Opposition Mounts to Paulson Plan

Well, it’s pretty clear the Paulson plan is in trouble. Writes Peter Viles at the LA Times:

A key quote in this morning’s Senate hearing about the Paulson bailout is worth repeating. This comes from Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat:

“Like my colleagues, my phones have been ringing off the hook. The sentiment from Ohioans about this proposal is universally negative.”

Not “overwhelmingly negative.” Not “deeply suspicious.” Not “extremely upset.” Universally negative.

I’ll state the obvious: Members of Congress aren’t generally in the habit of passing historic and spectacularly unpopular legislation five weeks before election day.

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Other quotes on this: Steve Verdon:

And just to make sure the point is fully understood lets explain what this means. Suppose we wanted to set aside the money for all the promised spending for Medicare and Social Security in an interest bearing account. How much would we have to set aside? $100 trillion. That is right now, we’d have to put aside $100 trillion dollars. But recall my comments in the opening paragraph. Our economy is only just over $14.3 trillion in terms of GDP. We’d need to set aside the GDP for the next seven years. All of it.

Seems to me the failure of the market pales in comparison to the failure of government. But what the Hell, lets go for more government. I’m sure they wont screw things up any worse than they already are.

Newt Gingrich at a press conference:

1) He called it a “stupid plan” that looks like it had been designed by autocrat Vladimir Putin. He also said it will be a “nightmare” to implement and full of corruption.

2) He said the Paulson Plan would be a “dead loser” on Election Day that will “break against anyone who votes for it.” It will hurt even worse with the 2010 election once Americans see what a drag it is on the economy when implemented.

3) He recently chatted with economic historian Alan Meltzer who advocated doing nothing rather than implanting the Paulson Plan. Meltzer apparently joked to Gingrich that this was about the third time he had seen Wall Street scream “the apocalypse was nigh” only to have the economy keep right on chugging along.

4) Gingrich thinks that if the Paulson Plan isn’t passed by this weekend, it is dead and the White House better have a Plan B, economic-growth package ready. Right now, he still thinks it has an 80 percent chance of passage, partly because of Paulson’s apocalyptic tone that if a bill isn’t passed, “the whole world will end on Tuesday.”

Former Governor Mike Huckabee:

Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be effected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and compensation which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy…

The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.

Will there be far-reaching consequences without some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government—which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many if not most of us have already experienced lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.

What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain?

If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?

The opposition is bi-partisan as Jon Pinkus at Open Left observes:

There’s outrage over the Bush Administration’s proposed bailout of Wall Street — unlimited authority, no oversight, a $700 million dollar blank check — on both the right and the left.  It’s amazing to see people on all sides of the fence draw comparisons between the ultra-short deadlines and the overly broad language of Paulson’s initial proposal and the PATRIOT Act.   Newt Gingrich and Robert Reich, Yuval Levin and Paul Krugman, McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden, all agree: the original proposal doesn’t cut the mustard.

I think maybe another plan is needed…