Transparent.

 "It's my belief that this is exactly the time when Americans need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess...It will be part of the president's job to deal with more things at once. In my mind, actually, it's more important than ever that we present ourselves to the American people."  -Senator Obama

John McCain is now refusing to attend the first presidential debate, which had been scheduled (by the debate commission, and my TiVo) for this Friday. His campaign insists that, with the historic nature of the nation's financial crisis, he will not attend a debate until a bailout deal is reached. I'm sure that this had absolutely nothing to do with Senator Obama's call earlier in the week for a joint statement of economic principles by the two candidates. Congressional leaders aren't necessarily thrilled about two Presidential candidates storming into the Senate chamber to make big, splashy appearances before the camera. Obama says that he plans to continue the debate, and will only intercede in bailout negotiations if it's clear that he won't be a distraction.

The McCain campaign isn't just asking for this debate to be postponed: they'd also like to see the Vice Presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin postponed indefinitely. Given Palin's rising negatives, and poor performance during the one time, thusfar, that she's taken questions from a reporter, that's terribly convenient.

Leaving aside the snarkiness for a moment, I think that this is a bad move politically. With Sarah Palin's glow having worn off, it reads like a desperation move: a game-changer, that I'm not sure people are going to buy.

¶ Meanwhile, President Bush is urging swift passage by Congress of his 700 billion dollar bailout plan for banks and investment firms. It's not likely: Republicans hate the idea of taking over private companies, libertarians consider it something akin to socialism, and Democrats aren't thrilled at the idea of giving President Bush that much money, with no strings attached, to pass out to the friends that couldn't run their companies responsibly to begin with (remember that time when I asked Britney Spears to keep an eye on my crack? It'd be a bit like that).The plan submitted to Congress, by the way? Three pages. Just enough room to scrawl: GIVE ME 700 BAJILLION DOLLARS.

Estimated cost per household to save the companies who lobbied a pliable Congress to remove all economic safeguards and regulations, and then proceeded to immediately do all of the things that those safeguards were in place to prevent? $17,064. And who didn't see that coming?

Comments

[Adamn]

I'd like to see the debates even though I've already voted. Did you know they changed the absentee ballot rules this time around? Or at least I think they did. Your ballot must now be received by the 31st of October (at least in pennsylvania) for it to count in the general election. (Unless, bizarrely, you are in the military overseas - then you appear to get until the 10th of November, or something like that). Previous years it has also just been a photocopied sheet of paper asking me to write in the person's name.. this year is seems all official - like one of those standardised test forms! yee haw 21st century!

BTW - Ross I don't really agree with your previous post that McCain is as directly responsible for this financial mess as you imply. This is a collective stupidity on everyone's part - London has been completely deregulated for donkey's (rhyming slang for you there), which forced the US (quite willingly) to also take a less regulated stance for at least the last 7-8 years, precipitated by 9/11 in order to stave off the longterm recession that could have followed those attacks.. and over this last 7 year period, people have really been a LOT richer, so the general public should also be blamed, as they supported and encouraged the practises that set this whole mess in place to continue.. wall st / the city (london) is just a reflection of the greed across america and the world populace..

And i do think something needs to be done, and it probably needs to be done on the scale that is currently proposed - but certainly not in the manner currently suggested. Did you know the buyback of the pending foreclosures would be at a 'hold to maturity' level? That's appalling! It effectively means taxpayer / US budget deficits from this alone of nearly 1 trillion for at least another 20 years (the time when these amounts should accurately reflect real values). It's propping up an unrealistic house pricing structure in a bloated, overstocked market.. which needs to have a real price drop (especially in US and London but to some extent worldwide). It will only buy the country a couple of years and create bigger problems that they have already. A model more similar to the Swedish government's financial bailout from the early 90s seems much more realistic.

Also - and it would be interesting for Shan's perspective on this - If I put on my conservative hat (it's my only conservative hat, and quite small so don't worry) - I'm strongly opposed to the prospect of the US government owning such a large percentage of the US housing market through buyout or foreclosure! This is effectively a socialist property structure; lots of housing stock would be directly owned by the government, and only for sale at these 'hold to maturity prices' which people won't be able to afford (as these will be the same prices they foreclosed on already) - meaning a large percentage of people will have to rent accomodation from the government - sort of a nationwide HUD program... So the banks, and the government will BENEFIT in real terms from this mess in the long term while the budget deficit and the people take the brunt of the problem. This stands to fundamentally change what is among the best and unique aspects of America (the high property ownership percentage nationwide)

I like armchair economics... We don't get NFL games but this is just as fun..

[Rosserford]

You know, I agree about the bailout: I think that my values are far too conservative and capitalistic for these times. These companies have been artificially propped up for years through tax subsidies, tax breaks, and every type of corporate welfare imaginable. The American version of capitalism these days involves syphoning off my taxpayer money to keep companies afloat in such a way that they don't need to find efficiencies or compete effectively. Some of the largest businesses in the country are built upon taxpayer-funded houses of cards, as we're seeing now. It breeds incompetence and laziness, as the most valued skills have nothing to do with running a business, but with lobbying Congress for more handouts. Naturally, the proposed solution is to hand out more money.

I think, also, that I may have been a little over the top in blaming John McCain for these policies: there's certainly plenty of blame to go around, and this has been going on domestically since Reagan, though Clinton happily signed off on deregulatory measures as well. What I think people do need to keep in mind, though, is that one of these candidates for President has been a prime domestic cheerleader for the acceleration of deregulatory policy that's been going on for the past decade or so. Some would say the most important cheerleader. His economic advisors, to the last, are people who have championed (and signed their names to) exactly the types of policies that everyone is now falling all over themselves to decry. It's an oversimplification that takes too much of the blame away from plenty of others that deserve it, but I think that John McCain needs to accept his outsized share of responsibility before people go to vote.

This has been coming for years now. The actions taken after 9/11 were largely an excuse: I think we were robbing Peter to pay Paul (whatever the hell that means), and I thought so at the time: staving off a bearable economic downturn in favor of a major one later. The bailout, as proposed, would do pretty much the same thing - some action is necessary, practically, but a huge cash handout isn't going to do anything but stall the inevitable, and keep inefficient banks and businesses running, rather than forcing them to clean house. Scales gotta balance, and all that.