger still, in some ways, I share their schizophrenia.
[Link]
Given the potential of the economic crisis to spread throughout the economy, it strikes me as reasonable to apply a tourniquet to stop the bleeding- in paraphrase of NH Sen. Judd Gregg. The consequence of doing nothing seems too high.
At the same time, I understand well the reluctance of some conservatives to support a $700 Billion Wall Street bailout. Anything backed by the Democrat leadership, by definition, must be suspect. Indeed, House Republicans were already skittish when Speaker Pelosi excoriated them during the floor debate earlier this morning. Why she would alienate the very Republicans she needed in order to pass the legislation remains a mystery. For a seasoned politician, one might expect the Speaker to be familiar with my Grandfather's adage, 'You catch more flies with honey.'
But in the end, maybe the Speaker is on to something. Perhaps the vote before the people's House of Representatives is ideologically emblematic of something greater than Wall Street largess?
Before the bailout went down in flames, Newsweek Columnist, Howard Fineman gloated that Republicans consenting to the bailout was tantamount to a fundamental, seismic shift in American public opinion on the free market. Though his point is inflated with liberal orthodoxy (among other fictions), the crux of his argument is worth considering: the bailout represents the end of American capitalism, and marks the new era of government intervention.
In other words, limited government is dead, and big government is here to stay:
The era of cowboy capitalism has died, largely of self-inflicted wounds. Who knows what’s coming now? I do: A new era of tight business regulation and government intervention in the markets.Whether Fineman is on point or not is another topic for a much longer post. But for this conservative, I'm forced to consider that perhaps the People's House was wisest after all. The bailout would have been an unfortunate saddling of Wall Street greed on the backs of all Americans. If conservatives believe in the free market, then we are forced to consider that the free market is operating exactly as it should. Banks that make risky investments sometimes turn a profit. Sometimes they don't. No large bailout necessary.
For now, and perhaps for many years, there will be no going back.
The Rubicon was crossed this weekend, when the deal was struck for a $700 billion federal takeover of the carcass of Wall Street.
[Link]
Of course, this is not to say that some type of bailout plan isn't in the offing. I would still expect the Congress to cobble together some amalgam of a plan that better incorporates House Republican concerns into the package. I would also look for Speaker Pelosi to make some paeans toward bipartisanship as an antidote for her vitriolic speech.
But when the history books are written, today could well be the day that House Republicans saved conservatism.
The Conservative Blog Network
