Login | Site Map | Archives | Electronic Edition | Mobile Edition | Alerts | RSS | Contact Us | Submit News & Photos | Subscriber Services

HomeOpinionEditorials

Bailout, boondoggle: Resolution could come on Monday

STORY TOOLS

In an unflattering imitation of the political situation in South Carolina, it was members of the president’s own party who effectively squashed negotiations on the $700 billion bailout.

Talks were to continue on Friday, but at this writing, there is still enough disagreement, with the insertion of an alternative plan by some Republicans, to make a final settlement unlikely in the next few days.

Of course, there is no way to tell what will happen until it happens. That’s politics. And that’s unfortunate at a time when 78 percent of Americans favor the bailout, according to a new USA Today/Gallup Poll.

The poll, taken Wednesday night after President Bush’s address to the nation regarding the bailout proposal that Bush maintains would “ease the current credit crisis” and avoid a nationwide panic, also revealed that 40 percent of those responding said the current situation was “the biggest crisis in their lifetime,” according to USA Today on Friday. People are concerned. And they are paying attention.

Eighty percent said they are following the news about Wall Street fairly closely.

Americans also agree with Democrats who pushed for revisions that included limiting the pay of executives of companies that would benefit from the plan. And in a move that at least in part proves we do still care about the other guy, nearly half say it is important to include a provision that helps homeowners who are stretched beyond their capacity to pay their mortgages.

What those polled don’t want is for lawmakers to do nothing.

Seventy-four percent believe the economy would only worsen if action isn’t taken and sooner rather than later, although there are still concerns that moving too quickly without substantial safeguards would be risky.

On the local front, the economy isn’t looking much better. The state Board of Economic Advisors planned to meet Friday to discuss declining sales tax revenues, increasing gas prices that continue to stress consumers and an unemployment rate at a 15 percent high, according to The Associated Press.

If revenue projections are reduced by the board, the Legislature could be compelled to return to Columbia in a special session to deal with the budget yet again.

Previously, the state Budget and Control Board mandated an across-the-board cut for all state agencies, a move that did not find favor with Gov. Mark Sanford, who prefers targeted cuts. In our view, both are necessary.

Meanwhile, the meeting on Thursday at the White House that involved Bush, presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama and congressional leaders degenerated into a semi-brawl, according to comments from some in attendance.

At one point, according to an AP report, “(Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) dropped to one knee begging Democratic participants not to disclose how badly the meeting had gone.” It was said his move was “in a teasing way” to make his point, according to witnesses.

But when Paulson tried to gather support for a nighttime meeting on Thursday for talks to continue, the House’s top Republican “refused to send a negotiator,” the AP report stated.

There have been some glimmers of nonpartisanship. The White House agreed to Democrats’ revisions regarding oversight and protection of taxpayers, as well as limits on executive income and golden parachute payments for leaders of failing companies.

But these are still political animals, and maintaining influence and power will, unfortunately, always control Washington, many times to Anytown, U.S.A.’s detriment.

This could be one of those times.

Comments

There are 4 responses to this article.

Comments are meant to offer our readers a forum for thoughtful, robust debate about local issues.

Comments are moderated, but you may find the content of the conversations offensive, objectionable or factually disputable.

Click here for our user-contributions policy.

Comments

IndependentMail.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post or respond to every suggestion for a comment to be removed.

Before you post, consider this:

  1. Keep it clean. Comments containing obscene, profane, vulgar, lewd or sexually-oriented language -- including creative spelling and typographical representations of foul language -- will be removed.
  2. Be truthful. Don't lie or spread rumors about anyone or anything. Stick to discussing what is factually known.
  3. Be nice. Don't threaten anyone, and do not post any comments that involve racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person. Hateful or offensive comments will not be tolerated.
  4. Police yourselves. Hit the "Suggest Removal" button to alert us to objectionable comments. Do not respond to trolls or those who seek to harass another poster.
  5. Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  6. Help us get it right. If you have information to add to the story or you find a factual error or misspelling send us an email or call the newsroom at 864-260-1274.

Please read our official user-contributions policy.

No one should misunderstand this crisis

1. Dems(Clinton) started fannie mae on mortgage bender...

2. Reps (Bush), in response, took the collar off wall street concerning mortgage industry...

3. then in retaliation, Dems(Senate dominated) took off the collar of Fannie mae...

and now both believe that each other did the dirty deed...

Odd that we have no commentary in the INDEPENDENT from Graham and Barrett, two of the players out the few hundred involved.

This vote is going down in flames...Graham did the right thing in bringing McCain to table. Good job, Gresham and Demint.


Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Fannie May was privatised by President Johnson in 1968. Freddie Mac was set up in 1970 to provide competion to Fannie Mae.
Read this to find out who benefitted most......
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/...
Democrats benefitted far more especially Obama in campaign contibutions from Fannie and Freddie..


As the experts have said, this all started with Ronald Reagan's "trickle down" theory, tax cuts for the rich and de-regulation of the finance industry. These mistakes were further complicated by the ensuing 24+ years of Republican Congresses. Unfortunatly too many Democrats went along for the ride.
MOST SURPRISING: Governor Sanford and Sen. DeMint who made millions on Wall St. and Rep Barrett, who inherited his wealth, are opposed to the plan. Why? It is bad, but the alternative is so much worse for the middle class taxpayers.


Wall street vs. Fannie. Both parties propped them up, respectively, and sent the bubble building...

Spin your web, but don't get so caught up in it that you believe your own lies.

Gresham Barrett is not rich...I know. Sanford is rich from bartering his influence on land deals in SC...I don't know about DeMint. Getting one out of 3 details correct...doesn't do much for our confidence in your posts being truthful.




Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)

Username:

Password:
(Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

  Want the editors to know how you feel? Click here to say it privately.

Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.