Bailout Round II: A New Shade of Lipstick
- From: trudogg <independent@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:59:08 -0400
The House of Representatives voted down Paulson's Plunder on Monday,
225 to 208. Here's why.
We demanded a No vote and for the first time in recent memory we were
listened to. Thank you! Three cheers for the American people!
Now is not the time, however, to rest on our laurels. Speaker Pelosi
is almost certain to dig deep in her purse for a different shade of
lipstick she can smear on this pig in preparation for a re-vote, and
it might be a deep Republican red. There were certainly some
Republicans who voted No on Round One because the bill wasn't even
worse than it was, because it didn't add further deregulation and/or
tax cuts for the wealthy to the current catastrophe. Needless to say,
Pelosi's first inclination will be to go after those members' votes.
On the other hand, Pelosi could go with a purplish gray and tack some
more populist smelling features onto the first bill in hopes of
puckering up this pig for some Democrats. Her main tactic if she takes
this approach might be unrelated bribes and threats, combined with a
hope that certain Democrats will feel comfortable telling their
constituents that they voted No on Round One and must therefore be
forgiven for voting Yes on Round Two. Don't think these people won't
kiss this pig and use exactly that line. Therefore, those of us who
want to prevent Paulson's Plunder had better keep our phones on redial
until we get through to Congress at (202) 224-3121 again and again and
again.
What's our message now? It's a tentative Thank You to those who voted
No combined with a demand that they not cave in, and a promise to work
to unseat those who voted Yes unless they redeem themselves
immediately. And how can they do that, and what do we want from
Congress now? I'll tell you what I want:
I want a bill immediately to ban predatory mortgage lending, ban
states from preventing cities from restricting predatory lending, and
commit the federal government to allowing states full freedom to
restrict predatory lending.
I want a bill establishing a maximum wage at 10 times the minimum
wage, and including all forms of income in that calculation (and
raising the minimum wage how ever much required to pass the bill). I
want the tax system created by that bill to pay for any necessary
bailouts, and want such bailouts enacted and overseen by Congress.
I also want a Tobin tax on all transactions in finance, insurance, and
real estate, including currency transactions.
I want Congress to haul fraudulent bankers into Washington and force
them to testify, fire them without compensation as part of any
bailouts, and refer them to the Justice Department for prosecution.
I want serious regulation of Wall Street.
I want a five-year moratorium on foreclosures, and a bailout of
homeowners equal to any bailout of bankers.
And, finally, I want $700 billion invested in green energy jobs
immediately, to be paid for by a tax on carbon emissions.
In fact, I would like to see all of these steps included in a single
bill called the "Honest Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008."
Somebody explain to me why that wouldn't be a good move for our
economy and a smart political step for those who propose it.
David Swanson
--
http://gssites.com/bbg/index.html
.
- Prev by Date: John McCain Refuses To Take Responsibility For His Failed Leadership
- Next by Date: Barack, Time To Take Off The Debate Gloves And Go Street
- Previous by thread: John McCain Refuses To Take Responsibility For His Failed Leadership
- Next by thread: Barack, Time To Take Off The Debate Gloves And Go Street
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
