After the failure of the bailout negotiations on Capitol Hill yesterday, a bevy of local newspapers analyzed the fallout this morning. The consensus? The bill was a necessity and both parties must muster the courage to get it passed.
Providing a list of "difficult truths," the Tribune considers the political risk in supporting the bill but argues lawmakers must act now to avoid "dangers to our jobs, our credit transactions and our savings":
Democrats and Republicans can continue to fire the blame gun at one another, as they spent way too much time doing Monday ... Or the leaders of both parties can recraft the administration's plan, perhaps to lower its price tag or otherwise shift some of the responsibility away from taxpayers who've followed every rule in the book. That would let Monday's opponents claim a justified measure of victory: "I demanded changes in this plan to protect you, and Congress agreed!" Then they could vote in good conscience to approve that revised version.
The Sun-Times agrees that "this rescue package, or something like it, is the necessary medicine to restore the nation's economic health." And because neither President Bush or Congress has the credibility to persuade Americans of the bill's necessity, they call on the presidential candidates to step forward:
Only two politicians have the confidence of the public -- Barack Obama and John McCain. They are the leaders of this nation at this crucial moment. As important as electioneering is to them and the crucial decision the voters must make Nov. 4, it's vital that they take the lead in convincing Americans that their future -- and not just the fate of the fat cats on Wall Street -- is at stake in Congress passing an economic recovery bill.
While they understand why taxpayers were hesitant to foot the bill for a bailout of Wall Street, the State Journal-Register's editorial board echoed the Tribune, writing "Congress must act to avoid the potentially disastrous consequences of this financial turmoil." They also called out members of the Illinois congressional delegation who voted "nay" because of public opinion:
This is one of those votes where members of Congress must, for the good of the nation, look their constituents in the eye and disagree with them. They may be kicked out of office, but if they don’t do the right thing, history’s judgment may be much harsher than a lost election.
Although they were short on specifics, the Daily Herald stressed that all Americans stood to lose from Congress' inaction. They were also frustrated that dissenting politicians offered few answers to why they opposed the bill, other than shallow political considerations. Instead, they called on suburban lawmakers to "put up or shut up":
As leaders now look to fashion a rescue approach that can protect what is left of the nest eggs of tens of millions of American families, no observations could be more clear than two points for politicians. They must act with the political courage that extends beyond the whims of the ballot box. They must set aside the drive to make partisan political points off whatever occurs.
The Peoria Journal-Star makes a few valuable points, noting that the bill was indeed flawed and the "doomsday rhetoric surrounding this issue" wasn't helpful. Even so, they called on lawmakers to pass a bill soon to protect those on "Main Street":
Americans cannot afford for their Congress to do nothing now. Banks have stopped lending, and access to credit is the lifeblood of this economy, especially for small business. Reportedly, lawmakers want to go home so they can campaign for reelection. If they leave Washington without at least a workable, short-term package to calm the markets and buy some time - this week - not a single incumbent who voted "no" Monday should keep his or her job.
Unfortunately, none of the local papers called a spade a spade, stating that Republican ideology got us into the crisis, and Republican ideologues poisoned this bill's passage. Thankfully, we have that elitist New York Times:
Republican no votes were rooted less in analysis or principle than in political posturing and ideological rigidity. The House minority leader, John Boehner, conceded as much: “While we were able to move the bill drastically to the right, it wasn’t good enough for our members.”
It’s not clear what would be good enough for the Republicans since there was very little talk of substance on Monday after the bill died on the floor of the House. Instead, the Republicans tried to blame their revolt on a speech given before the vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who connected the current crisis to the fiscal and economic mismanagement of the Bush years. It may not have been the perfect moment to say that, but it was true.
Republicans were also upset that serial bailouts represent a rejection of free-market principles. They do. That’s because the free market in finance, unregulated and unsupervised, has failed. And, in its failure, it is inflicting greater damage on an already weak economy.
Post new comment