The GOP is mad at President Bush for using TARP funds for the auto bailout, but they have only themselves to blame for refusing the legislation last week.
I think that President Bush isn’t getting the credit he deserves. In a lot of ways, he is (at least as far as the economic stuff goes), doing an amazing job of smoothing things for compatibility with the incoming Administration. Thats my sense, anyway.
{ 11 comments }
Since when does the executive branch have the power to override congress and buy up stake in private companies? Congress passing the first bailout was bad enough, and the power that the federal government now possesses to borrow/print money will only lead to disaster. Do you honestly believe that Bush/Obama is going to be able to print our way out of this crisis?Â
Interesting how when it’s a middle class, blue-collar industry like the auto workers on the line, these Republicans fall over themselves to portray it as the end of the fiscal universe. But when it comes to big banks and financial executives, they sang a different tune.Â
Most Congressional Republicans voted against the financial industry bailout, too. TARP was Bush’s idea, voted into law by Congressional Democrats over the objections of most Republicans.
all they have to offer is mindless ideological obstruction rather than any coherent desire to sit down and make the compromises needed to move things forward.
To the contrary, the auto bailout is bad policy and Congress had a responsibility to vote it down. Compromising and moving forward on bad policy is still bad policy.
Some Republicans did try to compromise and move things forward, offering to support the bailout if it included requirements that the auto manufacturers fix their business models so there’s a chance they’d actually be able to become solvent and repay their subsidized loans (I still think the bailout would have been bad policy even with the Corker amendment, but it would have been less bad). Democrats rejected this on ideological grounds.
At any rate, House Republicans have only themselves to blame
Article I, Section 9 of the constitution says "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law". Congress voted down the appropriation for the auto bailout, and guarenteeing loans to auto manufacturers is outside the scope of the TARP appropriation, so Bush’s action is unconstitutional. Of course House Republicans should be outraged. So should Democrats, for that matter.
So, because Republicans failed to submit to the brinksmanship of GM/UAW, they’re to blame for the actions of a run-away President?
Gah.
Friggin’ Bush.
Preface: I think allowing the the auto industry to continue making cars that Americans do not buy via government support is a BAD idea, but…
I heard this morning on NPR analysis of the use/legality of the TARP funding to purchase private company stocks. A Congressman explicity identifed the use buried in purposely vague wording in the enabling legislation known as TARP that allowed the US to purchase private company stocks via colliloquy (sp?).Â
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=98494956&m=98494928
The bill was directed specifically to banking institutions, and a lot of financial insitutions converted to or declared themselves to be banks, so I’m not sure how the tortured path that leads to the auto industry was cleared. I think it’s generally bad policy for a number of reasons, but it was apparently the expressed intent of Congress in the TARP bill to allow the purchase of stock in private companies (and I’ve got to wonder how may of the affirmative voters understood).
Actually, with the moderate Republicans voting for the bailout, the Democratic leadership in the Senate had more than enough votes to pass it. Why they didn’t brings up questions of their priorities (i.e. whether they allowed it to fail due to it being so unpopular with the American electorate but in a way that they can tell their constituent, Big Labor, that they tried their hardest)
Since when does the executive branch have the power to override congress and buy up stake in private companies ?
I’m not sure that is the appropriate question but part of the answer is here:
"In early November, as America’s automakers grasped for a lifeline from Washington, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., placed a call to his predecessor, John W. Snow. The topic: Chrysler L.L.C. Chrysler is the smallest of the Big Three automakers, but it stands apart from its peers in another crucial respect.
While General Motors and the Ford Motor Company are public corporations, Chrysler is controlled by one of the world’s richest and most secretive private investment companies. That investment company is Mr. Snow’s employer, Cerberus Capital Management, which has used its wealth and deep connections in Washington to shape the debate over the foundering automakers to its advantage.
In recent weeks, Mr. Snow has personally lobbied Mr. Paulson and others for a federal rescue that would salvage Cerberus’s investments in Detroit. Cerberus has also deployed a corps of lobbyists and former government officials to secure a bailout and protect its interests. Whether its efforts will work is unclear. But if they fail Cerberus and its partners could lose their daring bets on Detroit. Without a bailout Cerberus could lose about $2 billion and suffer a stinging blow to its reputation.
With one it might eventually profit from its troubled deals. Last year, Cerberus and about 100 co-investors bought 80.1 percent of Chrysler for $7.4 billion from the German carmaker Daimler. It also bought a controlling stake in GMAC, the finance arm of General Motors.
Since then Chrysler has eliminated more than 30,000 jobs and struggled to keep itself afloat while its sales have plummeted. Cerberus is pressing to have Chrysler merge with G.M., but G.M. has said a tie-up is off the table. Chrysler is asking the government for $7 billion to get through the next few months. Cerberus, named after the mythical three-headed dog that guards the gates of Hades, has a fierce reputation on Wall Street. Many bankers and investors are reluctant to talk openly about the company, which is renowned, even feared, for its hard-nosed deal-making. But Cerberus is also pursuing its interests aggressively in Washington, where some lawmakers have questioned why the government should assist the privately owned Chrysler. In addition to Mr. Snow, the firm’s chairman, Cerberus’s Washington hands include Dan Quayle, the former vice president, and Billy J. Cooper, who has worked as partner at the lobbying firm Patton Boggs. The firm has also hired Arnold I. Havens, a former general counsel of the Treasury Department; John B. Breaux, a former senator from Louisiana;David Hobbs, former assistant to President Bush for legislative affairs; and Christopher A. Smith, former chief of staff in the Treasury. So far this year, Cerberus has spent nearly $2 million on lobbying, while Chrysler has spent $5 million, according to Senate records. Ford has spent more than $5 million and G.M. $10 million. …"
Here:
Eric, you’re giving a pass to congressional Republicans for TARP and bailouts, but the conservative base disagrees with you:
The taint is everywhere in Congress. Congressman John Campbell (R-Ca.), who like Coburn is a well-known anti-pork crusader, voted yes on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), aka the $700 billion bailout, and present on the auto bailout. Congressman stalwart John Shadegg (R-AZ), and conservative Tom Tancredo (R-Co.) also supported TARP.
Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mi.) thundered on the floor of the house, arguing that the federal treasury should not be raided, and that the TARP bailout undermined our liberty. Said McCotter, "In the Bolshevik Revolution, the slogan was ‘Peace, land, and bread.’ Today, you are being asked to choose between bread and freedom. I suggest the people on Main Street have said they prefer their freedom, and I am with them."
McCotter’s reaction to President Bush’s auto bailout, which was likely in violation of the terms of the original TARP legislation? "I sincerely thank [President Bush] for his decisive action in this dire time for our community and the auto industry.†Apparently McCotter has switched to the side of land and bread.
Unlike in the Dark Knight, some heroes have emerged uncompromised in the face of this insanity. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC.) said “no†to both bailouts, as did Congressman Mike Pence (R-In.) Some people who conservatives rarely counted as heroes, such as Senator Richard Shelby (R-Al.), who was named porker of the month earlier this year by Citizens Against Government Waste, led on the issue of opposing bailouts.
Yet, at the end of the day, the liberal Jokers on Capitol Hill won the day. They’ve created fiscal anarchy on the right. The conservative arguments against government intervention in other areas of life have been smashed to bits by conservatives supporting government intervention. Liberals have been attacking Republicans who supported TARP, but oppose bailing out the auto industry as hypocrites who think banks are worthy of being bailed out, but blue collar workers aren’t. And they’ve got a point.
COBURN voted for TARP! COBURN!!!
"…but they have only themselves to blame for refusing the legislation last week."
This argument is as stupid as saying that it was a woman’s fault that she was raped because she didn’t say yes when the guy asked nicely for sex.
Not as offensive, but equally as stupid.
Also, idealogy is an idea.
And usually that someone doesn’t reject their world view because it becomes temporarily inconvenient is good, not bad.
In other words, have the intestinal fortitude to criticize republicans for having a theory of government that you disagree with, and not simply for having a theory of government, as if either (1) you don’t or (2) it would be praiseworthy if you didn’t.
Claiming to be acting entirely without regard for any systematized beliefs (unlike your opponenets) is not only a cheap rhetorical trick, it’s counter-productive with anyone who’s taking you at your word, because they’ll conclude that you’re an unprincipled opportunist (since that’s what you’ve, in effect, claimed to be).
Bit of trivia: Thad McCotter is my congressman. I met him in 2000, before he went to Congress. Nice guy, and competent. His staff always responds to my emails or phone calls.
Some Republicans did vote for TARP. I never said they didn’t. I said most Republicans voted against it.
Republicans voted against it 65-133 on the first vote, then voted against it again 91-108 after extensive arm-twisting to round up more votes. Democrats voted for it 172-63.
It was a bipartisan bill in the Senate, I’ll grant that. But it was still more strongly backed by Democrats (40-10) than Republicans (34-15).
And I’m not giving a pass to the Republicans who voted for it. Did I not repeatedly complain on the front page about McCain’s support for TARP? My objection was to your portrayal of Congressional Republicans as enthusiastic supporters of TARP, when the truth is they were divided between reluctant supporters and vehement opponents while strong Democratic support pushed the bill through.
Comments on this entry are closed.