« Take Action -- Tell Pelosi "No Blank Checks!" | ProgressiveReb's Blog | Funny Story from a Young Organizer at the VP Debate -- with Pictures! »
CLICK HERE to tell Pelosi We Want a Progressive Bailout
The sun is still shining! The grass is still green! Puppies are still adorable! Whew.
Despite the gloom and doom predictions, Congress’ failure to pass Paulson’s original bailout plan yesterday did not lead to the immediate implosion of our economy. In fact, the stock market was up this morning. So I think we can now safely set aside the threats of those who tried to frighten us into accepting an awful bailout plan. It seems that there is a brief time for us to address this problem fairly, effectively and responsibly.
So what should we do?
Let’s seize this opportunity to propose a truly progressive solution. We should tell Congress, and especially the House leadership, that we need a fresh, thoughtful alternative centered on the following key principles:
1. Do more to make Wall Street, not working families, bear the brunt of the financial burden.
2. Adopt stronger rules to protect us from banks that are “too big to fail” and the reckless, over-the-top borrowing that left our financial system teetering on the edge.
3. Do more to help struggling families stay in their homes -- including allowing bankruptcy judges to let homeowners negotiate new terms for their mortgages.
4. Commit to the public investments that we know will pay off for America – including clean energy, health care and education.
If you support these goals, please go Progressive Future's website and send an email to Nancy Pelosi telling her that you expect a fair, progressive solution to this crisis.
We should take action to make our economy stronger; but let’s not leave behind our values as we do it.
Despite the gloom and doom predictions, Congress’ failure to pass Paulson’s original bailout plan yesterday did not lead to the immediate implosion of our economy. In fact, the stock market was up this morning. So I think we can now safely set aside the threats of those who tried to frighten us into accepting an awful bailout plan. It seems that there is a brief time for us to address this problem fairly, effectively and responsibly.
So what should we do?
Let’s seize this opportunity to propose a truly progressive solution. We should tell Congress, and especially the House leadership, that we need a fresh, thoughtful alternative centered on the following key principles:
1. Do more to make Wall Street, not working families, bear the brunt of the financial burden.
2. Adopt stronger rules to protect us from banks that are “too big to fail” and the reckless, over-the-top borrowing that left our financial system teetering on the edge.
3. Do more to help struggling families stay in their homes -- including allowing bankruptcy judges to let homeowners negotiate new terms for their mortgages.
4. Commit to the public investments that we know will pay off for America – including clean energy, health care and education.
If you support these goals, please go Progressive Future's website and send an email to Nancy Pelosi telling her that you expect a fair, progressive solution to this crisis.
We should take action to make our economy stronger; but let’s not leave behind our values as we do it.
Advertisement
'commended.
I sent an email to my congresswoman last night, plainly telling her that I didn't trust Paulson to deal with the current problem, and that I can't support a giveaway to hedge funds and investment banks.
September 30, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bigger barrier to getting a better bill right now is on the Senate side. Word is they will convene tomorrow and pass something similar to what the House voted down yesterday.
This would be a major disincentive--should the key players even be entertaining such a course of action--to House Dems moving to vote on a plan more along the lines of what Krugman is proposing, which I take it you would see as more "progressive".
If the Senate adopts basically the House bill tomorrow, then House members who might otherwise subsequently vote for, or consider voting for, a Krugman-type proposal, might think that the more progressive bill would be unlikely to prevail when the House and Senate go to conference committee to reconcile the differences in the two bills. (they believe something closer to the Senate/original House version would be more likely to emerge from that as the bill sent to Bush's desk)
So if they vote for a Krugman-type proposal, it's a lose-lose situation, because their opponent will run ads against them accusing them of being a socialist for the next 4 weeks for that vote, but if the Krugman-type version ultimately does not prevail then that tough vote is for naught in terms of getting a substantively better final outcome.
Especially if the markets are trending down tomorrow I don't know what would slow down the Senate train, to permit some additional time to permit reconsideration of the best course of action in Congress.
But the Senate right now would appear to be the priority for those holding out hope for the possibility of a more progressive bill in the end.
OTOH, if the Senate truly is a done deal at this point, maybe better to work the House to see if the key players would consider a Krugman-type bill.
September 30, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
URGENT ACTION NEEDED
Sen Maj Leader Harry Reed is planning on bringing back the inadequate give away that was defeated in the house. It’s going to be voted on Wednesday or Thurs. He needs to be told by email, fax, phone that it is not good enough. his contact info is:
528 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
Toll Free for Nevadans:
1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)
The core concept proposed by Bush is flawed. Call some hearings and ask some economists. Google Sweden 1992 banking crisis. They had good success promptly steering their financial institutions back to safety. Learn the lessons, write it for the Democratic base, and own it. The “compromise” tweeking that was done to the Bush proposal resulted in a toothless and weak 100 page bill that tried to bury and hide its weakness from the voters. Rather than condescendingly claiming that the American people didn’t understand (Cf, McSame of Obama at first debate), or that the leadership didn’t explain it well enough, the reality is that public outrage finally made the Republicans blink, to borrow from Palin. If they vote in favor of bailing out the bad actors, they lose votes from constituents in five weeks at the next election. That is their only moral hazard. The bill that failed would not have prevented one of the 10K daily foreclosures, could have been filibustered until Bush spent all $700B, would only have made some parachutes non-tax-deductible, merely required a report “suggesting” how the taxpayer will be paid back, and allowed the same bunch of lobbyists to set prices for their trash that the taxpayers would pay. As a final insult, instead of providing more confidence through transparency, the failed bill would allow Paulson to suspend the mark-to-market rule. This is intellectual dishonesty that will further erode confidence in our banking system. Do a better job on all these issues and allow bankruptcy judges to implement the rewriting of loans, or face the wrath of the voters. I think many voters would accept a temporary governmental equity position in the banking sector as long as the bad guys aren’t seen as maintaining their ability to subvert the programs and continue to rip off the system. Don’t pull another FISA cave.
October 1, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richard from HB (House Banking Committee, perchance? Don't answer if it leaves you vulnerable...):
Thanks--this is helpful.
October 1, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree that our biggest challenge now is that it may be difficult to convince the Senate leadership to accept these goals.
I am worried that, for reasons not obvious to me, the public won't put as much pressure on the Senate as they put on the House.
October 1, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink