Pelosi Congress Fails and Here’s Why
And predictably blames Republicans.
First, simple math and American civics.
Democrats are the majority in the House of Representatives.
By definition, they do not need a single Republican vote to pass any piece of legislation -- including the bailout.
So, Pelosi and Democrats failed without any help from Republicans -- so stop the whining Nancy.
Second, as Beldar notes, this was a Democrat bill, and they still could not pass it.
Third, another reason why the Democrats failed:
Pelosi let sitting members who are in tough reelection fights vote against the bill. Just to review, Democrats are a majority in the House of Representatives and yet cannot pass a critical bill? Again, why do we vote for Democrats who created this mess, and cannot solve it? UPDATE: Some simple math: Percentage of Democrats voting No: 40%.PRESS RELEASE SODREL SAYS HILL GOT A PASS TO VOTE AGAINST BAILOUT (Jeffersonville, IN) – Congressional Candidate Mike Sodrel today made the following statement regarding the bailout vote: “Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi does not want to lose her position as Speaker of the House. She has allowed vulnerable Democrat members like Baron Hill to vote against the $700 billion bailout. Apparently she believes House Members Brad Ellsworth and Joe Donnelly are safe as they voted for the bailout. We expect the issue to be voted on again this week. Someone who stood with the majority that defeated it will bring it back for reconsideration or it will come back in a different version. My dad always said, “Son, you can’t borrow your way out of debt.” The taxpayer doesn’t have $700 billion dollars. The taxpayer owes almost $10 trillion. They will owe more than $10 trillion if this deal is eventually approved because they will have to borrow another $700 billion in addition to the $400 billion deficit this year. Government acquisition of private enterprises when it occurs by ballot is called socialism. Government acquisition of private enterprise when it occurs by bullets is called communism. There is little difference in the end result, the former is just less violent than the latter. The United States Constitution is a document designed to limit the power of our government. To give virtually unlimited power to a cabinet secretary would have to create Constitutional issues, not to mention poor judgment. I do not believe government should restrict salaries or bonuses of executives leading successful organizations. I believe the shareholders, lenders, and others should be able to recover a large portion of management compensation for those who brought their firms to failure. I support an immediate suspension of the Capital Gains Tax for a period of two years, an increase in FDIC Deposit Insurance and suspension and/or modification of “mark to market” accounting rules. Longer term the GSE’s need to be sold and the Fair Tax (HR 25) scheduled for debate and vote. I’m certainly open to discussing other options that do not require the taxpayer to borrow $700 billion.”
In sum, there are some principles worth fighting and dying for. But the “freedom to fail” damn sure isn’t one of them. I’m as much a limited government guy as the next fellow, but let’s not pretend that we live in some libertarian utopia in which the state has no role in the market. As Edmund Burke once observed, albeit in a radically different context, there is “a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue.” At that limit, the state properly steps in. When the risk of the entire economy going down the tubes is as high as it is at the moment, preservation of ordered liberty requires state intervention.As I said previously, kick the bums out since they do not have a clue how to solve:
[T]he only thing worse than the vote was the complaining afterwards that Nancy Pelosi’s speech was too partisan. So they voted against the only viable measure to prevent a market meltdown because Nancy was mean to them?! That takes the cake.Yes, I think the Democrats caused this crisis. But, the Republicans have done a terrible job educating the American public about this malfeasance. And Yes, they need to since our Antique Media have completely abdicated their responsibility. UPDATE II: Beldar has more:
I thought it was bad enough that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had made a deliberate decision not to make today's vote on the Democrat's economic stabilization bill a "party loyalty" vote in which the House Democratic leadership made absolutely clear that it expected loyal Democrats to vote in favor of the bill. Ignoring all of the immense power to persuade that inheres in the position of Speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi wouldn't even offer (or threaten to withhold) so much as a choice Capitol parking spot to make up the 12-vote margin between victory and defeat of H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Speaking on John Gibson's radio show later in the day, however, Karl Rove ran through, by name and often by committee or subcommittee chairmanship, the many, many Democratic members of the House whom Speaker Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership expressly authorized to vote against the economic stabilization bill. Glenn Reynolds boils this down to a succinct sentence which is almost exactly right: Pelosi gave key Democrats a pass on the bailout vote. The only quibble I have is that she didn't just give key Democrats a pass. She gave them all a blanket pass, and then some members particular and specific encouragement to take it. It is inconceivable that she didn't know exactly what the result would be.