GM execs give up some private jets after embarassing hearing.
GM execs give up some private jets after embarassing hearing.
Earlier this week, Big Three automaker CEOs were ridiculed by members of Congress for taking private jets to Washington to plea for a federal bailout. Today, ABC reports that GM is putting two of its five corporate jets out of service allegedy “in response to the planes not being used” and not a reaction to the harsh treatment from Congress. Watch Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) criticize the auto execs:
Despite the downsizing, GM CEO Richard Wagoner “will still fly private for all business and personal travel” for “security reasons,” ABC notes.
- Comments
- 54
Conservatives Blame CAFE Standards For Auto Industry’s Troubles
Conservatives Blame CAFE Standards For Auto Industry’s Troubles
As the CEOs of Detroit’s Big Three automakers pleaded for a $25 billion bailout from Congress this week, conservatives have been looking for an easy culprit to blame for the auto industry’s seeming collapse. First it was the unions. Now conservatives have turned their attention to the modest fuel economy (CAFE) standards — fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 — imposed in last year’s Energy Independence and Security Act. Last night on Fox News, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney echoed other conservatives in pointing the finger at the fuel economy changes:
– MITT ROMNEY: Well, government did [cause a lot of this]. There’s no question but that the CAFE standards have put an unusual burden on the domestic automobile manufacturers. And our energy policies as a country continue to put burdens on domestic manufacturers. That’s just — that’s reality. [11/19/08]
– WILLIAM KRISTOL: Well, one problem with the auto industry is we have been telling them how to operate an awful lot, you know, in terms of CAFE standards and other things, probably which should not have been most — may have been the most — not the most intelligent way to help that industry. [11/16/08]
– SEAN HANNITY: They [the government] — you know, between the unions, between trade policy, safety standards, CAFE standards, you know, economy, fuel economy standards, they’re forcing these auto companies to be in a position where they’re not as competitive. [11/14/08]
Watch it:
Last year’s stonewalling attempts by the auto industry notwithstanding, improving fuel economy is not difficult for the Big Three. As the Sierra Club explained in 2006, “The technology exists today to make all new vehicles average 40 miles per gallon within ten years.” A 2002 report by the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems of the National Research Council found that technologies existed then that “would significantly reduce fuel consumption within 15 years” — technologies that manufacturers were “already offering or introducing” in overseas markets.
What’s more, those existing technologies would hardly bankrupt the auto industry. NPR reported that technologies to raise fuel-efficiency “to around 33 mpg across the fleet pay for themselves within three to four years.” Indeed, Tom Cole of the Center for Automotive Research, said that with only about $1,000 worth of changes, “a conventional, gas-powered car could go 25 percent farther on a single gallon of gas.” The Union of Concerned Scientists designed its own highly efficient SUV comparable to the Ford Explorer that doubled its fuel economy (from 17 mpg to 30 mpg). The lifetime fuel savings paid back the additional technology cost of $2,560 in less than three years.
The auto industry’s problems have far more to do with the lack of universal health care in America than they do with fuel economy requirements. For General Motors, health care costs add $1,525 to the price of every car that leaves the lot; the company estimates that it spent $5.2 billion on health care benefits in 2004, more than it paid for steel.
Rep. Ackerman: Auto Execs’ Private Jet Travel Like Guy At ‘The Soup Kitchen In High Hat And Tuxedo’
Rep. Ackerman: Auto Execs’ Private Jet Travel Like Guy At ‘The Soup Kitchen In High Hat And Tuxedo’
Today, the CEOs of the Detroit Big Three returned to Capitol Hill to ask for $25 billion in loans. Testifying before the House Financial Services Committee, General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner insisted, “We’re all slashing back” on non-essential expenses, promising, “We’re going to be dramatically leaner.” The other executives echoed Wagoner’s pledge to be “leaner” in the future.
However, as ABC news reported last night, all three executives flew private jets to Washington, DC, for yesterday’s and today’s hearings:
Wagoner flew in GM’s $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone. … Wagoner’s private jet trip to Washington cost his ailing company an estimated $20,000 roundtrip. In comparison, seats on Northwest Airlines flight 2364 from Detroit to Washington were going online for $288 coach and $837 first class.
Minutes after Wagoner claimed to be “slashing back” on expenses, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) evoked their private jet travel, calling it a “delicious irony.” Ackerman said the CEOs’ profligacy made Congress “a little bit suspicious” of their austerity pledges:
There’s a delicious irony of seeing private luxury jets flying into DC, and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hands, saying that they’re going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses. It’s almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. Kind makes you a little bit suspicious as to whether or not…we’ve seen the future. There’s a message there. Couldn’t you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled to get here? It would have at least sent the message that you do get it.
Watch a portion of Ackerman’s comments that aired on Fox News:
Later in the hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) asked if any of the executives planned to sell their private jets; none raised his hand. Sherman was exasperated: “I don’t know how I go back to my constituents and say, ‘The auto industry has changed,’ if they own private jets which are not only expensive to own but expensive to operate and expensive to fly here rather than to have flown commercial.”
Conservative Politicians Misleadingly Blame Labor Unions For Detroit’s Woes
Conservative Politicians Misleadingly Blame Labor Unions For Detroit’s Woes
Congress and the Bush administration are currently considering whether to spend $25 billion to rescue Detroit automakers. The proposal has generally been met with stiff resistance from conservatives, who have increasingly been pinning all the blame for the crisis in Detroit on labor unions:
Sen. Jim DeMint: “Some auto manufacturers are struggling because of a bad business structure with high unionized labor costs and burdensome federal regulations. Taxpayers did not create these problems and they should not be forced to pay for them.”
Sen. Jon Kyl: “For years they’ve been sick. They have a bad business model. They have contracts negotiated with the United Auto Workers that impose huge costs.The average hourly cost per worker in this country is about $28.48. For these auto makers, it’s $73. And for the Japanese auto companies working here in the United States, it’s $48.”
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: “You know, if you pay the auto workers or the benefits and all of those things, are maybe too high. … We have, like, in America, you sell a car, and you have $2,000 of each car just goes to benefits. So I think that there’s a way of reducing all of that, make them more fiscally responsible.”
Watch a compilation:
Unions do not deserve the blame placed on them by the right wing. In fact, unions have repeatedly made concessions to auto executives over recent years. Contrary to Kyl’s claim, new auto employees earn $25.65 an hour.
Big Three automaker CEOs and executives based their business model on a future of cheap oil, fighting fuel efficiency standards despite warnings against such a strategy. Detroit manufactured, as Tom Friedman pointed out, oversized gas-guzzling SUVs that reduced their competitive edge.
Financial firms AIG, Merrill Lynch, and Bear Stearns did not have unionized workers but still suffered economic collapses. Frozen credit markets and a spiraling recession were major contributors to Detroit’s current state. Today, the Center for American Progress urged Congress “to support legislation to grant a $25 billion bridge loan to the U.S. auto companies to ensure that they avoid bankruptcy” provided the automakers provide health and retirement security and invest in clean technology.
Bailout tally: $3.8 trillion and counting.
Bailout tally: $3.8 trillion and counting.
CNBC is keeping tabs on the amount that the federal government has been forced to spend to bail out corporate America. The total? “Three-point eight trillion dollars. That’s $3,800,000.000.000. More than what was spent on WW II, if adjusted for inflation, based on our computations from a variety of estimates and sources.” Check out CNBC’s line-by-line breakdown of where the taxpayer funds are going.
Rep. Cummings asks, ‘Is Kashkari a chump?’
Rep. Cummings asks, ‘Is Kashkari a chump?’
In a hearing today, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) excoriated “bailout czar” Neil Kashkari after reports emerged saying that AIG doled out $503 million to top executives. Noting the financial troubles in his Baltimore district, Cummings asked rhetorically whether his constituents would think Kashkari is a “chump” after learning of the AIG bonuses:
CUMMINGS: I’m just wondering how you feel about an AIG giving $503 million worth of bonuses on the one hand, and accepting $154 billion from hard-working taxpayers. You know, because I’m trying to make sure you get it. What really bothers me is all these other people who are lined up. They say, well, is Kashkari a chump?
“I wouldn’t want to be asking my friend for some money to stay afloat. … Then my friend, who can barely afford to go to McDonald’s sees me in a restaurant costing $150 a meal. There’s absolutely something wrong with that picture!” exclaimed Cummings. Watch it:
Flashback: McCain Promised To Do ‘Whatever…Needs To Be Done To Help Our Automotive Industry’
Flashback: McCain Promised To Do ‘Whatever…Needs To Be Done To Help Our Automotive Industry’
Today, the New York Times reports that Republicans are balking at a rescue package for the struggling auto industry. The bill would use some of the funds originally appropriated to shore up the banking system. Democrats need 60 votes to move the measure forward, but Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) said, “Right now, I don’t think there are the votes.” Some Republicans who have spoken out against the measure: Reps. John Boehner (R-OH) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
So far, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) hasn’t spoken up. (ThinkProgress contacted his spokesperson, but has yet to receive a reply.) But back in October, when McCain was still running for president, the senator indicated support for this rescue package:
Q: We’re finding out that there may be a possibility of some sort of bail-out or government assistance for the auto industry. Would that be something that you would support?
MCCAIN: Well, we’ve already done that to $25 billion, and we’ve delayed getting them the money. I would do whatever I think needs to be done to help our automotive industry. We’ve got to make this transition to flex fuel, battery powered, hydrogen automobiles. And, obviously — and, also, I would provide tax credits for people who buy these new automobiles. We’ve got to keep this industry alive. There’s no doubt about that.
Watch it:
Shelby has summed up conservatives’ justification for opposing an auto industry rescue bill: “The financial situation facing the Big Three is not a national problem but their problem.” However, as Obama transition co-chair John Podesta has noted, “the auto industry directly employs about 250,000 people” and is “the backbone of our manufacturing economy.” In fact, one in 12 U.S. jobs is tied to car manufacturing.
Other conservatives, such as Boehner, are arguing that there needs to be reform addressing the “root causes crippling automakers’ competitiveness around the world.” Both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) agree, saying that “federal aid should come with ’strong conditions,’ such as requirements that car makers build more fuel-efficient vehicles.”
On the campaign trail, McCain made it clear that it’s important to cross party lines on certain issues. Will he now buck the GOP leadership and support an auto industry rescue package?
McCain Now Supports Auto Industry Bailout: I’ll ‘Do Whatever I Think Needs To Be Done’
McCain Now Supports Auto Industry Bailout: I’ll ‘Do Whatever I Think Needs To Be Done’
The government recently promised the auto industry $25 billion in loans in order to produce more fuel-efficient models. Now, as General Motors and Chrysler consider a merger, executives are hinting at another $10 billion in federal help. Earlier this week, top McCain adviser Carly Fiorina said the campaign opposes any auto bailout:
“I don’t think the government can rescue the industry,” Carly Fiorina, former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard Corp, told Reuters at an event in suburban Detroit.”Whatever the government does, it should not take away the fundamentals of risk-taking. Sometimes it leads to rewards and sometimes consequences, downside,” she said. “In other words, the auto industry cannot be saved from its own bad bets.”
Today, however, interviewed on Good Morning America, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) expressed support for the auto industry bailouts:
Q: We’re finding out that there may be a possibility of some sort of bail-out or government assistance for the auto industry. Would that be something that you would support?
MCCAIN: Well, we’ve already done that to $25 billion, and we’ve delayed getting them the money. I would do whatever I think needs to be done to help our automotive industry. We’ve got to make this transition to flex fuel, battery powered, hydrogen automobiles. And, obviously — and, also, I would provide tax credits for people who buy these new automobiles. We’ve got to keep this industry alive. There’s no doubt about that.
Watch it:
McCain has been slowly creeping towards supporting bailouts for the auto industry. In June, he stated, “Frankly I just don’t see a scenario where the federal government would come in and bail out any industry in America today.” Earlier this week, McCain was on the fence, telling NBC, “Let’s get the $25 billion to them to start with and see how that goes.” Finally, today, he hinted at full support for more bailouts.
Fiorina has been ostracized by the campaign for repeatedly publicly contradicting campaign policy. In April, she said McCain favored “private accounts” for Social Security, while McCain was saying he opposed privatizing Social Security. She has also contradicted McCain on birth control policy.
Merrill Lynch executive to get $10 million golden parachute as company slashes 500 jobs.
Merrill Lynch executive to get $10 million golden parachute as company slashes 500 jobs.
Merrill Lynch executive vice president Peter Kraus “is likely to leave with more than $10 million in compensation” after the company was bought by Bank of America last month. “He isn’t affected by a provision in the government’s rescue plan that curbs executive compensation, a person familiar with the situation said,” the Wall Street Journal noted. Bloomberg reported yesterday that Merrill Lynch “plans to cut about 500 jobs in its trading division as Chief Executive Officer John Thain shrinks the workforce to gird for a recession.”
Bush Housing Chief Rips McCain’s Mortgage Plan: ‘I Have A Very Grave Concern About That’
Bush Housing Chief Rips McCain’s Mortgage Plan: ‘I Have A Very Grave Concern About That’
During the Oct. 7 presidential debate, Sen. John McCain made a surprising policy announcement. After long claiming that it was “not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly,” McCain said he would “order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes.”
McCain’s initial plan would have forced lenders to “recognize the loss that they’ve already suffered,” but he flip-flopped overnight to place the bill back on the taxpayers. His plan now rewards bankers who made bad loans by directing the federal government to buy bad mortgages at their original market value, instead of at their current depreciated value. Here’s how McCain’s proposal works:
– If a homeowner bought a house for $300,000 - and the value then fell to $200,000 - McCain would have the government purchase the mortgage for $300,000, instead of forcing lenders to accept the loss and renegotiate the loan.
– The only way in which the government then makes a profit is if the house’s value rises above its original market value of $300,000, which is possible, but unlikely.
McCain’s housing plan is so bad that even the Bush administration won’t endorse it. Steve Preston, Bush’s Secretary for Housing and Urban Development, criticized McCain’s plan last night:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s plan to have the government pay the difference between the balances of troubled mortgages and what homes are now worth is troubling, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development said Monday evening.
“I have a very grave concern about that,” said Steve Preston, who took over at HUD in June after leading the Small Business Administration.
In response to a question during a forum at Town Hall in Seattle, Preston said the problem is that the plan would put the loss on taxpayers, “when the financial institution took that risk.
“I don’t think we can suffer that big of a loss. … That is not invested money. That is just a loss.”
Preston is right. Instead of having the lenders take a haircut in order to avoid mass foreclosures, “McCain wants the taxpayers to bear all the costs of doing so.”
And yet, on the campaign trail, McCain hypocritically rails against others for engaging in “socialism.” McCain’s version of socialism involves having the public accept the losses when the private market fails.
McCain’s new economic proposal would cause ‘exodus of capital’ to the wealthiest Americans.
McCain’s new economic proposal would cause ‘exodus of capital’ to the wealthiest Americans.
Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) gave a speech in Pennsylvania outlining his new economic proposal. Included in the plan is a provision temporarily lowering taxes on withdrawals from IRA’s and 401(k)s. During the speech, McCain touted this new provision, while saying that “it is essential we avoid an exodus of capital from the market.” Watch it:
But McCain doesn’t seem to understand that his proposal actively encourages the “exodus of capital” he is warning against. The Wonk Room explains here.
Cheney Biographer: VP Would Certainly See Bailout As Opportunity To Reinforce Unitary Executive
Cheney Biographer: VP Would Certainly See Bailout As Opportunity To Reinforce Unitary Executive
In recent weeks, Vice President Cheney has virtually disappeared from the public spotlight since last month’s economic collapse. He has given seven public speeches since Sept. 1, none of which were devoted to the economy. Cheney’s absence is puzzling considering his major role in crafting economic policy during the first term.
Yesterday, ThinkProgress asked the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman, author of the new book, Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, about Cheney’s disappearance. Gellman suggested Cheney has become a less influential figure in the White House and Congress, handicapped by abysmal approval ratings:
GELLMAN: Several explanations for Cheney’s disappearance. Number one: if you have approval ratings lower than those of the least popular president in modern history, you’re not going to be tapped to go out and make the public case. He had one sort of foray into Congress to try to talk House Republicans out of their opposition, so he’s lost his sway with them. … But in the second term, Josh Bolten and Paulson have formed kind of an alliance to take back economic policies from the Office of Vice President which was where it resided in the first term.
Listen here:
Gellman cautioned, however, that Cheney “is probably is involved behind the scenes in shaping the policy because there hasn’t been many massive policies that he hasn’t helped shape.”
The administration’s initial plan doled out extreme powers immune of oversight to executive branch — the Section 8 provision of the original Paulson plan. Gellman said Cheney may have used the bailout as an “opportunity” to expand executive power:
GELLMAN: He would approve the idea that this an executive responsibility. He would argue both that in order to solve this problem the markets have to be convinced that decisions will be made swiftly according to a unified idea of how to solve the problem and that they would be final and that markets would not be worried about Congress undoing what the Treasury Secretary has just done. Uncertainty isn’t good, he would say, for economic planning. He would certainly also see this as an opportunity to demonstrate and reinforce that the executive needs to be supreme on big consequential national policy.
On whether Cheney supports bailouts, Gellman said he may have granted an exception for this one: “He doesn’t like them in general. He thinks people who take risks in a capitalist society ought to bear the consequences of those just as they ought to reap the gains.”
Check out Gellman’s site here.
AIG cancels post-bailout party in California, says it will have no more.
AIG cancels post-bailout party in California, says it will have no more.
Earlier this week, the House Oversight Committee revealed that just one week receiving an $85 billion bailout, AIG executives went on a retreat to a luxury resort, spending nearly $500,000 on manicures, facials, pedicures, and massages, among other things. After being ridiculed for the vacation, AIG announced today that the parties are over. From an announcement they issued this afternoon:
Earlier today, AIG announced an important policy change - one that we wanted to be sure you knew about. A short time ago, our Chairman and CEO Ed Liddy said that he has ordered the immediate cancellation of all outside meetings, conferences, and recognition events across AIG, except those that are required by law or that are deemed absolutely critical to sustain our ongoing business needs.
Today, AIG canceled a specific party, originally scheduled for next week at the Ritz-Carlton in California’s Half Moon Bay, “after a re- evaluation of the costs under the new circumstances,” according to spokesman Joe Norton.
McCain Proposes A Progressive Housing Policy, But Still Wants To Reward Bankers Who Made Bad Loans
McCain Proposes A Progressive Housing Policy, But Still Wants To Reward Bankers Who Made Bad Loans
During the presidential debate last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) announced that, if elected President, he “would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes,” in order to enable troubled homeowners to stay in their homes:
I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes - at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those - be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.
Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we’re never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And we’ve got to give some trust and confidence back to America.
McCain’s plan - the American Homeownership Resurgence Plan - is a good step because he recognizes what he failed to understand before: the mortgage crisis is at the root of the current financial trouble. As the Associated Press noted today, McCain’s plan is akin to one proposed by the Center for American Progress (CAP), which has “been pushing a similar idea for some time.”
In December, 2007, CAP’s Andrew Jakabovics proposed a plan modeled on FDR’s New Deal-era Home Owners Loan Corporation. Under the CAP proposal, the government “would issue new, fixed-rate mortgages to those borrowers ‘underwater’ and facing default or foreclosure,” while buying “the old adjustable-rate mortgages from lenders and investors” at current value.
McCain should be applauded for embracing the progressive goal of helping homeowners with decent credit, who are nevertheless burdened with bad mortgages. However, he wants to buy the mortgages at full face value, which means he “wants to give $100 billion of taxpayers’ money to America’s worst-behaving mortgage financiers.”
Here’s how McCain’s proposal works:
- If a homeowner bought a house for $300,000 - and the value then fell to $200,000 - McCain would have the government purchase the mortgage for $300,000, instead of forcing lenders to accept the loss and renegotiate the loan.
- The only way in which the government then makes a profit is if the house’s value rises above its original market value of $300,000, which is possible, but unlikely.
As Matthew Yglesias wrote, “instead of having the lenders take a haircut in order to avoid mass foreclosures, McCain wants the taxpayers to bare all the costs of doing so.”
Brad DeLong noted that McCain plans to “give a present of $100 billion to the bankers who made the loans,” and “acquire and regularize the mortgages of only two-thirds as many homeowners as could have been accomplished if the $300 billion were invested wisely.”
McCain’s idea to buy and restructure mortgages is a good one, but he can accomplish it without overpaying and rewarding bankers who made bad loans.
Cross-posted at The Wonk Room.
Gingrich Changes His Mind On The Bailout…Again: McCain Should ‘Separate Himself’ From The Plan
Gingrich Changes His Mind On The Bailout…Again: McCain Should ‘Separate Himself’ From The Plan
Last month, MSNBC reported that up until the last minute, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich was telling GOP lawmakers “in the strongest possible language” to vote against the $700 billion bailout legislation. Speaking at the National Press Club later that same day, Gingrich took umbrage at the charge, saying, “I was actually reluctantly trying to help it get through.”
Gingrich’s claim now seems to be less than honest. In a new piece on Human Events, Gingrich actually urges Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to distance himself from the bailout that he allegedly helped push through:
If Senator McCain is not prepared to separate himself from the Bush-Paulson economic program, he has no opportunity to win.
The country is deeply fed up with the Bush presidency and angry about the Paulson bailout. If McCain is confused or uncertain about how bad this economic performance is, he will never get the country to listen to him.
Gingrich’s views have been practically impossible to pin down on this issue. Some of his past positions on the bailout:
– Sept. 29: “I’m not sure if I were in the Congress I could vote against it.”
– Sept. 29: “The vote today indicated that even when they’d worked for five days to try to improve what was really a pretty terrible original plan that [Paulson] sent up, it still couldn’t get a majority in the House.”
– Sept. 23: At a press conference Tuesday, Gingrich said the bailout proposal is a “watershed event” that puts the credibility of the GOP presidential nominee on the line. If McCain plays the maverick card, Gingrich said, the bailout will become the “Obama-Bush plan.”
So, to summarize: Gingrich was against the bailout, and then for it, and then against it, and then for it, and now against it again. According to congressional conservatives, all of this is “the opening salvo of Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign four years hence.”
Lehman board recommended $20 million in executive ‘special payments’ while filing for bailout.
Lehman board recommended $20 million in executive ‘special payments’ while filing for bailout.
The AP reports that Lehman CEO Richard Fuld admitted to Congress today that he has taken home over $300 million since 2000, “some $60 million in cash compensation.” Furthermore, “executives who feared for their bonuses in the company’s last months were told not to worry,” even as Lehman plead for a federal bailout. Waxman revealed that “the board give three departing executives over $20 million in ‘special payments.’” Watch it:
“In other words, even as Mr. Fuld was pleading with Secretary Paulson for a federal rescue, Lehman continued to squander millions on executive compensation,” Waxman said. More »
Dow plunges to lowest level since 2004.
Dow plunges to lowest level since 2004.
Wall Street joined a “selloff around the world” today, with the Dow Jones dropping more than 400 points and falling to below 10,000 for the first time in four years. As the AP reports, the “markets have come to the sobering realization that the Bush administration’s $700 billion rescue plan won’t work quickly to unfreeze the credit markets, and that many banks are still having difficulty gaining access to cash.”
Flashback: On Sept. 23, McCain said a bailout bill with earmarks would be ‘unacceptable.’
Flashback: On Sept. 23, McCain said a bailout bill with earmarks would be ‘unacceptable.’
This afternoon on CNN, Wolf Blitzer replayed a portion of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) speech from Sept. 23 announcing the conditions under which he would support a bailout package. McCain said that a bill with “any kind of earmarks” would be “unacceptable” and “simply cannot happen.” Watch it:
Of course, despite the fact that the bill was loaded with special earmarked tax breaks, McCain voted for it — and then suggested that President Bush should veto the bill because of the “insanity and obscenity” of the pork. Conservative commentator Glenn Beck told Blitzer that with McCain’s vote, “he lost the election.”
Rep. Edwards Defends Vote For Bailout, But Admits It’s ‘Not Necessarily The Best Proposal’
Rep. Edwards Defends Vote For Bailout, But Admits It’s ‘Not Necessarily The Best Proposal’
In an interview with ThinkProgress today, Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX) discussed why he is supporting the financial bailout package. Last Monday, he was one of the 205 House members to vote for the bailout legislation. Edwards said he’s “disgusted” that Congress now has to deal with the fallout of deregulation, but noting the “potential for a deep recession,” he argued that there is now an urgency to act:
I wish we had more time to look at other alternatives because I’m not convinced this is necessarily the best proposal. What I do know given the potential threat that we could on the edge of an economic cliff, that Democrats in Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid provided more protections for taxpayers so that hopefully in the end they won’t have to pay $700 billion net cost for these assets.
Edwards noted that he was one of only 57 House members who voted against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. “That’s the very bill that planted the seed for the problems that we’re facing today,” he said. “And I believe if I had prevailed in my vote that day in 1999, we wouldn’t be in this situation.”
“I don’t want one dime to go to these greedy Wall Street executives that drove their countries into the tank, and in doing so, hurt our entire country’s economy,” Edwards said. “But I do think we need to stabilize the credit markets,” noting that loans for automobiles, car sales, student loans, and home mortgages are freezing up. Watch it:
Edwards said his primary concern in voting for the bill is to stave off a possible recession. “My attitude is if you look at history the people who are hurt the most by recession are not the wealthiest. They can sell one of their seven houses. They can draw down their multi-million dollar bank accounts and use their golden parachutes. … The day to day working folks are usually the first to be laid off.”
Lieberman: We Need To Pass The Bailout Because ‘It Will Be Good For John McCain’
Lieberman: We Need To Pass The Bailout Because ‘It Will Be Good For John McCain’
On Fox News today, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) discussed the downturn in Sen. John McCain’s presidential prospects, saying McCain “is behind now because of the economy.” Lieberman then said that he hopes the House passes bailout legislation tomorrow because “it will be good for our country.”
“But frankly, it will be good for John McCain too,” added Lieberman, explaining that “it will get people back to comparing the two candidates free of a sense of crisis that may make them want to turn against Republicans.” Watch it:
Lieberman is right that the focus on America’s financial problems has been bad for McCain, but it’s not because the “sense of crisis” has confused voters. It’s because of the way McCain has handled himself during the crisis of the past two weeks:
Sept. 15: On the same day that two of Wall Street’s major banking institutions collapsed, McCain declared that he “still” believes “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”
Sept. 16: During a round of network interviews, McCain flip-flopped on his support for “excess regulation” in less than an hour.
Sept. 16: Attempting to talk about the financial crisis, McCain twice incorrectly referred to the “SPIC,” when intending to refer to the SIPC (the Securities Investor Protection Corporation).
Sept. 17: After saying the day before that he opposed it, McCain flip-flopped and said he supported the bailout of insurance giant AIG.
Sept. 18: McCain declared that if he were president, he would fire the chairman of the SEC, which the president doesn’t have the constitutional authority to do.
Sept. 19: Attempting to walk back his SEC gaffe, McCain said that that “the chairman of the FEC” — not the SEC — should resign.
Sept. 21: In a 60 Minutes interview, McCain defended his past support for deregulation, saying “I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy.”
Sept. 21: Despite the looming $700 billion bailout legislation, McCain told CNBC that he “can still balance the budget” during his first term.
Sept. 25: After McCain abruptly suspended his campaign in order to inject himself into bailout negotiations, the bailout talks broke down during a “contentious” White House meeting called for by McCain.
At this point, anything would be better for John McCain than talking about the economy.
Topic Cloud
Archives