Tweet
Perhaps the most complete description of the evolving plans for Senate voting this evening on the bailout plan is at CQ Politics. The entire article is worth reading and probably will be updated throughout the day as more information becomes available.I’m particularly interested in an amendment that will be offered by Senator Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont. In discussing the need for this amendment, Sanders first describes the situation as he sees it:
Sanders has said that if the Congress concludes that it is necessary to pass the greatest government intervention in history, the cost of a bailout should not be shouldered by the middle class “given the fact that the middle class is declining while the wealthiest people in this country have made out like bandits during the years President Bush has been in office.”
Among the wealthiest Americans are the tycoons that ran many of what’s left of the Wall Street financial institutions lining up for bailouts.
One of them is now the Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson. He was chief executive of the Wall Street financial behemoth Goldman Sachs. In 2005, Paulson received a $38 million bonus. At the time, it was the largest bonus ever given to a Wall Street CEO.
That sets the stage for the Sanders amendment and why he thinks it is important:
Sanders has argued — to Paulson and others — that those who caused the problem and stand to benefit the most from a government rescue should be the ones to pay for any bailout. The senator has suggested a five-year, 10 percent surtax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples with incomes of more than $1 million. The surtax would yield $300 billion to cover losses the government could incur when it resells troubled mortgages it acquires from banks.
If a bailout is urgently needed, Sanders said, “Let Mr. Paulson and his friends pay for it, not people in Vermont making $30,000 a year.”
Returning to the CQ Politics article, we find that Reid has arranged for it to take 60 votes to approve the bailout plan. I like this because it means that more than a token number of Republican votes will be required for the bill to pass. Similarly, it will take 60 votes for amendments to the bill that will be brought up. The lone exception among amendments is the Sanders amendment, which will be subject to a voice vote.
As I understand the voice vote process in the Senate, the outcome of such a vote is determined by the Presiding Officer when the vote is taken. If Reid appoints a Presiding Officer for that vote who is in favor of the amendment, then it appears likely to be included.Is Harry Reid going to make sure this amendment is part of the bill that will be voted on tonight? If so, he is placing Republicans in the Senate in a very uncomfortable position that will make for very interesting political theater. Get your popcorn now.
8 Comments
One way or another, the Sanders surtax (IMO a great idea, BTW) will never get into law. Reid will probably kill it on the voice vote, but there is another way.
It’s possible that Reid and Pelosi will pull the same stunt that the Rethugs did when they were in power – allow the Sanders surtax to pass and then remove it when they go to House-Senate conference. (After the House passes a similar but not identical bill, the conference committee makes changes to reconcile the two. The resulting bill goes back to the house that had different language, or both if necessary).
Wall Street provides too much campaign money to be forced to actually pay for their sins. IIRC, it was J.P. Morgan who said something like, “An honest politician is one who, once bought, stays bought.”
I seriously doubt Reid would pass that bill with Sanders amendment included. There is just no way. They still have too many problems with the House. Besides, all the Business groups are lobbying like crazy now. It sounds like they stayed out of it before Monday to keep their hands clean figuring Congress would pass it. Now that Congress shot it down once, they can’t take any more chances.
Yes, I realize I’m probably being overly optimistic to think Reid would allow the amendment to be included or to remain during a conference committee, but I can’t help thinking about it since it would be so easy given the way it has been set up. Plus, it would just be such a delightful reversal by putting the Republicans into the hot seat.
Oh well, I have a few more hours to enjoy my dream and then its back to reality when the Senate gavels into session to consider the bill.
I’m glad Sanders is saying this. I wonder how many will join him in sincerely supporting regular tax payers, not the corporate tax avoiders. all goopers can talk about is cutting capital gains tax. all wall street people can do is gripe about lack of financial literacy of the american people – oh, we get it all right.
Goopers talk about their wealthy friend as though they are that teacher or that plumber but they are really people like Hank Paulson. They think we don’t get it because we aren’t feeling their pain and that really galls me because we have pain of our own that they don’t care about obviously. They want huge amounts of money and don’t want to rewrite a single loan. WTF?
Hey, because of the timing on this bailout, the election politics involved in the timing, and how Bush and Paulson sat on their arses until the last minute and presented a plan with the threat of a veto…Add that Paulson lied to Congress in his testimony last year. If I was Reid, I would included it.
Let it get vetoed. And how perfect,Sanders is an Independent.
I correct myself. An Independent from Vermont. Even better.
Just watched Clinton on CSPAN talk about ‘what more needs to be done’; the question is why not do it now in this bill?
The LIBOR rate dived today because of the idea that the Senate will pass legislation providing a bailout; does that not say this is a manipulated crisis?
And Sec. 101(e) of the Senate bill STILL exempts JPMOrgan,Citi, BofA, Goldman, and Barclay’s from gaining ‘unjust enrichment’.
Get the bankers who report to the British Banking Assc. that sets LIBOR !!
Senate to Bernie Sanders: No.
I guess I should have expected that.
Crap.