Bailout includes pork and goodies like tax breaks for dirty energy
Articles — By forcechange on October 7, 2008 5:00 am
While the need for a Congressional bailout was necessary but extremely unfortunate, the way that it was passed is downright shameful. After failing to obtain enough votes in the House to pass the bill the first time, the Senate packed the bill chock-full of pork and other goodies to induce themselves, and their colleagues in the House to pass the bailout package. Apparently Congress couldn’t pass the first bill because it was too expensive at $700 billion and too elitist since it was saving Wall Street firms, even though it was essential to prevent our economy from crashing, and had the potential to bring a return on investment.
However, these “leaders” had no problem tacking on another $100 billion to the bill, that would go towards pet projects and other issues not directly related to the financial crisis. Although it is nice that the renewable energy credits were extended in the bill, it is a joke that they couldn’t be passed on their own, and had to be snuck into the bailout in order to induce some Congressmen to change their votes. Even more upsetting is that Congress also added a series of tax breaks for good old fashioned fossil fuel production, including coal liquefaction and sand and rock oil extraction. Shameful.
Facebook Comments
You keep invoking “necessary” and “essential” w.r.t. the bill; wherefore? Have you been listening to too many talking points, and therefore take it for granted?
The bill is superfluous, as far as Wall Street is concerned; most firms are going to forego help, anyway, since it limits executive compensation.
The bill was only necessary in the sense that it is the fiscal corollary to the Patriot Act; and increases the size of the government.
This phrase “talking points” has been taking on a bizarre meaning lately. I guess in this case your usage implies that you believe there are a set of beliefs that are being insidiously transferred to the public to trick them into supporting the bailout? Kind of like “drinking the kool aid?”
Both public and private experts feel the bailout was essential and necessary, with Warren Buffet, being one of the most respected and well-known (and also removed from this administration).
I don’t think that government action to try and address the almost complete freezing of the global credit markets is superfluous. Not only will most distressed firms, but some healthy banks may also, due to their inability to function in this financial environment.
With that said, I really make no claim of having an expertise in economics. And even though things aren’t looking good right now, we fortunately will never know what would have happened had Congress failed to pass the bill a second time.