Uncategorized

Big 3 Blowout?

By Jay Newton-Small | @JNSmall | December 10, 2008 | +

They have a deal. They don’t have a deal. They have a deal in principal. They have a “conceptual” deal. They really and truly don’t have a deal. I’m up on Capitol Hill today and I’m getting more whiplash than if I were at Wimbledon. 

Depending on who you talk to Senate Republicans have either ditched or were kept out of the negotiations on the bill. Given the fact that Reid at best has 46 votes, the GOP is an important constituency to bring on board. For some odd reason the White House was in the room – a rather unimportant constituency unless the bill is so bad they veto it – and they claimed yesterday afternoon that there is a “conceptual” deal. Senate Republicans last night snickered at the idea of the White House signing off on a bill: “They don’t represent anybody but themselves and they don’t vote in the Senate,” one senior aide wrote to me.

Meanwhile, the House this morning is gearing up to bring the bill to the floor, even as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned he would not allow the Senate to vote today. All of which is to say: if the House really does pass this bill and the Senate GOP really doesn’t like it, we could be looking at another failed bailout vote (ie: 800 points on the Dow). On behalf of my 401(k), please congressional leaders, come to an agreement!

Update: 
For anyone interested here is the text of the latest bill.  

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: Uncategorized

  • Latest on Swampland

    Gary Cameron / Reuters
    Housing February 10, 2012

    The Foreclosure Deal: Obama and the Banks Win Big While Homeowners See Modest Reward

    Those of you who have read our previous coverage of the back and forth between the state attorneys general and five major mortgage servicers know that the settlement announced on Thursday is a massive, complicated, multi-year deal negotiated by the country’s most ambitious public prosecutors, its most powerful financial institutions and some of the highest-paid lawyers in New York City. There are several levels to judge it on: the help it gives homeowners; its benefit for various political players; and what it may do for the economy. But overall, it’s a clear win for Obama and Democrats, a qualified win for the banks, and a minor, belated victory for homeowners.

    From our Partners

    Romney: 'I Misspoke'HuffPost Politics

    Mitt Romney February 9, 2012

    Mitt Romney’s Sweet Spot: Just Conservative Enough

    Why is Mitt Romney having trouble winning over the conservative Republican base? One reason is his lack of political finesse, an air of dorky rich-guy aloofness that reminds some people of John Kerry. More important, however, is his ideological profile. In almost every important way, Romney’s policy platform is more moderate than those of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Gingrich  offers a much more conservative tax plan, along with crowd-pleasing ideas like his plan to sic federal marshals on “radical” liberal judges. Santorum carries a blazing social-conservative torch, championing ideas like a constitutional ban on abortion. Both Gingrich and Santorum talk quite openly about the virtues of bombing Iran. Romney’s temperature runs cooler in all these areas. Not to mention his past record of pro-choice, pro-gay rights positions. As Jon Chait notes today, the GOP establishment is defending Romney but also working hard to push him to the right.

  • gysgt213

    JNS-You still have a 401k? Are you sure its not a 4k?

  • Cliff

    For some odd reason the White House was in the room
    .
    Why didn’t anyone ask them to leave to make room for the real President (ie Obama)?

  • jarais

    JNS, try stuffing cash into your mattress. Wait, make that precious metals. Or plan to retire in Panama.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “They don’t represent anybody but themselves and they don’t vote in the Senate,” one senior aide wrote to me.
    .
    Dawned on him/her a little late, don’t you think? That kind of strong talk a few years ago and maybe they wouldn’t be sitting with so few seats.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I like the personal touch at the end of the post. It helpd remind us that this isn’t some damned football game and that there really is the welfare of individual Americans at stake here.

  • Andy from MA

    JNS did you hear about the new mattress at sleepy’s? It comes with a built in safe (rimshot!).
    .
    Seriously, is someone in the media going to call the Republican congressional leadership obstructionsts if and when they shoot this down?
    .
    I saw your article yesterday. It’s become clearer to be that the Rebplicans want to bust the union, plain and simple. Once again it’s being done at the expense of the the national economy. What they’re doing is a threat to national (economic)security and borders on seditious behavior.
    .
    Not if you can start spreading that meme, perhaps we can move on and the country will be able to step back from this precipiece for a couple of months until the Obama administration can take over.
    .
    BTW, Reich’s hybrid solution is an interesting one.

  • plukasiak

    even if the GOP does stop a rescue package right now, the fact that the Dems and Obama are committed to one means that GM will be able to get a couple of billion in ‘bridge financing’ that will take them through the seating of the next congress (which IIRC, happens around January 6.)

  • queencersei

    Like most people I’m not thrilled about rescuing the Big 3. But given the economy can we really afford to cut loose the thousands of jobs the Big 3 represents? Can Republicans continue to alienate the voters of Michigan, Ohio and PA? Given the pass some of the financial institutions have been given regarding their bailouts, is it really fair to single out the Big 3 for this public flogging?

  • http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/10/video-the-auto-bailout-bill-is-a-travesty-says-shelby/ Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: The auto bailout bill is a “travesty,” says Shelby

    [...] act? Figure somewhere in the range of $13 billion to, er, $156 billion. Exit question two via Time: Reid’s not going to bring this to the floor unless he knows he has the votes to beat the [...]

  • Ohg Rea Tone

    The US Government should loan the money to the Auto Makers. But the Government role is not in auto maker management – it is in regulation of the economy. …………….

    http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/12/10/why-government-management-of-auto-companies-will-not-work/

  • viciousmaniac

    On behalf of my 401(k), please congressional leaders, come to an agreement!
    .
    Yes Congress, keep the House Of Cards steady! Quickly, hurry with that Jack Of Spades!
    .
    On-topic: ‘Fraid I can’t wish Congress and the Big 3 luck on delaying the inevitable. It’s sad really, like a chronic smoker paying for expensive acupuncture to beat his cancer.

  • 53_3

    I say let’s let them kill it.
    .
    If they kill it, and if the auto industry tanks, taking what’s left of our manufacturing base (Globalization Is Inevitable! Resistance Is Useless!) with it, and if the economy takes a dive too, then guess who will get the blame?
    .
    Well, as Arkele once said in a song:
    .
    Wasn’ me!

  • tanboontee

    Conceptual deal? Why not virtual deal? After all, in this high-tech ICT world, what is not virtual?

    There are virtual stock indices, incompatible with the actual values.
    There are virtual accountabilities, incongruous with the account balance.
    There are virtual salaries, inconsistent with the amount of effort put in.
    There are virtual deals, only on papers but not on deeds.
    There are virtual relationships, only facial expressions but not feelings.
    What else, you name it.

    So, will there be a consensus among the senators on the Big 3? My answer is ‘NO’, virtually speaking.
    (Tan Boon Tee)

blog comments powered by Disqus