CONGRESS MEMBERS INDIFFERENT TO THE PUBLIC VOTED FOR THE BAILOUT; SENATE RACES TO VOTE AHEAD OF PUBLIC OUTRAGE

AS OF THIS WRITING, THERE IS BAD NEWS: THE SENATE HAS COME UP WITH A WAY TO MOVE FASTER THAN THE PUBLIC. FACED WITH ALERTS OF PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS ON THIS COMING THURSDAY, REPORTEDLY SENATORS ARE CONTEMPLATING ATTACHING A VERSION OF THE BAILOUT BILL TO OTHER LEGISLATION ALREADY VOTED ON BY THE HOUSE—WHICH WOULD SUPPOSEDLY EXEMPT THE BAILOUT FROM THE RULE THAT THE HOUSE HAS TO VOTE ON A BILL FIRST.

N.b.: I am not sure that this dodge would genuinely exempt the legislation from the rule. But it might work temporarily—long enough to stymie public efforts to block this legislation.

As a citizen in Maryland, I remain hopeful that Sens. Mikulski and Cardin will see through this disaster and resist being stampeded into it, a recipe for fraud, waste and abuse as well as for hyper-inflation. There seems to be no hope whatever that Sen. Charles Schumer of New York will put up any resistance to it. (We have not heard from Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, yet.)

The heroes are still there—although Sen. Ted Kennedy is ill, Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) remain.

The BBC has an interesting if not surprising analysis of Congressional votes on the bailout bill: What the BBC finds is that the heftiest majority voting for the bailout came from members of Congress who are retiring—particularly, from members of Congress who are retiring and who are Republicans.

As the BBC puts it,

“It is no coincidence that 26 of the 31 members who are retiring in November - including 21 Republicans - voted "Yes".”

Don’t let the door hit you . . . but the revolving door awaits . . .

In further explanation--

“Before the vote, lawmakers were inundated with calls, emails and letters from constituents outraged by the $700bn package. Correspondence against the bill vastly outweighed that in favour.

Only those representatives unconcerned about their re-election prospects could confidently support the package.”

‘Ideology’ is, as always, advanced as an explanation for many votes—but an explanation that pales in comparison to public anger:

“But the pivotal reason given by most of those who turned down the bill seems straightforward: they feared for their jobs.

Public hostility

There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives, all of which are up for election in November.

Of the 38 members whose seats are most at risk in November's election, only eight voted for the bill.

Among those not considered at risk in the election, the vote was even, suggesting public hostility killed the bill, says the BBC's North America editor Justin Webb.”