McCain's goal in bailout grandstanding: 'Hero' for blocking any bill, or 'Hero' for 'delivering' House R votes?
for 'delivering' House Republican votes?
Has a McCain add-on to Paulson's revised plan been set up as the final bailout deal point, to "convince" House Republicans in an elaborate bit of play-acting?
IMO, this paragraph in today's Politico bailout story might hint at the ultimate resolution of the McCain/House-Republican grab for the media spotlight: Rather than setting himself up as hero for blocking any bailout legislation, is McCain setting himself up as hero for adding on a fairly minor detail that magically yields substantial House Republican votes? Was THIS perhaps what McCain strategized about in a long "dress rehearsal" with House Republicans just before a WH meeting convened at McCain's request?
"A top adviser to McCain, Mark Salter, said later that the senator had not endorsed the House conservative plan but felt it reflected a desire by lawmakers for more taxpayer protections that would help get the required votes. For example, Salter said, one option would be to make clear that the secretary neednt be confined to buying up bad debts and could use other routes such as loans or federally-backed insurance to relieve the congestion in mortgage-related assets." (See the link below)
What do you think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's my reasoning:
After Thursday's contentious WH meeting, there appeared to be only two factions left in the fight over bailing out banking and credit. (1) Paulson, Bernanke, Obama, House Democrats led by Barney Frank, and a bipartisan Senate group led by Chris Dodd (D) and Bob Bennett (R); and (2) a group of House Republicans whose spokesperson at the WH, fresh from a meeting with McCain, was Spencer Baucus
Group (1) seemed to have agreed to a framework overlaying Obama's basic principles (transparency, accountability, foreclosure prevention, warrants to give taxpayers equity stakes in participating institutions, caps on executive pay at participating institutions).
But Group (2) boldly was demanding government guarantees of new private investment in financial institutions, further Gramm-Leach-Bliley-type banking deregulation to permit many more types of private institutions to have a hand in banking, and, most brazenly, further deep cuts in taxes for corporations.
However, IMO, calls for further banking deregulation and corporate tax-cuts may be just plain bluffs. Including those elements could force the entire legislative process to start over after a week of all-nighters.
In contrast, the Treasury Secretary's powers in the agreed-upon framework could be expanded fairly easily to authorize options other than big buys of "fire-sale" securities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13918.html"Climbing from the wreckage: After White House meeting, Dems complain of being 'blindsided' by a new conservative alternative. By DAVID ROGERS 9/26/08
...At the White House, in fact, House Minority Leader John Boehner had bluntly warned about the lack of Republican support for the massive government intervention: 'I cant invent votes,' Boehner said. But House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) angrily accused the minority of trying to undercut Paulson by crafting a late-breaking alternative proposal--with the tacit support, Frank said, of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
...the meeting was described as among the wildest in memory. A beleaguered President Bush had to struggle to maintain order and reassert himself. And when Democrats left to caucus in the Roosevelt Room, Paulson pursued them, begging that they not 'blow up' the legislation. The former Goldman Sachs CEO even went down on one knee as if genuflecting, to which Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) is said to have joked, 'I didnt know you were Catholic.'
It was McCain who had urged Bush to call the White House meeting but Democrats made sure Obama had a prominent part. And much as they complained later of being blindsided, the whole event turned out to be something of an ambush on their part--aimed at McCain and House Republicans. ... House Republicans felt trapped--squeezed by Treasury, House Democrats and a bipartisan coalition in the Senate. And while McCain spoke surprisingly little after asking for the meeting, he conceded that it appeared there were not the votes for the core Paulson plan without major changes.
A top adviser to McCain, Mark Salter, said later that the senator had not endorsed the House conservative plan but felt it reflected a desire by lawmakers for more taxpayer protections that would help get the required votes. For example, Salter said, one option would be to make clear that the secretary neednt be confined to buying up bad debts and could use other routes such as loans or federally-backed insurance to relieve the congestion in mortgage-related assets.
When talks resumed--in Reids words--to 'put the train back on track,' Paulson came to the Capitol but without Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who appears to want to stand clear of the negotiating session. The wild White House meeting may have the effect of uniting Democrats more. And only hours before, Dodd, Frank and bipartisan set of prominent senators had reached a bipartisan agreement Thursday on the framework for legislation authorizing the massive government intervention. But passing the Treasury plan is still an uphill climb, and Pelosi will be reluctant to expose her members if House Republicans are sitting out the process. And the whole sequence of events confirmed Treasurys fears about the decision by Bush, at the urging of McCain, to allow presidential politics into what were already difficult negotiations.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
