Share

Bush's Bailout Meeting Ends in Disarray; McCain Gets Blame

by: David Lightman and Margaret Talev   |  McClatchy Newspapers

photo
On September 25, 2008, President Bush met with Congressional leaders at the White House, including (L-R) Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), Minority House Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California). Also at the meeting was Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois). (Photo: Reuters)

    Washington - Congressional negotiators' carefully-crafted agreement on a $700 billion rescue plan threatened to unravel Thursday as lawmakers at an often tense White House meeting clashed over details.

    As Republican presidential nominee John McCain looked on, House Republican Leader John Boehner raised concerns that the plan would be too costly to taxpayers, and offered an alternative plan.

    Democrats were mad.

    "What this looked like to me was a rescue plan for John McCain," said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd of the Republican objections.

    His reference was to McCain's eleventh-hour intervention in the negotiations, when he declared he was suspending his campaign and postponing Friday night's debate with Democrat Barack Obama to help negotiate a bailout plan.

    Democrats think that Republicans were backing away from a compromise many of them agreed to earlier Thursday - without McCain's involvement - in order to give McCain time to play a role and perhaps appear as a rescuer.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he believed the breakdown was simply an effort to allow McCain to miss Friday night's scheduled debate with Obama.

    Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, seconded that belief. "I think McCain was hurting politically," Frank said. "I think this was a campaign ploy."

    When McCain arrived in Washington to discover that an agreement was near, Frank said, it became necessary to upset it so that McCain could later be seen to have played a role. "He's making it harder to get things done," Frank said.

    Republicans, in contrast, said there reservations on the bailout plan were principled. The plan, they said, had too much government involvement in private industry and too high potential liabilities for taxpayers.

    "That agreement is obviously no agreement," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., as he emerged from the White House meeting.

    The lawmakers spoke after spending an hour in what was supposed to be a somber show of bipartisan unity at the White House. The session, hosted by President Bush and featuring the two presidential candidates as well as House and Senate leaders, came hours after the Democratic and Republican negotiators had issued a one-page "agreement on principles."

    After the House Republican rebellion at the White House cast doubt on the agreement's fate, negotiators reconvened Thursday night, hoping once again to find common ground. But they were uncertain how to handle the Republican alternative, whose chief feature would permit the government to provide insurance to firms to buy troubled assets rather than spend taxpayer money on them.

    "Rather than providing taxpayer funded purchases of frozen mortgage assets, we should adopt a mortgage insurance approach to solve the problem," a GOP fact sheet said.

    Under the plan, firms would pay insurance premiums to the government in return for coverage.

    "We feel it is best to resort to private capital first," said Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., who led the effort, which is backed by Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee _ and who helped negotiate the bipartisan agreement.

    McCain, who has slipped well behind Democratic nominee Barack Obama in most recent presidential polls, spoke briefly at the White House meeting, where Obama outlined a series of principles that he wants addressed in any legislation.

    Obama told CNN he still thought a deal could be reached, though he acknowledged that "I still think there's still some work that needs to be done." McCain tried to paint himself as a consensus-maker, telling ABC News "I believe we'll reach a successful conclusion. Members are aware of the crisis situation that we're in.

    "They do have concerns about $700 billion or a trillion dollars, that need to be addressed so that this is a genuine, bipartisan, bicameral agreement."

    The Arizona senator is not a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has never been influential in setting congressional financial policy, and was not involved in the negotiated agreement in principle.

    Said Sen. Reid: "Anyone who tried to understand what John McCain said (at the White House) couldn't."

    Among the main points reached in the bipartisan agreement in principle:

    Earlier, negotiators had produced a one-page "agreement on principles" that includes:

  • Funding. Treasury would be authorized to spend $700 billion, but would get only $250 billion immediately, with another $100 billion to be released once the Treasury secretary certifies the money is needed. The other $350 billion could be canceled if Congress passed a joint resolution of disapproval.

  • Executive pay. The Treasury Department would "set standards to prevent excessive or inappropriate executive compensation for participating companies."

  • Taxpayer equity. Taxpayers could share in the profits of firms that benefit from the bailout as they return to financial health.

  • Oversight. The legislation would establish a "strong oversight board with cease and desist authority," as well as an independent inspector general who would monitor "the use of the Treasury Secretary's authority." The Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, also would audit the use of bailout funds. Regular detailed reports to Congress on the program would be required.

  • Homeowners. The agreement mandates maximum coordinated efforts to modify mortgages for homeowners at risk of foreclosure; requires loan modifications for mortgages owned by the federal government; and directs that a percentage of future profits go to federal housing funds.

  • Judicial review. The government would be barred from "acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner or in any way that is inconsistent with existing law," which ensures the possibility of legal challenges in court. The original administration plan would have prohibited judicial review.
  •     To help push the package, lawmakers from both parties, including Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, respectively, were meeting with President Bush at the White House later Thursday afternoon. McCain and Obama were not present in the congressional negotiations that produced the agreement in principle.

        One sign of potential trouble came from conservative House Republicans, who were offering their own plan, one that would require less government intervention. It would permit Washington to provide insurance to firms that buy troubled assets. Firms would pay insurance premiums to the government in return for coverage.

        "We feel it is best to resort to private capital first," said Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., who led the effort. Taxpayers "should not have to pay to bail out Wall Street."

        Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the top Republican on the House Banking Committee, sat in on the negotiations Thursday and said he was not sure that House GOP members would embrace the package, though, "I think we're closer."

        Also complicating final agreement was the presidential campaign. McCain said that he's suspending his campaign to help draft bipartisan legislation, and Obama's camp boasted that he'd played an important role in the executive pay negotiation.

        But Banking Committee staff said that while Obama's staff stayed in touch with negotiators, the senator had no apparent role in brokering any deal.

        Democrats warned McCain, who is not a member of the Senate Banking Committee, not to try to take credit for all the work the negotiators have done in recent days in his absence.

        "I'm delighted that John is expressing himself on this issue," Dodd said. "I have heard from Obama on numerous occasions these last couple days. I have never heard from John McCain on the issue . . . I'm just worried a little bit that sort of politicizing this problem, sort of flying in here, I'm beginning to think this is more of a rescue plan for John McCain and not a rescue plan for the economy."

      

    »


    Comments

    This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

    " Republicans, in contrast,

    " Republicans, in contrast, said THEIR reservations on the bailout plan were principled. The plan, they said, had too much government involvement in private industry and too high potential liabilities for taxpayers." typo

    Clearly, when Dodd announced

    Clearly, when Dodd announced the agreement in principle, most of the committee was on board. Spencer Bacchus was reserved, but not reluctant. And watching Richard Shelby wave around his "200 economists say" prop over two days, rolled up like he just looked at it for the first time, is revealing. Obviously, the economists assessed and rejected only the original Paulson proposal, not the revised bipartisan plan. This fact was made clear only after CNN's John Roberts pressed him repeatedly in a live interview yesterday. Shelby was so evasive it became obvious he was misleading the public. It's hard to tell if this is merely a political stunt to help McCain, but it's easy to see how the old whore might wiggle his way in there.

    The "Great Rescuer" McCain

    The "Great Rescuer" McCain sure knows how to add to "a very important meeting." HE JUST SAT THERE! "As Republican presidential nominee John McCain looked on..." Is this the kind of leadership McCain will offer as a president? And then he acts as a spoiler at the White House meeting? God, I hope this backfires in his face as his antics are playing with my hard-earned, shrinking savings.

    What idiocy McCain has to go

    What idiocy McCain has to go through in order to avoid the debate. Puts our economy at stake so he doesn't have to take a chance to be asked about his campaign manager ( the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyist called Davis) who has been getting apx $15,000 a month from which FINALLY stopped last month. McCain has lied about this fact on TV twice in the recent few weeks. His credibility is finished and the more he tries to run the trillion dollar show the worse it gets. His pick for VP has only worked for ignorant redneckers. God help us all.

    Well, of COURSE the

    Well, of COURSE the Republicans are going to attempt to use this as a way to bolster McCain's campaign. They've tried everything else in the past two elections. Why would this situation be any different?

    Disastrous Disastrous war

    Disastrous Disastrous war Disastrous economy Disastrous disaster management Enough!

    Everyone in the presidential

    Everyone in the presidential photo op looks nervous or distracted, except for John McCain. He looks ready to take on the Viet Cong, the true cause of this whole mess.

    Investing, lending and

    Investing, lending and insurance are all risk endeavors, legalized gambling, which means that there is a distinct possibility that money may be lost. The financial sector developed a "musical chairs" version of finance, passing debt around in order to create more profit taking opportunities. However, it differs from the game of "musical chairs" in that in the game the last one standing (sitting on the last chair) is the winner. In financial musical chairs, the last entity with a chair when the music stops should be the one that is left holding the debt/loss.

    There should NOT be any

    There should NOT be any hasty, rough-shod bail-out plan at this juncture of economic affairs. The consequences of haste and waste without regulation and oversight would be ruinous for our nation, even more ruinous than whatever it is that the current corporate structure is trying to foist off on the people in such a big hurry as they whine about a recession. The people are already in recession. Let the wealthy pay their own way out of this mess.

    Why should the Democrats be

    Why should the Democrats be mad that their plan was not accepted? Thank God it was not accepted since it was no better than a sleazy support to the whole criminal system now in power. Better that there should be a moratorium 0n any further stock market exchanges until after the election. This provides time for congresspeople to get back to their constituents to try to "explain" why they should have to pay for the whining greed of wealthy corporate CEOs and shareholders.

    Bailout = Political

    Bailout = Political Suicide. Americans are 100% against it. Now the republicans are backpedaling. They are trying to blame their horrendous gaffe on the democrats. What power of spin they have in the media that they own! Their idiocy and lies have been clearly broadcast all over the world for the last 4 days. NOBODY trusts them now!!! And the McCain zombie sits right there with them grinning like the fool that he is. Like rats on a burning ship, it's every man for himself now in the fractured and festering GOP. How delightful.

    My Bail-Out Plan... I'm

    My Bail-Out Plan... I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bail-out of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a 'We Deserve It' Dividend. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00. My plan is to give $425,0 00 to every person 18+ as a 'We Deserve It' Dividend. Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in his pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00. What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family? Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved. Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads Put away money for college - it'll be there Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs. Buy a new car - create jobs Invest in the market - capital drives growth Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean or else Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces. If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President. If we're going to do an $85 billion bail-out, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+! As for AIG - liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up. Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't. Sure it's a crazy idea that can work. But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party! How do you spell Economic Boom? I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion 'We Deserve It' Dividend more than the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC . And remember, The Family plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam. Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.  By the way I do not have an economics degree.

    The Republicans have seized

    The Republicans have seized the day on the issue of bail out billions for crooks who ought to be indicted, prosecuted, and ultimately confined to prison owing to their fraud and malfeasance. The fact the the democrats won't publicly discuss these crimes clearly suggests that their bank accounts have been padded with dollars from these Wall Street robber barons. For such reasons, both parties are part of the problem, not part of the solution, and this is why neither party is willing to listen to alternative solutions to saving the economy. Again, America must attempt to save its economy, not necessarily Wall Street. The proposed $700 billion is designed to prop up a few Wall Street investments banks engaged in criminal activity, but doesn't necessarily save the economy. The current FBI investigation into these crimes seemingly appeared out of nowhere; we Americans need to know the bases for this investigation, specifically the particular allegations made against these criminal organizations. Our thinking about whether or not such organizations should be rewarded with $700 billion in taxpayer dollars ought to be heavily influenced by what we know about these crimes.

    Your friendly local RNC

    Your friendly local RNC man: >There's some-bahdy at the door. >>I can't git up from the couch, you go look. >Hello >>>Hello mam, I'm you RNC handler, I've come to read your meter. >Okay you k'n come in. >>>Mam, are you right with the election? >yyyEs I'm voting for McCain and for Palin. >>>That's correct Mam. I have to take your tv, your pc, your fridge, and your car. >Why? >>> your credit has gone bad, Mam. >Oh. >>> Sir, I'll have to have those unopened bags of potato chips. >>O m'gawwwd! >>>you folks remember to vote for Senator McCain and Ms. Palin. They are always prayin' for you when they are settin' by the fire in one of their houses sippin brandy. >> Okay. > Okay. >>>Sir, Mam, good-bye (suckers!)

    "...the Republican

    "...the Republican alternative, whose chief feature would permit the government to provide insurance to firms to buy troubled assets rather than spend taxpayer money on them" "We feel it is best to resort to private capital first," said Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va. So, private firms buy "toxic" assets of indeterminate value. If the assets turn out to be profitable, the private firms get the profits. If they the assets turn a loss, the government reimburses them. Once again, privatization of profits, socialization of losses.

    How bad is the financial

    How bad is the financial crisis, really? Is it as bad as the WMD that we went to war in Iraq for?

    I would like to see or hear

    I would like to see or hear the worst case scenarios if the bail out did not go through from someone other than the Bush Administration, someone with more credibility preferably.

    In response to 164man's Bail

    In response to 164man's Bail Out Plan: According to the math I learned, the amount each citizen would get is $425.00, not the hoped for $425,000 proposed. This is one of the problems with this country - many of its citizens don't have a clue of what is going on and can only dream of impossible solutions. Unfortunately, some of these folks get elected to high office!

    164man's math may have been

    164man's math may have been off, but he was still making a good point. Sir, you might not have an economics degree but you are echoing the ideas of one of the great economists of our time. John Maynard Keynes found that when ordinary people find themselves with more money than they are accustomed they spend it. Whomever receives their spent money then spends it, and so on. This creates what is known as the Keynes Multiplier, and was the major force that allowed our economy to boom in the 50's. Keynes was wrongly discredited by the conservative echo-machine and we, as a society, have distanced ourselves from Keynes. Before the conservatives re-branded "liberal" into a dirty word, they re-branded Keynes similarly. They did this because they don't want ordinary people to get money, they are too impatient. Keynes more or less defied gravity and made economics "trickle up", but conservatives want it to trickle down. The big irony is that since economics is different than other sciences, it actually is easier for money to defy gravity than to "trickle down". The reason being that the greedy bastards at the top have all sorts of stoppers at their disposal to make sure they get ALL of the money, not just their fair share. The only way to make sure they get *only* their fair share is to give it to them indirectly. Provide the poor and middle-class with a bonus (even one as small as $425) and it will multiply itself several times before its little mini-revolution is complete. In the end, the wealthy will wind up with something like $425 even though it wasn't directly granted to them. But the poorer classes will now have enjoyed their $425 (in the form of some consumer item, bought from the wealthy classes), or saved it or whatever they chose to do. The basic gist is this: you grant $425 to person A, who immediately goes out to dine in a fancy restaurant. *A* will tip more than usual, and now a portion of his $425 (say, $50 of it) has gone to the restaurant and the server. The server now has enough money to buy new shoes for her 5-year-old, and the restaurant is able to benefit from sales of the menu items, meet its costs, pay everyone from the dishwasher on up, and so on. Now that same waitress is getting anywhere from $5-10/table (10-20% tip), compared to normal circumstances where she can expect $5-15/table (10-20%); not to mention that person A couldn't have even afforded to go to the restaurant without the bonus money to begin with. So the server gets more tables per night and earns more per table. She buys some shoes for her kid, and if this stuff keeps up, she might just enroll in college. This is how sane people run economies. For the results of stupid people running economies, look no farther than the policies of George W. Bush. His goal is to benefit the people who are already wealthy. When they get a tax cut, they don't suddenly go out and spend it, so there is no multiplier. They likely buy yet another yacht, which at most employs 100 people or so for about a month. That is a drop in the bucket, and our ruling class contributes to our economy by dripping in buckets. I don't have an economics degree either, but give me about a year and a half....