Democrats won a key concession from the White House on legislation to bail out the financial industry on Wednesday, then sought to scale back the $700 billion price tag, as Republican presidential nominee John McCain inserted himself into high-stakes negotiations on the rescue.
President Bush invited McCain and Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, along with congressional leaders, to a White House meeting Thursday to discuss the bailout.
With the administration's original proposal deeply unpopular in Congress, top House leaders issued an upbeat statement at day's end saying that they had made progress toward revised legislation. "We are committed to continuing to work cooperatively and on a bipartisan basis to safeguard the interests of the American taxpayers," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.
But they offered no timetable on a bailout that the administration said was needed more with each passing day.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke spent most of the day in the Capitol, shuttling between public hearings on the proposal and private meetings with lawmakers.
Presidential politics intruded, as well, when McCain said he intended to return to Washington and called on Bush to convene crisis meetings until an agreement was reached on legislation.
In their statement, Pelosi and Boehner said, "We agree that key changes should be made to the administration's initial proposal. It must include basic good-government principles, including rigorous and independent oversight, strong executive compensation standards and protections for taxpayers."
Earlier, Paulson agreed to demands from critics in both parties to limit the pay packages of Wall Street executives whose companies would benefit from the proposed bailout.
"The American people are angry about executive compensation and rightfully so," Paulson told the House Financial Services Committee. "We must find a way to address this in the legislation without undermining the effectiveness of the program."
The issue has been a much-debated point in the struggle to win congressional approval of the historic rescue of the financial industry, though the "golden parachute" money involved would be relatively insignificant compared with the huge sums being talked about.
At the same time, Democrats were asking the Bush administration to dramatically cut the size of the rescue and then come back to Congress later if they need more.
Under that plan, which was still emerging, Congress would approve a fraction of what Bush is asking for — perhaps $150 billion or $200 billion — to allow the government to begin rescuing tottering financial companies.
Pelosi has privately suggested the idea to Paulson, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations are private.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., pressed Paulson on the idea Tuesday and was told it would be a "grave mistake."
But some Republicans said they support it as well. "It's highly appropriate for them to come back to us once they see and we see how this is working," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said Wednesday, "Ultimately $700 billion has to be available but ... they are making progress about how to give people some assurance that it is not going to go to $700 billion in one fell swoop."
Frank, who as chairman of the Financial Services Committee has taken a lead in the negotiations, said Paulson also "accepts the fact" that the bill will give the government an ownership stake in the companies whose bad debts are taken over, a Democratic goal.
The heart of the unprecedented plan, dramatically unveiled less than a week ago, involves the government buying up sour assets of tottering financial firms to keep them from going under and to stave off a potentially severe recession and the accompanying lost jobs and further home foreclosures.
Away from Washington, debate over the bailout became embroiled in presidential politics as McCain said he was returning to the capital and was asking Democratic rival Barack Obama to agree to delay their first debate, scheduled for Friday, to deal with the meltdown.
"I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time," he said.
Obama said the debate should go ahead and that his campaign staff was working with McCain's on a statement the candidates might make, spelling out major points they believe the rescue legislation must include.
Congressional Democrats dismissed McCain's dramatic announcement as a political ploy and said his involvement in the talks six weeks before the elections would only muddle the extraordinarily sensitive debate.
"With all due respect to my friend John McCain, we're doing just fine. We should not have presidential politics enter what we're doing here," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the majority leader. He added that McCain "is trying to divert attention from his failing campaign."
Bush, who says the massive government intervention is needed to stave off economic catastrophe, planned to talk to the American people Wednesday night about how the crisis affects them, said White House press secretary Dana Perino.
Wall Street, down sharply the previous two days, basically marked time, waiting for the next shoe to drop. The Dow Jones industrials declined 29 points.
Lawmakers in both parties have strenuously objected to the plan over the past two days, Republicans complaining about federal intervention in private business and Democrats pressing to tack on help for beleaguered homeowners.
Many Republicans and Democrats appear to be more open to legislation, although on different terms than the White House has proposed.
"There's politically a lot of pessimism because the American people are pushing back," said Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the senior Financial Services Committee Republican. But, he added, "There's a realization that we have to do something, and that we can't leave town until we do."
Polls in the last several days have provided mixed messages about the public's view.
An ABC News-Washington Post poll said Wednesday the public is split about evenly over whether it supports federal "steps" to handle the financial crisis. In a survey released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, there was nearly two-to-one support for the government "potentially investing" billions to try securing the markets.
Democrats insist Republican lawmakers must stand up for their own president's proposal, but they appear anything but eager to do so.
"It's a tough sell to most of our members," said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., after a closed-door meeting with Paulson and Bernanke. "It's a terrible plan, but I haven't heard anything better."
Compounding the administration's challenge, Republicans and Democrats both say Bush has lost credibility, particularly in cases where he argues there will be dire consequences if Congress doesn't act.
"They sold the war, they sold the stimulus package and some other things. It's the 'wolf at the door'" argument, Davis said.
Democrats are pushing to allow bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages to ease the burden on consumers who are facing foreclosure as part of the plan. But Obama told reporters the provision "is probably something that we shouldn't try to do in this piece of legislation."
Other Democratic demands, to give Congress greater authority over the bailout and require that the government help homeowners avoid foreclosures, have already been accepted in principle.
___
Associated Press writers Jennifer Loven, Martin Crutsinger, Jeannine Aversa and Alan Fram contributed to this report.
the Dem's forgot one stipulation for the deal, get out of Iraq in 2 weeks or less or no money. If we pull out of that crap hole war we can re-route all of bush's weekly allowance and finally close his toy box and maybe will have enough for that ice cream cone bushy always wanted but was deprived of as a kid.
Is it just me, or is Bernanke as clueless as he seems? He has come up with a whole basket full of Federal Reserve plans and to date, none, as in zero have worked. Oh well, I guess there is always Hank (Pat) Paulson to fall back on.
My accounting instructors for the last two years have not said anything positive about any of them.
These people in charge are reactive not proactive.
In their positions they need to be proactive to avoid future problems.
I am going to try to get to your funny bone on this one, hold your arm's in tight, and hold your feet tight to the ground. Them cowboy's at the Alamo are surrounded, by the common folk's. They are getting ready to put a cap up their behind of knowledge....wait, wait, wait comes a voice from the inside of the Alamo holding a "white" flag. What is it said the mob outside? We will give you the Alamo-(White-House), if you just give us seven-hundred billion dollars in return. There was a couple of people that were getting ready to clean the Alamo up that had a broom and one said, do you have somebody over-there that can jump on this broom? There was a short silence. After a short pause, a voice said, we got a guy over here, his name is Cheney, he will jump on it from here....short pause.....no, that is not what we mean....this broom belongs to some gal up North...it's bad luck son, we just want to give it back............
Bush went to the UN in his attempt to gain support for the Iraq war. Now he's at the UN for his last time telling the world we're going to be in find shape since we've a plan to bail out the world. Why can't the world help bail us out. This bailout will clear all the debt of every country that has a stake on Wall Street. We will be the ones stuck paying for it while those around the world won't have a thing to worry about.
Unbelieveable!
I wish they (aka the US leaders) would stop playing "world police".....
Any chance of repairing the damage to this country starts with George Bush being thrown out of the White House. He is using it as a way to pay back all of the people that put him in there in the first place. Of course he does not want to limit their salaries and bonuses, they should have the right that every political cantidate that is running has to steal at will from the American taxpayers.If there is to be a bailout the money should come from "big oil" which has been stealing from all of us since the Bush administration first walked into the White House. If we are going to use taxpayer money to bail out these people than anyone who was part of the problem in the past should be fired and replaced with someone who has not stolen from the company until it went under. his is our money and it should be voted on and controled by the American people.
I just would like to know and CLEARLY UNDERSTAND in detail what the bailout is going to cover, for how long this will endure before we have another situation like this, who is going to benefit, who is accountable, what are the metrics to follow, and what are the "rules of engagement" for these top executives who previously got millions and those who are still getting millions for being fired because they made bad decisions.
I was chatting with some friends I mentioned we might be heading to a depression like situation...some were quiet and hoped I was wrong and others laugh at me like if I had no idea what I was talking about..which I must admit I am not an economist...I was talking with my guts and anger for the situation.
I am a tax payer, my wife and I had good jobs that would not pay much but were very happy doing what we were doing. We avoid living with "luxury" and opted to save as much as could because we have three children and school has to be paid...;-) Many others unfortunately were not able to save money or chose not to do it...many got into bad mortgages and/or lost their jobs (me too)...all of this and many other things (besides 911 and the war) happen...it breaks my heart to see how such a wonderful country and great people is suffering and paying so disastrous situations while top executives get millions...Politicians also have their piece of the pay because they have interest in companies too...but this is rarely disclosed in detail. If we look back and revise history and trends in this first decade, this situation is something that grew within the last ten years.
We send hundreds of thousands jobs overseas, all on behalf of profits...yes of course what profits!!??? where are they now!!? We outsource a lot of jobs - which by the way that means less health-care and benefits cost to the companies...if many people don't have health insurance no wonder that unspecified number has grown and keeps growing...the government does not have an exact account...
For the moment REGULATION is key to clean bad practices and hopefully get the economy back in track eventually.
Bush wants to talk to we little guys and splane why he needs all that money...Why???
to make us all understand what???? That his rich buddies need a hand out...
Or to prevent us little guys from forming a mob and marching on Washington with our lynching ropes in hand???
Ah don't worry congress we wouldn't really Lynch anyone...but if you pass this law come election day things will change so you better start practicing how to say, "Would you like fries with that order"?
HA!! It's gonna be like storming the Bastille all over again if they dare to bail out all the banks. Americans are not going to stand for that - believe that!! HA!!
At no time did GWB admit that he has failed America with this crisis. This mess happened on his watch, frighting people and asking them to take the hit will not make this go away. The chips are down and taking the pain now will make the future easier for all (not just for the US). The leadership challenge is a root cause of this problem and until leaders, for example GWB resigns on failure, the cycle of failures will continue. Warren Buffett stake in Goldman Sachs earns $783 million return was news a London Times news headline.
..thing is the real culprits are still the
"Foxes guarding the Hen House"...
history is there dems go look it up..block after block of legislation that would have prevented this...no one hands are completely clean but some are WAAAY more dirtier than others...damn straight you Senator's get your butts back to DC and save my job,home and way of life...NOW...we can have that debate in Miss. later......McCain at least gets the grasp of the issue...and lets be honest McCain`s vote and input is more important than Barack`s..just because he is more senior has more clout and pull in the Senate..
In 2006, to avoid the melt down we're experiencing today, the Republicans and Alan Greenspan wanted legislation for regulation and oversight regarding fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ... but, the Democrats blocked it. The same Democrats, Pelosi and Reid, with the 15% favorability rating. Now, with the biggest bail out in history, Reid criticizes McCain for wanting to participate in the solution. And, if Obama gets elected, we could also face four years of a tax and spend White House and Congress ... who will be responsible for oversight. It's called having the foxes guarding the hen house ... again.
McCain ran back to Washington to hide behind Bushes paints.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |