$700 Billion Bailout

[SoxFanForever]

Only 770 points? No biggie!

[DukeNukeEm]

Come on, there's blame all over the place for this one.

 

It's gotten to a point where if you can be part of the solution, you were probably part of the initial problem.

[southsideirish71]

But that 1/3 of the Dem party are running for cover. Come on, there's blame all over the place for this one.

 

 

Jesse Jr voted against it.

 

"Today, I voted NO on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, a $700 billion earmark for Wall Street. Although this bill is a tremendous improvement over the legislation proposed by the Bush Administration last week, it still falls short of what is needed to shore up the economy, protect taxpayers and promote economic growth. We have gone from Roosevelt's New Deal, to Reagan's Raw Deal, to Bush's Quick Deal. The American People are demanding a Fair Deal and on November 4th will elect Fair Dealers.

 

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Chairman Barney Frank and Chairman Chris Dodd should be commended for their efforts to improve the seriously flawed bailout proposed by the Bush Administration. I am confident that Democrats will continue working to fix and improve the dismal fiscal situation created by the laissez faire policies of President Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress.

 

"This bill is simply a band aid not a cure for the financial crisis, and it does little for the hard-working Americans who will pay for it. It does not go far enough in addressing the systemic and terminal problems of our financial system. It further privatizes profits and socializes the losses. This crisis started because of the home mortgage market, yet this legislation merely suggests that the Treasury Secretary implement a plan to mitigate foreclosures and to encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans. There is no explicit directive to actively restructure mortgages. Furthermore, the bill does not allow bankruptcy judges to restructure troubled mortgages.

 

"To heal the systemic problems in our financial system we need to treat the cause, not only the symptoms. Congress needs to pass and the president needs to sign into law the following provisions: 1) a second stimulus to help those squeezed by the financial crisis; 2) a substantial investment in infrastructure which could jump start the economy while creating jobs, and; 3) a program that helps keep taxpayers in their homes. This bill does not contain provisions that explicitly help borrowers restructure their mortgages. Buying 'trash (bad mortgages) for cash ($700 billion bailout)' may not cure our financial system, since it was these bad mortgages that engineered this market collapse," said Jackson.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Jesse Jr voted against it.

 

Given that Rainbow/PUSH was protesting on Wall Street today, that shouldn't be such a shock.

[Balta1701]

But that 1/3 of the Dem party are running for cover. Come on, there's blame all over the place for this one.

Honestly...there's a reason for that. The public still hates this bill, although it's not nearly at the level at which they hate the President, it still polls very, very poorly. There's an election in 1 month. The reality is...anyone who votes for this bill runs the chance of having their opponent go after them harshly on it, or even runs the risk of a primary challenge starting up a year from now. This is the kind of vote that could easily cost people seats, and there's no way that some of them are going to do it.

[kapkomet]

Honestly...there's a reason for that. The public still hates this bill, although it's not nearly at the level at which they hate the President, it still polls very, very poorly. There's an election in 1 month. The reality is...anyone who votes for this bill runs the chance of having their opponent go after them harshly on it, or even runs the risk of a primary challenge starting up a year from now. This is the kind of vote that could easily cost people seats, and there's no way that some of them are going to do it.

Exactly - and this isn't exactly a "Dem" or "GOP" issue.

 

[DukeNukeEm]

Incumbents who were "lean" or "toss-up" going into the vote:

REPUBLICANS
AK-AL  Young         R      NAY
CO-4   Musgrave      R      NAY
CT-4   Shays         R      YEA
FL-8   Keller        R      NAY
FL-21  L Diaz-Balart R      NAY
FL-24  Feeney        R      NAY
FL-25  M Diaz-Balart R      NAY
ID-1   Sali          R      NAY
IL-10  Kirk          R      YEA
MI-7   Walberg       R      NAY
MI-9   Knollenberg   R      NAY
MO-6   Graves        R      NAY
NC-8   Hayes         R      NAY
NV-3   Porter        R      YEA
NY-29  Kuhl          R      NAY
OH-1   Chabot        R      NAY
OH-2   Schmidt       R      NAY
PA-3   English       R      NAY
VA-2   Drake         R      NAY
WA-8   Reichert      R      NAY
VULNERABLE GOP = 3 YEAS, 17 NAYS (15%)
OTHER GOP = 62 YEAS, 116 NAYS (35%)

DEMOCRATS
AZ-5   Mitchell    D      NAY
AZ-8   Giffords    D      NAY
CA-11  McNerney    D      YEA
FL-16  Mahoney     D      YEA
GA-8   Marshall    D      YEA
IL-14  Foster      D      YEA
IN-9   Hill        D      NAY
KS-2   Boyda       D      NAY
KY-3   Yarmuth     D      NAY
LA-6   Cazayoux    D      NAY
MS-1   Childers    D      NAY
NH-1   Shea-Porter D      NAY
NY-20  Gillibrand  D      NAY
PA-4   Altmire     D      NAY
PA-10  Carney      D      NAY
PA-11  Kanjorski   D      YEA
TX-22  Lampson     D      NAY
WI-8   Kagen       D      NAY
VULNERABLE DEMS = 5 YEAS, 13 NAYS (28%)
OTHER DEMS = 135 YEAS, 82 NAYS (62%)

ALL VULNERABLES = 8 YEAS, 30 NAYS (21%)
OTHERS = 197 YEAS, 198 NAYS (50%)

 

79% of them voted against it, again... I'm not so sure Democracy is sustainable. To all my IL-10 homies though, our guy came through for us.

Edited September 29, 2008 by DukeNukeEm

[Balta1701]

Although the header is wrong, I think this is the full roll call vote if you want to know how your congressman voted. I'm probably going to call mine's office later today to say "Thanks".

[HuskyCaucasian]

I hear now that McCain is blaming Obama for not rallying his party.

McCain blames Obama... then a few hours later says now is not the time to assign blame. Hypocrite.

[southsider2k5]

Here's a fun one... Whose to blame for this crisis? How about Sarbane's Oxley?

 

http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/29/mark...29gingrich.html

 

Today, Congress voted against passing the bailout package for Wall Street. The stock market reacted immediately, falling almost 800 points. It is clear that something needs to be done, and in the coming days, a new package must be constructed that has the support of the American people that both deals with the liquidity crisis and sets the stage for long-term economic growth.

 

However, there is an immediate step that could be taken right now that would calm the markets and dramatically reduce taxpayer risk in any future government intervention.

 

Today the Treasury secretary released the following statement: "I and my colleagues at the Fed and the SEC continue to address the market challenges we are facing on a daily basis. I am committed to continuing to work with my fellow regulators to use all the tools available to protect our financial system and our economy."

 

While Congress and the White House consider next steps, the Treasury and its fellow regulators should follow their own counsel and take without delay the one regulatory action within their discretion that can help immediately to calm markets and dramatically reduce the taxpayer risk in any necessary government intervention: suspend mark-to-market.

 

Chief economist Brian S. Wesbury and his colleague Bob Stein at First Trust Portfolios of Chicago estimate the impact of the "mark-to-market" accounting rule on the current crisis as follows:

 

"It is true that the root of this crisis is bad mortgage loans, but probably 70% of the real crisis that we face today is caused by mark-to-market accounting in an illiquid market. What's most fascinating is that the Treasury is selling its plan as a way to put a bottom in mortgage pool prices, tipping its hat to the problem of mark-to-market accounting without acknowledging it. It is a real shame that there is so little discussion of this reality." (Emphasis added.)

 

If regulators on their own--or Congress, if regulators fail to use their discretion--can fix 70% of the financial crisis by changing the mark-to-market accounting rule, we should change the rule first before attempting to pass another reevaluated bailout package.

 

"Mark-to-Market" Accounting and the Origins of the Financial Crisis: Mark-to-market accounting (also known as "fair value" accounting) means that companies must value the assets on their balance sheets based on the latest market indicators of the price that those assets could be sold for immediately. Under such a rule, declining housing prices don't just reduce the value of defaulting mortgages. They reduce the value of all mortgages and all mortgage-related securities because the housing collateral protecting them is worth less.

 

Moreover, when a company in financial distress begins fire sales of its assets to raise capital to meet regulatory requirements, the market-bottom prices it sells out for become the new standard for the valuation of all similar securities held by other companies under mark-to-market. This has begun a downward death spiral for financial companies large and small.

 

More foreclosures and home auctions continue to depress housing prices, further reducing the value of all mortgage-related securities. As capital values decline, firms must scramble to maintain the capital required by regulation. When they try to sell assets to raise that capital, the market values of those assets are driven down further. Under mark-to-market, the company must then mark down the value of all of its assets even more.

 

The credit agencies see declining capital margins, so they downgrade the company's credit ratings. That makes borrowing to meet capital requirements more difficult. Declining capital and credit ratings cause the company's stock prices to decline.

 

Panic sets in, and no one wants to buy mortgage-related securities, which drives their value under mark-to-market regulations down toward zero. Balance sheets under mark-to-market suddenly start to show insolvency. This downward spiral shuts down lending to these companies, so they lose all liquidity (cash on hand) needed to keep company operations going. Stockholders--realizing that they will be wiped out if the companies go into bankruptcy or get taken over by the government--start panic selling, even when they know the underlying business of the company is fine.

 

The end result for the company is stock prices driven toward zero and bankruptcy or government takeover. The criminal liabilities imposed under Sarbanes-Oxley have driven accountants to stricter and stricter accounting evaluations and interpretations and have prevented leading executives from resisting them.

 

The Problems with Mark-to-Market Accounting: William Isaac, chairman of the FDIC in the 1980s under President Reagan, recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "During the 1980s, our underlying economic problems were far more serious than the economic problems we're facing this time around. ... It could have been much worse. The country's 10 largest banks were loaded up with Third World debt that was valued in the markets at cents on the dollar. If we had marked those loans to market prices, virtually every one of them would have been insolvent."

 

Isaac continues, "But what do we do when the already thin market for those assets freezes up, and only a handful of transactions occur at extremely depressed prices? ... The accounting profession, scarred by decades of costly litigation, just keeps marking down the assets as fast as it can."

 

He concludes, "This is contrary to everything we know about bank regulation. When there are temporary impairments of asset values, due to economic and marketplace events, regulators must give institutions an opportunity to survive the temporary impairment. Assets should not be marked to unrealistic fire sale prices. Regulators must evaluate the assets on the basis of their true economic value (a discounted cash flow analysis). If we had followed today's approach during the 1980s, we would have nationalized all of the major banks in the country, and thousands of additional banks and thrifts would have failed. I have little doubt that the country would have gone from a serious recession into a depression."

 

Similarly, University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Epstein, among the best in the country at law and economics analysis, recently wrote about mark-to-market accounting for today's mortgage-related securities, "Unfortunately, there is no working market to mark this paper down to. To meet their bond covenants and their capital requirements, these firms have to sell their paper at distress prices that don't reflect the upbeat fact that the anticipated income streams from this paper might well keep the firm afloat."

 

Alex Pollock, former head of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, explains that when the economy is in the midst of a severe downturn, the use of mark-to-market accounting "reinforces the downward cycle of panic-falling prices-losses-illiquidity-credit contraction-more panic-further falling prices-greater reported losses-no active markets. Fair value accounting adds momentum to a destructive downside overshoot."

 

Reform or Bust: Because existing rules requiring mark-to-market accounting are causing such turmoil on Wall Street, mark-to-market accounting should be suspended immediately so as to relieve the stress on banks and corporations. In the interim, we can use the economic value approach based on a discounted cash flow analysis of anticipated-income streams, as we did for decades before the new mark-to-market began to take hold. We can take the time to evaluate mark-to-market all over again. Perhaps a three-year rolling average to determine mark-to-market prices would be a workable permanent system.

 

It is not widely understood that the adoption of mark-to-market accounting rules is a major factor in the liquidity crisis which is leading companies to go bankrupt. But it is destructive to have artificial accounting rules ruin companies that would have otherwise survived under previous rules.

 

For companies like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers (nyse: LEH - news - people ) and American International Group (nyse: AIG - news - people ), suspending mark-to-market rules will come too late. But for the remaining vulnerable banks and corporations, doing away with the current mark-to-market accounting rules will safeguard against destructive pricing volatility, needless bankruptcies, job loss and huge taxpayer bailouts.

 

Suspending Mark-to-Market Only the First Step to Economic Recovery: In the wake of today's vote, suspending mark-to-market is an extremely important first step to take, but it is only a first step.

 

Congress should also consider a bold and dramatic program to restart economic growth and rebuild market efforts.

 

In particular, the Congress should look at the impact of the Irish 12% corporate income tax on attracting investment and jobs to Ireland and consider a dramatic cut in the U.S. corporate income tax (the highest in the world when combined with state taxes) as a step toward attracting high-value productive and desirable jobs back to the United States.

 

The Congress should look at the Chinese and Singapore growth patterns and match them by zeroing out the capital gains tax to induce massive flows of private capital to rebuild the market and minimize the need for a taxpayer-funded bailout.

 

The Congress should repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, which failed to warn of every single bankruptcy but provides a $3-million-a-year accounting and regulatory expense for every small company wishing to go public.

 

This is the kind of pro-growth, pro-entrepreneur program that would accelerate the American recovery and lead to the next economic period of real growth.

 

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Emily Renwick is a research assistant at AEI and also contributed to this op-ed.

[Balta1701]

Here's a fun one... Whose to blame for this crisis? How about Sarbane's Oxley?

 

http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/29/mark...29gingrich.html

So, basically the connection to Sarbanes/Oxley there is that it prevents accountants from being able to lie despite what their books are telling them? Isn't that still a good thing in this case?

 

That piece argues strongly against the "Mark to Market" rule. It throws Sarbanes-Oxley in as a sideshow.

[jasonxctf]

Incumbents who were "lean" or "toss-up" going into the vote:

REPUBLICANS
AK-AL  Young         R      NAY
CO-4   Musgrave      R      NAY
CT-4   Shays         R      YEA
FL-8   Keller        R      NAY
FL-21  L Diaz-Balart R      NAY
FL-24  Feeney        R      NAY
FL-25  M Diaz-Balart R      NAY
ID-1   Sali          R      NAY
IL-10  Kirk          R      YEA
MI-7   Walberg       R      NAY
MI-9   Knollenberg   R      NAY
MO-6   Graves        R      NAY
NC-8   Hayes         R      NAY
NV-3   Porter        R      YEA
NY-29  Kuhl          R      NAY
OH-1   Chabot        R      NAY
OH-2   Schmidt       R      NAY
PA-3   English       R      NAY
VA-2   Drake         R      NAY
WA-8   Reichert      R      NAY
VULNERABLE GOP = 3 YEAS, 17 NAYS (15%)
OTHER GOP = 62 YEAS, 116 NAYS (35%)

DEMOCRATS
AZ-5   Mitchell    D      NAY
AZ-8   Giffords    D      NAY
CA-11  McNerney    D      YEA
FL-16  Mahoney     D      YEA
GA-8   Marshall    D      YEA
IL-14  Foster      D      YEA
IN-9   Hill        D      NAY
KS-2   Boyda       D      NAY
KY-3   Yarmuth     D      NAY
LA-6   Cazayoux    D      NAY
MS-1   Childers    D      NAY
NH-1   Shea-Porter D      NAY
NY-20  Gillibrand  D      NAY
PA-4   Altmire     D      NAY
PA-10  Carney      D      NAY
PA-11  Kanjorski   D      YEA
TX-22  Lampson     D      NAY
WI-8   Kagen       D      NAY
VULNERABLE DEMS = 5 YEAS, 13 NAYS (28%)
OTHER DEMS = 135 YEAS, 82 NAYS (62%)

ALL VULNERABLES = 8 YEAS, 30 NAYS (21%)
OTHERS = 197 YEAS, 198 NAYS (50%)

 

79% of them voted against it, again... I'm not so sure Democracy is sustainable. To all my IL-10 homies though, our guy came through for us.

 

 

so did the IL-14 guy, who lives in my subdivision.

[StrangeSox]

Judy Biggert, from Illinois' Fighting 13th, voted nay. I'm glad.

[southsider2k5]

So, basically the connection to Sarbanes/Oxley there is that it prevents accountants from being able to lie despite what their books are telling them? Isn't that still a good thing in this case?

 

That piece argues strongly against the "Mark to Market" rule. It throws Sarbanes-Oxley in as a sideshow.

 

Sarbanes-Oxley IS mark to market accounting.

 

Basically it is the equivilant of the government saying that a few people committed fraud before they declared bankruptcy. To prevent this from happening again, they decided that every single person in the country had their budget done on a second by second basis, and if they did not fit the ratios allowed, they would be forced to liquidate all of their holdings.

 

The idea behind the rule was to prevent fraud, and that clearly hasn't worked. The unintended consequences have been that banks have literally been put out of business that historically would not have been, because of the accounting rule changes instituted by this law. I heard an estimate where $500 of the $700 billion asked for in this package was from banks that because of this specific rule were going to be forced into this situation. So the immediate cost of this law is half of a trillion dollars.

[jasonxctf]

FYI, to avoid the $700 billion buyout package, US tax-payers/investors, lost $1 trillion in value yesterday in the market.

[HuskyCaucasian]

FYI, to avoid the $700 billion buyout package, US tax-payers/investors, lost $1 trillion in value yesterday in the market.

all because Pelosi hurt their feelings. wahh wahh.

[SoxFan562004]

I'm not an economic major at all, so I'm curious, what are your opinions that some "experts" are floating that we should just go the "hold your ankles" approach and let the market correct itself?

[bmags]

that really doesn't surprise me. I mean, the market corrected itself after the Great Depression no? And that wasn't so bad. I'm stocking up on mayonnaise and salt sandwiches just like my grandpappy ate.

[southsideirish71]

all because Pelosi hurt their feelings. wahh wahh.

 

Or maybe because its a bad bill.

 

Barney Frank shoving his grill in front of the camera talking about how this is the bad evil republicans fault. Yet this is the same tool who did everything in his power to block any oversight of Fannie Mae and Mac. Back in 05 when people started to wonder about the stability of the 2 companies, Frank argued how fiscally sound Mac and Mae are and how they provide a service. He fought any oversight on this, and to me is one of the big bad guys in this whole mess. Yet he has the gaul to throw blame.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/mir...ref=mpstoryview

 

Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.

Economist Jeffrey Miron says the bailout plan presented to Congress was the wrong solution to the crisis

 

Economist Jeffrey Miron says the bailout plan presented to Congress was the wrong solution to the crisis

 

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.

 

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.

 

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

 

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

 

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

 

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

Don't Miss

 

* Bailout plan rejected

* Financial rescue 101: the bill

* Commentary: Financial crisis a disaster

* In Depth: Commentaries

 

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

 

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

 

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

 

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

 

Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.

 

Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.

 

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

 

The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.

 

If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.

 

The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.

 

Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.

 

So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

 

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

[kapkomet]

Or maybe because its a bad bill.

 

Barney Frank shoving his grill in front of the camera talking about how this is the bad evil republicans fault. Yet this is the same tool who did everything in his power to block any oversight of Fannie Mae and Mac. Back in 05 when people started to wonder about the stability of the 2 companies, Frank argued how fiscally sound Mac and Mae are and how they provide a service. He fought any oversight on this, and to me is one of the big bad guys in this whole mess. Yet he has the gaul to throw blame.

DING.

 

For those of you who want to "support" your party by throwing the other one under the bus on this issue, look in the mirror because you're a hypocrite. This is a universal issue, not related to party.

 

So, let's all just stop playing the fling poo poo game on this issue, shall we?

 

[lostfan]

Or maybe because its a bad bill.

 

Barney Frank shoving his grill in front of the camera talking about how this is the bad evil republicans fault. Yet this is the same tool who did everything in his power to block any oversight of Fannie Mae and Mac. Back in 05 when people started to wonder about the stability of the 2 companies, Frank argued how fiscally sound Mac and Mae are and how they provide a service. He fought any oversight on this, and to me is one of the big bad guys in this whole mess. Yet he has the gaul to throw blame.

If it was a bad bill, he should've said people voted against it because it was a bad bill, instead of crying about something Pelosi said. That sounds completely ridiculous, and made me laugh when I heard it.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/mir...ref=mpstoryview

Good article, and some interesting points. I agree on the majority, and it speaks to what I mentioned a while back - any bailout plan needs to be followed by changing the rules to get rid of this current system.

 

But the article still doesn't make any real good point about what to do in the short term, which is what the bailout is.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Seems like it was more Gingrich than Pelosi. So... Gingrich has more power than McCain in the GOp?? Not Good John.

 

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was working aggressively behind the scenes to defeat the Wall Street rescue plan minutes before he himself released a public statement in support of the package, NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported on Tuesday.

 

Gingrich was whipping up votes for the opposition, Mitchell said, apparently without the knowledge of the current GOP leader, John Boehner, who was responsible for recruiting enough support from his caucus to help ensure the bill's passage. Ultimately, the GOP was only able to rally roughly a third of its members.

 

"Newt Gingrich," she said on MSNBC, "I am told reliably by leading Republicans who are close to him, he was whipping against this up until the last minute, when he issued that face-saving statement. Newt Gingrich was telling people in the strongest possible language that this was a terrible deal, not only that it was a terrible deal, it was a disaster, it was the end of democracy as we know, it was socialism -- and then at the last minute [he] comes out with a statement when the vote is already in place."

[mr_genius]

all because Pelosi hurt their feelings. wahh wahh.

 

?

 

that makes no sense. i understand she gave some hack of a speech, but voting against the bailout probably had little to do with that. even before her speech most of these same Republicans and Democrats were against the current bailout structure.