As I write this stock markets around the world are plummeting in response to Washington's failure to agree on a rescue package for the badly battered global financial system.
My reading of the events of the past few days leads me to the conclusion that McCain is primarily to blame for this outcome.
The market crisis deepens with every hour: today the federal government seized Washington Mutual, which has so many bad mortgages on its books it can no longer fund itself. This is the biggest bank failure in American history.
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson unveiled his bailout plan on Sunday. In an interview on Tuesday McCain said he couldn't say whether he supported it or not because he'd not yet read it:
Hmmmmmm. He hadn't had a chance to see it "on paper" yet. Well, what if we try "The Google?"
Hold on, be right back.
There. In 0.31 seconds I found the text of the plan in an article from Sunday's New York Times
Senator, the plan is two and a half pages short. It took me about three minutes, just now, to read from beginning to end. So, in less than four minutes, while writing this post, I learned more about the plan than you did in the two days after its release.
As a United States Senator, and ranking member of the Commerce Committee, shouldn't you have been paying more attention? Granted, you're not particularly facile with them newfangled computers, but I'm willing to bet 1,000 shares of WaMu that Paulson probably would have picked up the phone and read the whole plan to you, the old-fashioned way, had you thought to ask.
Yet on Wednesday we were supposed to believe that you had grown so concerned with the imminent threat to the economy that you had to suspend your campaign, including Friday's debate with Senator Obama, and rush to Washington to fix things. (But not before an interview with that hard-hitting journalist Katie Couric, a sample of whose award-winning work is embedded below).
Then, on Thursday, House Republican leader John Boehner, during the White House photo-op you and your party orchestrated so that you might somehow glom the credit for a bailout that already looked all but certain to pass, announced that his caucus could not support the bailout plan. Why? Because they felt that the Democrats wanted to speed up announcement of the agreement to head off your brazen attempt at exploiting this crisis for political gain.
So, in summary, our leaders in Washington had finally come to their senses and appeared ready to behave like adults for a fleeting moment to solve a major crisis and you, Senator McCain — the self-styled problem solver who is supposedly above politics-as-usual — have singlehandedly derailed that effort.
Congratulations on undoing an entire career of honorable service to our nation.
Posts
5 comments:
While I feel the bailout is (unfortunately) absolutely necessary, it causes me great anguish that we, the middle class (assuming most readers here fall into that realm) are the made to be the losers once again. Our tax dollars will now be spent bailing out those that do without thinking based on either greed or a sense of entitlement.
On one side those who’s greed and shortsightedness led us into this situation – the so called “masters of the universe” – get their pockets relined so they can climb back up that ladder and perhaps save their estates in the Hamptons before they themselves cannot meet their own personal mortgage demands. On the other hand the “champions of the poor”, need to look good for their base as well before allowing this to happen by making provisions to help those poor people who’s own sense of entitlement (“hey we deserve to live like those who actually have the means to do so”) jumped at the carrot dangled before them without a second’s thought on how they would eventually afford to pay the piper.
So who is left to foot the bill? Those that live within their means while feeling the economic crunch of these times in our own way. Hey I believe in both capitalism and the need to help my neighbor when he’s down on his luck, but why is it that the responsible and hard working people of this nation are the ones to always bear the burden? Who exactly is representing us?
Well, well. My esteemed colleague, while I love him so clearly can't help himself in showing true bias. I for one am biased. Let’s face it…we all are. Something that our friends in journalism love to do is hide behind this false mask they like to call "objectivity", however the free thinker can see right through the mask. It is here today my fellow citizens that I challenge all of you to use your "common sense". This financial crisis is clearly one that has been in the making for over a decade. Once again, just like our response to terrorism our government has failed to take action when the warning signs were all around them. Of course the Citizen likes to state objectivity but then blast Republicans and conservatives, with virtually no mention of a Democrat (except Charlie Rangel) paint this picture as a Bush, McCain or GOP failure, but is that accurate? Let's take a walk through history...shall we. Let me turn your attention to Freddie Mac and Freddie Mae. Two GOVERNMENT (BIG GOVERNMENT) Sponsored Entities chartered by Congress to promote the specific cause of promoting home ownership. This status, along with the presumption that taxpayers would bail out firms if they got into trouble, amounts to an implicit federal subsidy that the Fed in 2003 calculated was worth between $119 and $164 billion a year. These are not normal private companies. Maybe if they were the Democrats would be holding hearings, but I digress. Now we know for the past five years have been in trouble with criminal investigations, accounting scandals, firings, resignations, huge losses and repeated warnings from the Federal Reserve that their huge portfolio of mortgage securities posed a risk to the overall financial system. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under GOP control, adopted a reform bill, introduced by Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu, and Chuck Hagel, and supported by chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSE's from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority like that of a bank regulator. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Check the Congressional Record. Sen. McCain, who actually does take his role as Senator very seriously, endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, who has spent his Senate career campaigning, and all the other Democrats remained silent and killed it before it could come before the Senate for a vote. Now the blame is being passed on "deregulation", which the Citizen commented on in previous blogs promoting Roosevelt style big government. This is a canard. Deregulation in our economy in areas such as long-distance telephone rates, airline fares, securities brokerage and trucking, just to name a few has produced much innovation and lower consumer prices. If Sen. Obama and his fellow "do nothing" Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it. Mr. McCain was there in 2005-2006. Mr. McCain has a long track record of putting his country first and standing for what he believes. To suggest this situation is different is unfair and political. So let's stop with the New York Times speculation about what really happened behind closed doors and what Mr. McCain's role really was in these negotiations. You really only know what Democrat's are spinning. The fact remains that there is plenty of blame to go around for this crisis. Attacking John McCain and calling him dishonorable does nothing to educate your readers on the real issues and how your party has consistently put politics over country...Use your "Common Sense" people?
It is a sin to steal.
http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/when-watchdogs-snore-how-abc-cbs-nbc-ignored-fannie-freddie/
Especially the thoughts/words of a Christian Conservative.
While we may disagree, let's formulate our own commentary and not simply turn up the volume of our argument through borrowing other's.
ThomasPaineReloaded,
Thanks for the comment. Some quick facts that I'd like to clear up in response to your allegations:
1. I'm not a journalist.
2. I've never claimed to be objective. In fact I have said on this blog that I am an Obama supporter, but not blindly and reflexively so. I simply want Citizen to be a place where people can express their opinions and educate one another, so that we can all be better citizens and help solve rather than contribute to America's problems.
3. I agree wholeheartedly that Fannie and Freddie should never have been permitted to grow as large as they were, with the implicit backing of the government. It was unfair competition. I've never stated otherwise on this blog.
4. Fannie and Freddie's subprime lending truly paled in comparison to that of the nation's big banks and standalone mortgage lenders. They bought mortgage-backed securities issued by the other big banks, but did very little direct lending to subprime and alt-a borrowers, or guaranteeing of these loans.
5. I am not a member of any political party so please refrain in the future from suggesting otherwise.
6. As for "New York Times speculation" about the White House meeting, the Wall Street Journal's account is very similar, indicating that McCain derailed the negotiations: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247077035980785.html?mod=todays_us_page_one#
Here's the text of the story in case the link ever breaks:
WASHINGTON -- Midway through the White House summit on Thursday featuring America's top political leaders, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain was asked for his opinion about the administration's proposed $700 billion financial rescue package. He deferred to the top House Republican, who bluntly laid out a litany of complaints.
Getty Images
President Bush makes remarks on the economic crisis during a meeting with presidential candidates McCain and Obama and members of Congress.
The sudden objections caused agitation among Democrats present, who thought they had the makings of a deal. The group turned to Sen. McCain to ask if he endorsed his party's qualms, but he dodged the question, saying only that the concerns had to be addressed, according to people familiar with the meeting. He wasn't specific about the legislation itself.
Then, all hell broke loose. "I just sat there and let them scream," Sen. McCain later told an adviser.
That afternoon, the theatrics of the presidential campaign collided with days of tense negotiations over the controversial bailout package designed to forestall the collapse of U.S. financial markets. At the center of the drama was Sen. McCain.
On Thursday morning, Democrats and some Republicans hammered out a tentative compromise. Then, Sen. McCain arrived in Washington, just before noon and under Secret Service escort. He met with House Republicans and listened to their complaints. He met with Senate Republicans and chided them for assenting to a deal without his input. At 4 p.m., he headed over to the White House.
Democrats say the senator blew up the delicately poised talks in order to curry favor with his conservative base and ultimately to take credit for a deal many assume will still come together.
Sen. McCain's camp says there was never a deal to begin with, and he was only trying to improve the legislation to better protect taxpayers. House Republicans see Sen. McCain's arrival as the point that revitalized their rear-guard action. Arizona Republican Jeff Flake says Sen. McCain sent the message that Republicans want to do more for taxpayers. "For him to come and say that coincides with our message completely," said Mr. Flake.
Whichever side is right, the day's drama represented a remarkable public display of dissension in a town used to high drama. On Friday, the White House and Congress redoubled efforts to forge legislation that would confront the financial crisis, with House Republicans showing a new willingness to engage.
This account is based on a series of interviews with congressional officials, campaign aides and others.
On Wednesday, Sen. McCain declared that the bailout package proposed by the Bush administration was in trouble and needed bipartisan support from the two presidential contenders. That prompted an invitation to Sen. McCain and Sen. Barack Obama from the president to meet at the White House.
On Thursday morning, Democrats and others hashed out the outlines of a plan that endorsed the core of the administration's desire for a $700 billion fund, but added conditions, such as help for homeowners, pay curbs for executives and the government taking equity positions in participating companies. Some Republicans voiced their support.
After arriving in Washington, Sen. McCain immersed himself in two hours of meetings, making a show of involving himself in the shaping of the bill.
In a private meeting on Capitol Hill, a group of House Republicans, with the blessing of Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio), urged Sen. McCain to consider a more market-based alternative to the Bush-backed plan.
The plan was developed by a cross-section of House Republicans, including Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, and involved a complex use of government insurance to bolster the toxic assets at the heart of the financial crisis. Mr. Cantor said the goal was to come up with something that House Republicans could support.
One Republican said Sen. McCain thought the plan was a "decent idea," but stopped short of endorsing it.
Later, Sen. McCain sat in on a lunch with Senate Republicans. Present were three senators who had supported the emerging compromise: Sens. Judd Gregg, Robert Bennett and Bob Corker. Mr. McCain, standing and sitting at various points, weighed in, according to people familiar with the meeting. He was upset his colleagues had supported the plan, which appeared likely to become law, without his input.
According to Sen. Jon Kyl, Sen. McCain told fellow Republicans to hold off making a deal. "We have got to see the details in this thing, in writing," Sen. McCain was quoted as saying.
A McCain adviser disputed the account, saying that Sen. McCain never grew upset and was not critical of his colleagues.
Even before the White House meeting started, tensions were running high. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was still at the Capitol when she got a call from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who informed her of the brewing revolt among House Republicans.
The attendees -- Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama, the president, the Treasury secretary and congressional leaders -- gathered in the Roosevelt Room, a formal meeting room off the Oval Office decorated with portraits of both Democrat Franklin Roosevelt and Republican Theodore Roosevelt.
The president and Mr. Paulson made opening comments, with Mr. Paulson reminding attendees of the gravity of the state of financial markets. Mr. Bush turned to Ms. Pelosi, who announced that the Democrats were going to allow Sen. Obama to lead off for them. The Democratic nominee spoke for a few minutes, going over his four well-known principles for what he would consider to be crucial to the legislation.
Then Mr. Bush turned to Sen. McCain and asked if he wanted to follow. Mr. McCain said, "Actually, the longer I'm here, the more I respect seniority." He said he would defer to the Republican congressional leaders who were present.
Mr. Boehner, the House minority leader, outlined his concerns about taxpayer protections in the legislation and then talked instead about the insurance-based alternative. At several points, the conversation became raucous, with members loudly talking over one another.
In a television interview, Sen. Obama recalled asking: "Well, do we need to start from scratch, or are there ways to incorporate some of those concerns?"
Sen. McCain didn't answer directly. Instead, he outlined the five principles that he wanted to guide the legislation.
Spencer Bachus, an Alabama Republican House member who initially supported the talks, recalled the meeting boiling over. "Then I started detailing what we wanted in the bill, and that's when Speaker Pelosi started yelling at me," he recalled.
Mr. Bush allowed everyone to vent their frustrations. Finally, he pointed out that both sides still agreed on the need to get the bill done. He added that "if we don't loosen up some money into the system, this sucker could go down," a repeat of the warning in his prime-time speech on Wednesday night that a financial panic is a real risk.
According to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, the president then said: "At the end of this debate, I'm going to turn to the Treasury secretary and ask him and Ben Bernanke, 'Does this legislation do what needs to be done to save the economy?' "
As the leaders were preparing to leave, a horde of at least 75 reporters and camera people waited outside under the West Wing portico. Mr. Bush said that if the attendees were going to make statements, he preferred that they go together and say that "we're all working to get it done."
After the clashes, they decided not to talk to the waiting reporters at all -- except for Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, a vocal critic of the rescue plan.
—Sarah Lueck, Jess Bravin and Elizabeth Holmes contributed to this article.
Write to John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com, Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com and Christopher Cooper at christopher.cooper@wsj.com
Post a Comment