Senate May Try to Revive Bank-Rescue Bill as Early as Tomorrow

To pick up the 12 votes needed to pass the bill in the House, the bill will need some cosmetic changes, lawmakers and political analysts say.

"They're not going to totally revamp the bill," said Pete Davis, president of Davis Capital Investment Ideas in Washington, who spoke to House and Senate leaders yesterday. "They'll make some minor changes and pass it. This is all about political cover."

Posted by: Colin | Sep 30 2008 10:08 utc | 1

As expected, the Democratic leadership will throw away a once-in-a-century opportunity to push through a new New Deal that could re-align American politics for a generation, and will instead do the bidding of their coprorate paymasters while handing the populist mantle over to the Rpublicans. Heckuva job, Nancy and Harry!

Posted by: the exile | Sep 30 2008 13:19 utc | 2

Have you looked at the actual description of the bailout bill which failed yesterday?

H R 3997
BILL TITLE: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes

I guess the bailout was just the "for other purposes" part.

I am so glad that finally at least some members of Congress are starting to hear what their constituents are demanding. Don't really expect it to last past Election Day, though.

Posted by: Ensley | Sep 30 2008 13:44 utc | 3

Ensley, you're scrambling two different bills (you may have followed a link that Uncle $cam posted earlier, that led to the wrong bill).

H.RES.1517
Title: Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3997) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes.

HR 3997
Title: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

If you go here, you can click on a list of all the bills that Congress dealt with yesterday. While Rome burns, they still found time to honor the heroes who do something "because it's there":

H.RES.1474 : Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the first vertical ascent of the face of El Capitan in Yosemite National Park and honoring the historic climbing feat of the original climbing team.
Sponsor: Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] (introduced 9/22/2008)
Committees: House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 9/29/2008 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.

Posted by: catlady | Sep 30 2008 14:41 utc | 4

Oops, I wrote too soon. HR 3997 is "the vehicle for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008."

H.R.3997
Title: An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief and protections for military personnel, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 10/30/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.884, H.RES.1517
Latest Major Action: 9/29/2008 Resolving differences -- House actions. Status: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment Failed by recorded vote: 205 - 228 (Roll No. 674).

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press092808.shtml

Posted by: catlady | Sep 30 2008 14:47 utc | 5

Can you believe it! 40% of Democrats and 60% of Republicans actually listened to their constituents yesterday! We may have really had a representative govt for one brief and shining moment.

Of course, the day after Election Day they will get back on their high horses and work diligently to again benefit themselves, their lobbyists and their buddies -- and stick it royally to the taxpayers.

Posted by: Ensley | Sep 30 2008 15:44 utc | 6

McCain says Treasury should bailout Wall Street WITHOUT a bill:

http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/30/%e2%80%9ci%e2%80%99m-not-going-to-parse-every-answer%e2%80%9d/

Posted by: a | Sep 30 2008 15:50 utc | 7

Thanks for the link to Ian Welsh's alternate plan. Interesting reading! Any three of his eleven proposals would be an improvement over the present package.
It'll be interesting to sort out who voted against the bill and who supported it. I thought I heard Maxine Waters speaking yesterday on the pro side. Aside from Wall Street campaign contributions, I wonder how many simply voted to protect their own stock portfolios --like Nancy Pelosi, for example.

Posted by: plato's cave | Sep 30 2008 15:55 utc | 8

Yes, Waters voted for the bailout. Here's a list:

http://track.nocashfortrash.org/node/1530

I suspect that most of the nay votes came from the Congress critters up for reelection in Nov and didn't dare ignore the their voters.

Posted by: Ensley | Sep 30 2008 16:21 utc | 9

It appears the bill was defeated by a small margin because the Democrats added several conditions (I’ve not read the bill or much about it), dealing with home owners, timing, oversight, disclosure, transparency, and possibly more.

Some Dems then voted against, either because they considered the additions not sweeping / strong / enforceable enough, or just on principle or fear of being booted out or whatever.

But the Repubs. no longer wanted it with the Dem. additions. To sum up, under one pov, the Dems tried to ensure it would do what it was supposed to, but then many Repubs said No, their loopy libertarianism and their constituents opinions being used as a convenient fig leaf. Very innovative!

Which makes one wonder, what was it for in the first place? ?

Then the Repubs. blamed the dems, citing Pelosi’s speech, for putting a spanner in the works. Of course no speech had anything to do with the vote, the Dems did kill it while being for it (with the amendments etc.)

These are center-right struggles. And just for that reason, some version will probably pass. But time marches on and events will change things, so who knows. The Jewish holiday thing surprised me as well.

Debs wrote in the other thread: From my rather remote perspective it becomes interesting to try and guess whether the bill will come back in similar form to the way it left, just with all of the pork chops stuck to it, or whether they will pretend that the bail out is a dead duck and skin this skunk differently but just the same.

That depends on what the aim was in the first place. But it is very possible that the Banker/wall str./ finance / repub. contingent floated it as a trial balloon and will abandon it immediately - no skin of their noses. (See e.g. McCain, link posted by *a* at 7.) Or, possibly the amended version (or something close to it with some important but hidden language changed) can be made to pass, and touted as democracy at work, a bi-partisan effort, etc.

Posted by: Tangerine | Sep 30 2008 16:29 utc | 10

i can only pray that the whole fucking shithouse falls in on itself

fear & money rule america. what a ragged & unholy thing

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 30 2008 16:36 utc | 11

they were once merchants of mendacious & made up money

now they are simply panic merchants

their fear faithfully enunciated everywhere & sold by the unit 24/24 with their crop of corrupted commentators

& the public swallowing this shit as if it is chocolate icecream

Posted by: | Sep 30 2008 16:53 utc | 12

*Politically* speaking, it is the Dems. who are more responsible for lax lending.

The Community Reinvestment Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act>link

was a Carter creation, and Clinton extended it, etc. (As said in the wiki the whole qu. is controversial).

Certainly this is a typical ‘socialist’ move, in this case tied to racial discrimination in the US; banks and insurance and so forth using actuarial tables, stats, etc. to discriminate against the poor, blacks, other ethnic, etc. The result was - Affirmative Action lending.

The Dem. mistake of course was to force non-State entities to comply with Gov. regs. Weak Govs. do that. You ba** and bi**, you have to give others a look in, we will force that on you ..but keep the whole capitalistic scheme..

To what extent and precisely how this act encouraged or forced imprudent lending would be interesting to know. If it did.

The only ppl who made a stab at halting it, afaik, were Bush Junior and McCain, both failed.

Did this act push lenders to say to hell with it, money we will make? Or just provide a glimmer or wedge for short term gains? Or...??

I realise the mortgages etc. are only a small part of the present crisis, put forward to the public because so important on the ground.

Posted by: Tangerine | Sep 30 2008 17:06 utc | 13

S&P400 up 4+%, Dow up 3.5% - who needs a bailout?

Posted by: b | Sep 30 2008 18:13 utc | 14

S&P500 of course
---

Why they voted Yea

The Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington nonprofit group that studies money and politics, reports that on average, lawmakers who voted in favor of the bailout bill have received 51 percent more in campaign contributions from sources in the finance, insurance and real estate industries — or FIRE industries, for short — over their congressional careers than those who opposed the emergency legislation. ... In this election cycle, the 140 House Democrats who voted for the bailout bill collected 78 percent more from the FIRE industries than the Democrats who opposed it. Over their careers, they collected 88 percent more, the data show. ... Of the 37 Democrats that sit on the House Financial Services Committee, 25 voted for the bill, including the committee chairman, Barney Frank of Massachusetts. He received nearly $800,000 this election cycle from sources in the FIRE industries. ... The ranking Republican member of the committee, Spencer Bachus from Alabama, was among those who voted in favor. He has received $822,000 from the FIRE industries this election cycle and $3.7 million since 1989. ... One of those who got a lot of funds from the FIRE industries but still voted “no” was Ron Paul, the Texas represenative who favors abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard.

Among the no-voters on Monday, Mr. Paul received the most money from FIRE sources — $1.3 million — in this election cycle. His overall donations got a boost from his presidential run.

Among Bailout Supporters, Wall St. Donations Ran High

Posted by: b | Sep 30 2008 18:17 utc | 15

Tangerine: your first comment here (and past ones) are very perceptive, so I wonder why you link Republicans with Wall St, when as far as I know, it is the Dems who are in WS's pocket.

It's a profound mystery to me -- almost a divine intervention -- that the Repugs managed to save the Dems from being tarred with an utter political failure, amost as great as approving the Iraq war.

Posted by: seneca | Sep 30 2008 19:06 utc | 16

I found this math interesting, dividing up the members of the house in "vulnerable" and "other", with vulnerable being those that face a though election, yielded the following:

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Swing District Congressmen Doomed Bailout

VULNERABLE GOP = 3 YEAS, 17 NAYS (15%)
OTHER GOP = 62 YEAS, 116 NAYS (35%)
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%)

So had it not been for the election, and for the pressure it might very well have passed.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Sep 30 2008 19:44 utc | 17

There is a lot of hyperbole in the current media.

Indeed it seems like only yesterday people were saying "everything financial will now go down hard!" and "a total meltdown of the US financial system could occur!" and that "9/29 will be a marked day for historians - maybe even as big (bigger?) than 9/11!!"

Yes those 'media hysterics' sure were full of it.

Posted by: vaudois | Sep 30 2008 19:49 utc | 18

@vaudois - yes, I made the remarks you quote in a piece yesterday. I stand by them.

I wrote: everything financial will now go down hard that was live-blogged from the vote and after that ... stocks down stocks 8-10%, commodities down stocks 8-10%, even gold down. I was right for the day. The trend will, in my opinion, continue after a few days of relief rally.

I wrote a total meltdown of the US financial system could occur Yes, could, and maybe will occur ...

and 9/29 will be a marked day for historians - maybe even as big (bigger?) than 9/11 that I think is not dubious at all. It was a record downturn combined with an unexpected vote on a financial issue in Congress - unprecedented since the 1930s. Few historians will miss to mention that special combination.

Today I wrote: There is a lot of hyperbole in the current media. The financial system will not be destroyed. That was a reference to some media pieces I read today that used the word 'destroy', which is in relation to markets in fact hyperbole.

Posted by: b | Sep 30 2008 20:23 utc | 19

By Gavin Finch and David Yong
Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) -- The cost of borrowing in dollars overnight surged the most on record after the U.S. Congress rejected a $700 billion bank rescue plan, heightening concern more institutions will fail.
The London interbank offered rate, or Libor, that banks charge each other for such loans climbed 431 basis points to an all-time high of 6.88 percent today, the British Bankers'
Association said. The euro interbank offered rate, or Euribor, for one-month loans climbed to record 5.05 percent, the European Banking Federation said. The Libor-OIS spread, a gauge of the scarcity of cash, advanced to a record. Rates in Asia also rose.
``The money markets have completely broken down, with no trading taking place at all,'' said Christoph Rieger, a fixed- income strategist at Dresdner Kleinwort in Frankfurt. ``There is no market any more. Central banks are the only providers of cash to the market, no-one else is lending.'' Credit markets have seized up, tipping banks toward insolvency and forcing U.S. and European governments to rescue five banks in the past two days, including Dexia SA, the world's biggest lender to local governments, and Wachovia Corp. Money- market rates climbed even after the Federal Reserve yesterday more than doubled the size of its dollar-swap line with foreign central banks to $620 billion. Banks borrowed dollars from the ECB at almost six times the Fed's benchmark interest rate today.

Libor-OIS Spread

The Libor-OIS spread, the difference between the three- month dollar rate and the overnight indexed swap rate, widened to 246 basis points, showing cash scarcity is at a record.
The difference between what banks and the U.S. Treasury pay to borrow money for three months, the so-called TED spread, was at 338 basis points today after breaching 350 basis points for the first time yesterday. The spread was at 110 basis points a month ago.
``We can be sure that funding pressures are not going to ease while there is so much uncertainty,'' said Adam Carr, senior economist in Sydney at ICAP Australia Ltd., part of the world's largest inter-bank broker. ``Cash is going to be at a premium. There's really no end in sight.''

Posted by: vbo | Oct 1 2008 0:15 utc | 20

I have been reading the comments and there is a simple solution to the problem. Raise wages for working folks. The last eight years have broken the working man. Many of these so called sub prime loans were likely given to persons with very good credit. Here is where the actual problem started.

1. Driving down wages. The Bush admin really pushed free trade and stood by while jobs disappeared. Michigan alone has lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs in the last seven years. Four million manufacturing jobs nationwide. This required persons with these mortgages to find jobs that pay less or work two jobs to maintain the same life style.

2. Gas prices have tripled. This is costing thousands a year more putting pressure on the household budget. (Commodities have sky rocketed but are now re-adjusting down after the China olympic games are over).

3. Home heating oil and natural gas has doubled and tripled. Putting pressure on household finances.

4. Health insurance has risen 119% since Bush took office. This means persons buying their own pays more. Employers who provide insurance tell employees they must give up raises to keep insurance. Then employers decided employees must help pay for the insurance. This was done in higher co-pays and taking more from paychecks.

5. Fighting two wars sucked the money out of the heartland economies. Main street has been sucked dry. War spending and deficit spending sucks money out that would normally be invested in the economy.

6. The federal government has cut the return of money coming back to state budgets to fight the war thus reducing spending and jobs on the state level.

7. Food prices have increased dramatically putting pressure on household budgets.

So the bottom line is, while I blame Wall Street speculators, it is the Bush administration policies of war (war always drives up inflation on commodities)and idealogical free trade that has done the most damage.
If all the things I named above hadn't happened, people would likely still be paying those mortgages. I make good money and I can't afford to do shit and I'm actually going backwards.

Posted by: jdp | Oct 1 2008 1:22 utc | 21

I disagree that raising wages is the solution, jdp, although I understand the position. I have lived in squalid poverty while still arguing against the raising of wages simply because it seems like an extremely short-term solution which would promote consumer inflation in very short order. The solution to that would be to raise wages again... and the cycle would continue unchecked. You, yourself say that you "...make good money and I can't afford to do shit and I'm actually going backwards", so the solution is obviously not to just throw more money at the collection of problems.

It could be countered that the cost of living is rising independently of where real wages are, and this is certainly true, but a rise would only add fuel to those factors and be an excuse to continue not to address them.

Idealist that I am, I firmly believe that cost/quality of life issues will only be realistically addressed when a majority are in the same boat. As long as there are a slim majority who can sneer and be able to say "I got mine!", there will be no genuine progress in this front except for the occasional concession every election cycle that only serves to prolong a slim minority's suffering. People think I am a heartless bastard and am getting off on the idea of people's pain, but I honestly look forward to the rocky economics as the only possible agents of genuine change. Band-aids only serve to draw things out longer for the impoverished.

This is why I disagree with the supporting arguments of this analysis, but am entirely behind the conclusion: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the answer

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 1 2008 3:45 utc | 22

Tags. Goddam HTML tags.

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 1 2008 3:46 utc | 23

Here's what I don't understand.... The big issue right now is supposed to be that the credit market is "clogged." Banks are not lending - not to each other, not to businesses that need the money for growth, etc., etc. However, where is all the money that was pouring into CDS (doubling in volume every year & now equal to the world's GDP) and other financial instruments?

Is it all being held as banks, institutions, etc. are scared of taking any risks and want to keep liquid? It's not the fact that they loaned money like drunks to anyone with a pulse (and even some without) that is causing the current credit "clog" problems, it's the fact that they have a hangover and have suddenly turned parsimonious and are hanging on tightly to their money and not loaning it to good prospects!! Possibly this is a ridiculously silly suggestion (otherwise surely someone would have suggested this), but perhaps the government intervention shouldn't be on the "back end" (i.e. helping the financial companies clean up their toxic waste), but on the "front end" e.g. some sort of federal guarantee of all new loans struck provided they meet certain criteria...(tied to real assets vs. second, third, fourth order derivatives, etc.) Once this unclogs the system (which is supposed to be the immediate problem) then theyt can look at slowly unwinding all the garbage...

Posted by: Tosk | Oct 1 2008 4:26 utc | 24

The big issue is turnips! Turnips I tell you!! When my greatgrandfather was a boy, if you had turnips to spare and a woman, you were a "man". No turnips, no woman, that's for sure! If you had enough turnips, you might even own a horse and feed him!! Who had any silver?! Not a farthing! Then they opened the frontier. When grandad was a boy, they had to pay journeyman laborers in coin to feed and stable their horses. "25¢ a day and found" during the Great Depression, for working 6-12's year-round. When my dad got back from WW2, the big money was still in food, and in selling cars. If you had a grocery store and a woman, you were a "man". If you were a food wholesaler, you owned an automobile and gas for it!! Who had any gold?? Not a grain. But dollars were good for silver, and so you rolled them up and saved them in your sock drawer. When I got back from Nam, Nixon abandoned the gold backing on the US$, and then it was one recession and living hell after another from then on, unless you were a banker or a broker, pimping the paper money for usurious interest rates to people desperate for a house and a car away from the crush of the city. By the time we hit Y2K, 30 years later, I'd been through three boom-and-busts and been homeless enough times to know the dot.con neutron bomb was about to drop. I've been 100% savings and pay in cash right through these Bushistani's and Hallibani's using their fiat funny money to crush the middle class, but everyone still has some coin in their pockets, and every household has 2.1 cars, and most Americans are making their house payments, so who gives a rip for the bankrupt bankers and brokers?? Let them work out of the day-labor halls like I did, and my pappy and grandpap, digging trenches with a shovel and sawing trees with a double-bit and two-man, and hauling concrete with a wheelbarrow, sitting on the tailgate at the end of the day as the man hands out two twenties and a ten, and we'll see you back here tomorrow, OK?

Posted by: Okie John | Oct 1 2008 5:20 utc | 25

As usual, John Young's Crypttome site has puts some "non-standard" information
into the public domain. For example, these examples of Hanky-panky,">http://webofdeception.com/paulsongoldmanliens.html#paulsonfanniemaefreddiemac">Hanky-panky,
and the links at the main page regarding the use of misleading names for the (various forms of) the bail-out bill. This type of misconduct (Paulson's unpaid debts and advantageous treatment, being only one of the latest, and less egregious, examples) and administration flim-flam (giving "patriotic" names to crassly plutocratic or overtly authoritarian legislative proposals) are well documented for those who want to know, but seldom rise into view in the traditional mass media. The latter are more concerned with such essential matters as telecasting interviews from an Alaskan island from which Russia is visible.

Two further comments: both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul voted "no" to the bail-out proposal. Paul did so despite having received $1.3 million in campaign contributions from financial industry sources. The late Jesse Unruh would be proud of Ron. Kucinich's views may be found at his website. Here is an excerpt from a recent Kucinich e-mail:

Yesterday marked a day that will go down in history, when Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike took on full responsibility to protect the interests of taxpaying Americans, and defeated the deceptive bail out bill, defying the dictates of the Administration, the House Majority Leadership, the House Minority Leadership and the special interests on Wall Street.

Obviously Congress must consider quickly another course ... so that the taxpayers, their assets, and their futures are protected.

We MUST do something to protect millions of Americans whose homes, bank deposits, investments, and pensions are at risk in a financial system that has become seriously corrupted. We are told that we must stabilize markets in order for the people to be protected. I think we need to protect peoples' homes, bank deposits, investments, and pensions, to order to stabilize the market.

We cannot delay taking action. But the action must benefit all Americans, not just a privileged few. Otherwise, more plans will fail, and the financial security of everyone will be at risk.

The $700 billion bailout would have added to our existing unbearable load of national debt, trade deficits, and the cost of paying for the war. It would have been a disaster for the American public and the government for decades and maybe even centuries to come.

To be sure, there are many different reasons why people voted against the bailout. The legislation did not regard in any meaningful way the plight of millions of Americans who are about to lose their homes. It did nothing to strengthen existing regulatory structures or impose new ones at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve in order to protect investors. There were no direct protections for bank depositors. There was nothing to stop further speculation, which is what brought us into this mess in the first place.

This was a bailout for some firms (and investors) on Wall Street, with the idea that in doing so there would be certain, unspecified, general benefits to the economy.

This is a perfect time to open a broader discussion about our financial system, especially our monetary system. Such a discussion is like searching for a needle in a haystack, and then, upon finding it, discussing its qualities at great length. Let me briefly describe the haystack instead.

Here is a very quick explanation of the $700 billion bailout within the context of the mechanics of our monetary and banking system:

The taxpayers loan money to the banks. But the taxpayers do not have the money. So we have to borrow it from the banks to give it back to the banks. But the banks do not have the money to loan to the government. So they create it into existence (through a mechanism called fractional reserve) and then loan it to us, at interest, so we can then give it back to them.

Confused?

This is the system. This is the standard mechanism used to expand the money supply on a daily basis not a special one designed only for the "$700 billion" transaction. People will explain this to you in many different ways, but this is what it comes down to.

The banks needed Congress' approval. Of course in this topsy turvy world, it is the banks which set the terms of the money they are borrowing from the taxpayers. And what do we get for this transaction? Long term debt enslavement of our country. We get to pay back to the banks trillions of dollars ($700 billion with compounded interest) and the banks give us their bad debt which they cull from everywhere in the world.

Who could turn down a deal like this? I did.

The globalization of the debt puts the United States in the position that in order to repay the money that we borrow from the banks (for the banks) we could be forced to accept International Monetary Fund dictates which involve cutting health, social security benefits and all other social spending in addition to reducing wages and exploiting our natural resources. This inevitably leads to a loss of economic, social and political freedom.

Under the failed $700 billion bailout plan, Wall Street's profits are Wall Street's profits and Wall Street's losses are the taxpayers' losses. Profits are capitalized. Losses are socialized.

All this is surely subject to debate, and, in some measure reducible to election campaign boilerplate, but at least Kucinich is among the few congressional voices raising what seem to me to be the right questions. Finally, apologies for the long quote. I was unable to find a link to the text of K's letter.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Oct 1 2008 6:03 utc | 26

There seem to be two mainstream opinions:

Let it fail -- as illustrated in the photo taken from the Wall Street protest during the Congress vote that denied the bailout, showing up against the stone building a brown cardboard placard hand lettered in magic marker, the headline reading, "JUMP!" and the subhead, "You Fuckers!"

The other end of the spectrum is written by Paul Krugman, economist and progressive-quoted Democrat published in the NY Times, saying that the only palatable corrective to the failing market is to swallow a bill that sends short-term cash to the market and staves off the problem for a few months until the upcoming Democratic government can craft long term solutions.

Outside of that continuum, apparently talk radio in the US is on board with saying no to the bailout bill, and there are also Catherine Austin Fitts, Chris Floyd and John Chuckman pointing out that this recent attempt is just more of the same, part of the ongoing transfer of wealth from the US taxpayer to the ownership class.

My take is that we are already quite used to this environment and each take our financial position into account as we deal with these issues.

We have ample warning that this overall market correction was due. Here in Canada I'm offered the opportunity to vote early for the Conservative candidate whose Prime Minster called this election just in time, or maybe just too late, before the financial downturn might cast a shadow on his policies.

Here it seems that governments are changed not on ideology but on the economy.

Probably not too different south of the border.

Posted by: jonku | Oct 1 2008 9:08 utc | 27

The bill is now 450 pages long. Up from the original 3 page Paulson back o' the envelope proposal.

from a blogger who has read the thing, or skimmed it at least:http://www.eckernet.com/2008/10/bailout_on_its_way.html>link it includes varia such as:

▪ Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
▪ Sec. 310. Extension of mine rescue team training credit.
▪ Sec. 311. Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety equipment.
▪ Sec. 316. Railroad track maintenance.
▪ Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
▪ Sec. 324. Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book inventory.
▪ Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.
▪ Sec. 502. Provisions related to film and television productions.
▪ Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.

The US Gvmt. is completely crazy.

***PDF 450 pp : To amend section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act, section 9812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment, and for other purposes. ... (etc.) http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2008/10/01/senaterescue.pdf>link

seneca, you are right I suppose, they are both linked to W St, the Dems more in fact, but the Repubs. too - hard to judge. For sure, Obama is a creature of Wall St. ...

Posted by: Tangerine | Oct 2 2008 14:47 utc | 28

Voice of the common man

Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 2 2008 23:55 utc | 29

Thanks, dan. Pretty much sums it up,don't you know?

Posted by: jonku | Oct 3 2008 17:30 utc | 30