Washblog

For the bulk of the remaining post I give a big nod to Gegner, whom I borrow shamelessly from:

The bill, as it stood today:

Gave far too much power to the very same people who caused this mess.

Didn't put the burden of the debt upon those who benefited the most.

Was roundly criticized by economists of both left and right.

Did not provide proper accountability.

Here is a peek at the draft that failed to pass the House:

(d) PROGRAM GUIDELINES.--Before the earlier of the end of the 2-business-day period beginning on the date of the first purchase of troubled assets pursuant to the authority under this section or the end of the 45-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish program guidelines, including the following:
(1) Mechanisms for purchasing troubled assets.
(2) Methods for pricing and valuing troubled assets.
(3) Procedures for selecting asset managers.
(4) Criteria for identifying troubled assets for purchase.
So it's all up to the Secretary to establish the rules. Same with Warrants - it's up to the Secretary to negotiate.

Yeah, Pelosi and Hoyer would have let Paulsen do as he saw fit.  How on earth only 40% of the Dems had a problem with that is beyond me.
Boehner I can understand.  He's rubber stamped this administration the whole way and he's not going to stop now, but Pelosi should have known better.

Thank God the progessives did.

SEC. 132. SUSPENSION OF MARK-TO-MARKET ACCOUNTING.
(a) AUTHORITY.--The Securities and Exchange Commission shall have the authority under securities laws (as such term is defined under section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47)) to suspend, by rule, regulation, or order, the application of Statement Number 157 of the Financial Accounting Standards Board for any issuer (as such term is defined in section 3(a)(8) of such Act) or with respect to any class or category of transaction if the Commission determines that is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and is consistent with the protection of investors

Repealing "mark to market" in the midst of a 700 billion dollar bailout allows the banks to surrender worthless paper at full face value.  Where's the taxpayer protection?

"Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to pay banks interest on reserves under Section 201 of the Act. In addition, Section 202 permits the FRB to change the ratio of reserves a bank must maintain relative to its transaction accounts, allowing a zero reserve ratio if appropriate. Due to federal budgetary requirements, Section 203 provides that these legislative changes will not take effect until October 1, 2011."

Can anyone explain how allowing a zero reserve ratio is protecting the taxpayers?

The same Dems who have disillusioned so many in the Democratic Party are the same Dems who rushed to pass this - dare I say it? - peice of SHIT bill.  The progressives balked and with them, the bill went down in flames.

The results are clear.  The DLC "center" has failed.  Neither left nor right will meet in the middle to "compromise" on a "bipartisan" bill.

Pelosi now has two choices:

1.  Come back with a bill that satisfies the Republicans.  (ie, the total sellout option that gives untold power to Paulsen and lets the rich rip off the American worker)

2.  Satisfy the left.  Get the progressive vote of Kucinich, Inslee, Conyers, etc.  This would entail drafting a FAIR bailout bill that didn't burden the very people who were excluded from the table when the money was being made hand over fist by the elite.  A progressive tax on the people who profited at the expense of the nation and the world.  A plan the American people can get behind.

The choice is hers.  The days to come will tell us which side Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and the rest of the Democrats who showed no spine stand on.  Ours or the corporate elite.

Kudos the the progressives.  It's nice to finally see Dems with spines.