Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Why House Republicans Balked

The political and economic worlds were updended Thursday by what would normally be the least-powerful constituency in Washington -- the House minority.

For all the happy talk early in the day that a deal on Wall Street bailout legislation was at hand, House Republicans were never on board with the plan being negotiated by House and Senate Democrats and the Bush administration. But while their opposition to the package may have taken attendees at Thursday's White House meeting by surprise, it shouldn't have. Here are five reasons why:

1) Conservatives Rule. Yes, there are moderates in the House Republican Conference. There are social liberals and economic liberals and Northeasterners who vote with Democrats on key issues. But make no mistake, conservatives rule on this side of the aisle.

Since the 2006 election sent the GOP into the House minority -- and sent several key moderates down to defeat -- conservatives have asserted their authority in setting the House GOP agenda. Of the 199 current House Republicans, roughly 100 are members of the conservative Republican Study Committee. A smaller core of 40 or so lawmakers is active within the RSC. Turn on C-SPAN at the start of a day's House session, or at the end, and these are the members you will most often see making speeches. These are the members you are most likely to hear on conservative talk radio, and these are the lawmakers who helped hatch and drive the party's (successful) oil drilling protest on the House floor during the August recess.

At the same time, moderates are an endangered species within the GOP Conference. Nearly half of the House Republicans not running for reelection in November are centrists, and a few more face tough races. Most conservatives, by contrast, reside in safe districts and will only see their seniority, and their proportional clout, continue to grow.

2) It's Not About McCain. Democrats have been peddling the theory that House Republicans sprung their opposition on an unsuspecting Washington Friday just to give John McCain a boost, by providing him the opportunity to corral GOP support and thus "save" the deal.

It's a nice theory, but it doesn't hold up. First of all, key conservatives in the House have made clear since the Paulson plan was unveiled -- long before McCain suspended his campaign to join the talks -- that they had serious problems with the Bush administration's approach. Opposing a massive government intervention into Wall Street, along with a huge expenditure of taxpayer cash and stringent new regulations, is entirely consistent with the record of most House conservatives. For a member like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), a key author of the conservatives' alternative proposal, it would have been more surprising if he HADN'T opposed the administration's plan.

What's more, many of these conservatives don't particularly like McCain. They're backing him now, because he's the GOP nominee, but most didn't support him in the primaries and have battled with him on key issues like immigration and campaign finance reform. The idea that they would work in concert with the McCain campaign to concoct this elaborate strategy is just too far-fetched.

3) It Is About Bush. House conservatives may have liked President Bush back when he was cutting taxes and sporting high approval numbers, but many of them have little reason to support or trust him now. He's a lame duck with approval ratings that are hovering around 30 percent, so he has little to offer members in the way of political protection. And some conservatives think Bush is ideologically adrift, whether on his more conciliatory second-term foreign policy or immigation or, more recently, his refusal to veto the housing rescue package in July that nearly all House conservatives opposed.

Now, conservatives privately suspect that Bush is being too heavily influenced by Henry Paulson and other Wall Street alumni in the administration. So yesterday's plea from the president for their support simply didn't do the trick.

4) Nothing to Lose. House Republicans are in the minority and are expected to remain so for at least another two years; the only question is how many more seats the GOP will lose in November. For many conservatives, the priority is steering the party back on what they view as the proper long-term course by reestablishing their ideological purity. They believe (though moderates would disagree) that Republicans lost in 2006 because they were insufficiently committed to conservative principles.

And being in the minority, House Republicans have no responsibility to actually govern. They don't set the agenda, and they usually can't block Democrats from doing what they want. So there's little incentive for conservatives to compromise here.

5) Pressure on Boehner. By most indications, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is at least sympathetic to conservatives' complaints about the bailout plan. But even if he does want to cut a deal, he has to represent his Conference if he wants to ensure his own survival.

There is a strong likelihood that one or more GOP leaders will face challenges when the party gathers for leadership elections in late November. The only real questions are which leaders will be challenged, and by whom. The most viable candidate for a step up the ladder is Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the chief deputy Minority Whip whom Boehner put in charge of the working group to craft an alternative bailout proposal. But Cantor appears more likely to take on Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) than to aim for Boehner's job.

If a challenge to Boehner does come, it is likely to emerge from that activist conservative wing. But there is no obvious member within that group who has the clout and popularity across the Conference to beat Boehner. Even so, the Ohioan has to be vigilant about protecting his flank, and if he cut a deal with Democrats and Bush not to conservatives' liking, it might provide the opening a challenger would need to unseat him.

Though he is a devout conservative on nearly every issue, Boehner has always been seen by both friends and foes alike as a pragmatist who is willing to compromise when circumstances warrant, most famously on the No Child Left Behind education bill he hammered out with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Conservatives are watching Boehner closely here, all the more reason for him to stand firm on the bailout.

By Ben Pershing  |  September 26, 2008; 12:09 PM ET
Categories:  2008 Campaign , Agenda , GOP Leaders , House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Ethics Panel Launches Rangel Probe
Next: Why the Bailout Bill Failed


I,m a democrat, but for once I like conservative republicans. I never thought I would agree with them on anything.That they would represent the people against big money interests!

We need neither a bailout for the little or the big guy. Let's all take responsibility for once.

Posted by: patrick uzzell | September 26, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

This is good; but only a part of the piece I was looking for after yesterday's show. But where is your analysis of the bigger picture? These guys believe in giving all the tax breaks to the rich but today they deny a top down economy? Since when can half the Republicans hold up legislation? How is McCain's "going off to war to save the day for American taxpayer" drama going to end? So what if Schmumer was feigning done deal. How does McCain save the day with no position and just a bunch of outliers to corral?

Posted by: Kads | September 26, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

McCain has a long record of trying to bail on Debates. He totally rejected the last primary debate refusing to debate Mike Huckabee and the Media let that slide like snot.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: JOES | September 26, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: JOES | September 26, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Wall Street is extremely important to the American economy - you can it - I repeat - CAN NOT - let it go down in flames.

This is basic economics here - you take out the investment sector, the rest of the economy will follow.

Not just the US - the world economy.

Posted by: Moderately Moderate | September 26, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Oh and to teh 7 trillion guy -

700 billion = .7 trillion not 7 trillion.

And, that divided by the 300 million people would give each person roughly 2333 dollars - not 2 million dollars as you said (which btw is wrong even if you use your calculation)

Posted by: Moderately Moderate | September 26, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"These guys believe in giving all the tax breaks to the rich but today they deny a top down economy?"

No, they believe in giving tax breaks to everyone, an idea they put in practice. If the rich get more back, it's because they payed much more to begin with (and at that they still got disproportionately smaller breaks than middle and lower classes).

"Since when can half the Republicans hold up legislation?"

Because democrats are too gutless to pass unpopular legislation (even when they think it's a good idea) unless enough republicans come along to share the blame.

So good on conservatives for acting like conservatives and standing up to this nonsense.

Posted by: Brian Garst. | September 26, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Pass the bill, and conservatives be damned!It'll give them something to whine about for years.

Posted by: Greg | September 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

A prediction.

Because of the spine shown by the republicans, going against their own president (granted, he is not that popular), and the usual appeasement stance by the democrats, probably there will be a lot less democratic gains in the House and the Senate than assmed up to now.

Why is it that the democrats always cave-in to George Bush, in a spirit of "patriotism", "bi-partisnaship"? Even when they "initially" oppose any initiative, they finally pass it with little if any substantial modifications.

Posted by: Krishna | September 26, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I am proud to live in a district where a conservative represents me. I believe we need to bail out some, but 700B is too much.

And yes, the rich do have a higher tax bracket. Remember, a lot of people received some or all of the stimulus package this year, but people making more than 175K did not receive any! So stop complaining that the rich should not get a tax break!

Posted by: candace | September 26, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Boner-- what a farce. Same for the rest of you House members in the "Republic" party (when you and Faux News quit saying "Democrat Party" I'll quit using this term). What a bunch of white guy losers on the losing end of history. You are the remnants of Tom DeLay's antics -- where was he during your convention, by the way? The Hammer? Drill, baby, drill indeed. You claim to be patriot "Mr. Americas" and to love your country, but you hate half of the people here, and you won't pony up any money for your war in Iraq, and the veterans -- it's all "no taxes ever" for you. I'll bet John McCain is cursing you right now as he flies to Mississippi and checks in with Ms. VP Sarah Palin for the cliff notes on how he will answer to the rest of the citizens of the US this evening in his debate with that "community organizer" Senator Obama. Thanks a lot Boner.

Posted by: mountainman | September 26, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I do wonder the effect having McCain and Obama in Washington had on the process. Things still needed ironing out but there seemed to be progress until they showed up. I am not saying McCain led a revolt; my point is that perhaps the two candidates brought too much of a spotlight to a matter that needed to be hammered out behind closed doors. If they had not shown up perhaps the competing parties could have quietly worked things out rather than posturing before the cameras.

As for McCain all he managed to do was ride into town on his white horse and fall flat on his face.

Posted by: Roger | September 26, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Re: "Since the 2006 election sent the GOP into the House minority -- and sent several key moderates down to defeat -- conservatives have asserted their authority in setting the House GOP agenda".

Conservatives were setting the agenda a long time before that. There have been two types of Republicans in the House for the last eight years- conservatives, and those who say they aren't conservative but then turn around and vote with the conservatives.


Posted by: Ernis | September 26, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm personally thankful McCain is preventing the democrats from giving 20% of the eventual profits of this bailout to ACORN -- considering it's Obama's past employer and under indictment for registering dead voters, among other shady activities. I can't even believe ACORN and bailout are used in the same sentence. WTF???

Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

It's funny to see all these conservative readers piling on Bush. You’re the ones who voted for him, now you trash Democrats for not “standing up to him”?

The thought processes of the GOP voter are strange indeed.

Garst, Krishna, you're the ones who voted for him.

PS GOP congressmen aren't standing up to Bush, they're folding before the anger of their constituents, because they fear losing their seats in November.

They NEVER opposed Bush when he was popular. And neither did you.

Posted by: OD | September 26, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Our country is a strong country and we will recover.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Sorry OD, I am one of those 30% who still like Bush. For me, these past 7 years have been safe and sound. That does not mean I agree with him on this bailout.

Posted by: Candace | September 26, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

LET THEM EAT MY SHORTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NEW YORK (CNN) -- "I have great, great confidence in our capital markets and in our financial institutions. Our financial institutions, banks and investment banks, are strong. Our capital markets are resilient. They're efficient. They're flexible."
-- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, March 16, 2008
"Our policy in this administration -- laws shouldn't bail out lenders, laws shouldn't help speculators."
-- President Bush, May 19, 2008
"Our economy has continued growing, consumers are spending, business are investing, exports continue increasing and American productivity remains strong. We can have confidence in the long-term foundation of our economy...I think the system basically is sound. I truly do."
-- President Bush, July 15, 2008
Those were the words of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and President George W. Bush just a few months ago.
Today, of course, they have been proven completely wrong.
They are now telling us we are in a dire crisis, and that we must hand over hundreds of billions of dollars so they can lead us out of this mess.
What's amazing to me is that the administration seems a little surprised that Congress and the American people are not marching in lockstep with them on this and not fully appreciating the urgency.
"No bias, no bull" The latest on the effort to pass a financial bailout plan "Campbell Brown: Election Center"8 ET tonight on CNN see full schedule » Well here's why, in one word: accountability.
This administration missed the boat on this crisis. They didn't see it coming. That's why when Bush goes on TV in a few minutes, he will face a very wary audience.
And Secretary Paulson, frankly, you didn't help the situation with your initial, imperious request to Congress that you be handed this money and that your decisions "may not be reviewed by any court of law or administrative agency." Seriously, what were you thinking?
And Democrats, you are by no means blameless in all of this.
At the center of this crisis are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Although they didn't intend to encourage this spiraling chain reaction, it was leading Democrats in Congress -- Senate banking chairman Chris Dodd and his long-time counterpart in the House, Barney Frank -- who supported legislation that ultimately led to more and more of these bad loans we are all stuck with.
The people you thought you were trying to help are in even worse shape financially.
I know everyone is screaming about how urgent this crisis is and that action must be taken immediately.

But I love and live by former Supreme Court Justice Brandeis' great quote: "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."
What we need is scrutiny and debate. If it has to happen quickly, then do it fast, but without grandstanding or political posturing.

We need serious scrutiny and debate, and that should happen whether we are talking about a giant piece of legislation that is going to affect us all, or whether we are talking about presidential and vice presidential candidates.



Posted by: david a belanger | September 26, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting how well Republicans and Democrats get along when the Republicans actually take conservative** stands?

** Not to be confused with the radical neocon policies of George W. Bush.

Posted by: SandraL | September 26, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

This article completely overlooks that these supposed concervatives were in control of congress for the first six years of the Bush administration and were quite content to spend America into the greatest deficit in the history of our nation; a deficit that threatens the future of our nation. Now during an election year they talk differently. In my opinion, the republican party ran the fiscal concervatives out of Washington years ago and are now are just playing election year politics with the future of the US. Shame on them for creating this mess and not having the cahoneys to step forward and help fix it.

Posted by: Dean | September 26, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I hope Israel comes up in the debates. If I understand the situation correctly, both candidates have unwavering support of Israel.

Posted by: Jizrael | September 26, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

I've read a lot about the bailout, the electin etc etc etc. I still haven't heard EXACTLY what this will mean for middle and lower income Americans? I hear lost jobs, tight credit, banks closed etc. Is this a section of jobs, all banks, all credit, affect the GNP, - just exactly what will happen if the bail out isn't approved - another crash like in 1929..

Posted by: BRoss | September 26, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

You say "It's a nice theory, but it doesn't hold up. First of all, key conservatives in the House have made clear since the Paulson plan was unveiled -- long before McCain suspended his campaign to join the talks -- that they had serious problems with the Bush administration's approach."

I think the theory still holds. This was planned from early by Bush et al. The whole thing, like the rest of Bush' doings, has been orchestrated by the man, his underlings, his managers and the Republican Party. They saw an opportunity to continue the Republican dynasty or at least to save McCain to continue to try. And despite it being in the heat of the biggest economic crisis since the depression, (this particular one caused principally by themselves no less), they are still playing politics and political poker, with the entire Nation and with implications on the whole global economy. And, in the kitty is your vote as the prize... Regardless of the economic consequences for you, the voter and for America. This is disgraceful. If Bush can't solve the crisis and get the parties and everyone on side, what the hell is doing as President? He caused this in the first place - at least his policies and approach are principally the reason.

This whole McCain in Washington thing is just more of the same - its about Red States and Blue States, your states and my states. It is a fools game - it really is and the fools must go.

Posted by: Paul Stewart | September 26, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

The remaining extreme right-wing republicans are right for the wrong reasons. It's good they said stop, if only so that people realize that we need to take time and look at this thing, not just buy it because GBW says that we have to, quick, before it's to late. Let's be selective about who we bail out and who we let crash. All parties are not equal in this debacle.

Posted by: thebob.bob | September 26, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"We need neither a bailout for the little or the big guy. Let's all take responsibility for once.

Posted by: patrick uzzell"
Well, if you believe ALL THE ECONOMISTS IN THE WORLD then a bail-out is a necessity otherwise our entire financial system will collapse.

This isn't some namby-pamby Government action, this is a dead-serious situation.

The consequences on not acting far outstrip the burden put upon the tax-payer.

Let's face it, NO ONE likes this rescue plan.

Thanks George for the gift on yer way out...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know whether House Republicans were excluded from negotiations on the $700 billion proposal before the 9/25 White House meeting? If so, by whom?

Posted by: DJ | September 26, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Good and intelligent analysis in the article. McCain knew that there were problems in the Republican ranks, but the media was only focusing on the Democratic claim that the deal is imminent (=so there's no reason for McCain to come to Washington!). Having successfully painted their distorted picture, when the White House meeting blew up (reality check!), they could then claim that McCain had messed things up.

DEMS and BUSH are wrong on this one. House Republicans are on the side of the people. It remains to be seen where McCain will end up, but at least he's involved

Obama for the time being is irrelevant... the consumate politician, he's waiting to see which direction the line will go, and then will try to position himself in front.

Posted by: Andrew O. | September 26, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

The $700 Billion is not for a bail out. Bailout maybe a nice bumper sticker or term to make it understandable, but it is not a bail out.

The credit markets banks and such need to "restructure" all the bad debt that is already in the hands of the American public. Who do you think borrowed all this money or bought the mortgage backed securities, we did!

There is always a desire to find the bad guy, well there are many in this scam, we the people are not without blame.

However calling this a wall street bail out is a simplistic.

Car dealers folding, big stores not getting credit to buy inventory, consumers not being able to get car loans or do home improvements.

The American public is the one who needs the existing loans supported.

Posted by: geek | September 26, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

What I find interesting is why the Democrats even care what the Republicans think. They have the majority in both houses. Why didn't they just vote for the bill?

I think we all know the reason. It stinks.

Posted by: concerne08 | September 27, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Huh? Call me silly, Ben, but I would think if you are going to write an article about a group's five objections to a policy plan at least one of your reasons would describe a policy difference with a plan.

Posted by: Jim Worthen | September 27, 2008 6:42 AM | Report abuse

Foxnews is backing McCain for misleading polls. People are wondering how are they going to get and put in their pocket for unfair and misleading news and point of views. Shame on them, all they care is their rating and doesn't really care about our country. Use Facts Checks before facing the audience and the viewers. Why the foxnews let these stupid people air lies. People don't watch FOXNEWS, they let their rating go uo with lies. This is unacceptable. These are just bunch of bullies who wants take our country down. Americans wake up. Vote for Obama, for our country, and for our country. FoxNews get your Facts!

Posted by: goldieluck | September 27, 2008 7:02 AM | Report abuse

FoxNews why are you letting those bunch of bullies messing up the polls?


Posted by: goldieluck | September 27, 2008 7:10 AM | Report abuse

Devil Bush yells wolf and Democrats panic and lead you down road to Socialism i win hahaha.

Posted by: Hugo Chavez | September 27, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

People 8 houses down from me did not get a bailout, they got walking papers when their house was foreclosed. Now we're going to bailout their bank?

I'm a democrat and I fully support the house republicans and anyone else opposing this pathetic handout.

Posted by: WTF | September 27, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

This article is hollow and devoid of content. House Republican's balked because they wanted even more perks and give aways to the wealthy as they tried to strike a false populist tone.
A two year suspension on capital gains tax? Why? A rollback to allow losses incurred by the same entities that caused this disaster be applied to tax returns filed up to five years ago giving these firms billions of dollars in tax refunds. Huh? Also, they wanted the American tax payer to insure every single mortgage and MBS in the entire country. Sure the premiums would be paid by the holders of this paper but the bill for every single mortgage failure would be incurred by the US taxpayer. Why?

Posted by: Mark G. | September 27, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

I'm with the conservative repuglicans on this one, but for the opposite reason.

In the 90's, the Democrats created a Garden of Eden with a bright future ahead of it, then the 'uglies seized control by frightening the stupid herd into tipping the elections, and their arrogant, immoral, pocket-stuffing, self-interested, bribe-taking thievery got us into this mess.

Now it's gone too far to stop the slide into chaos except temporarily, and I want the country's economy to detonate on THEIR watch, not president Obama's.

Burn, baby, burn.

Burn the fücker down and give it back to the Indians. And history will write that it was the right-wing "Christian" greedy capitalist free-market war-starting Gingrich Ayn Rander conservative "patriotic" REPUBLICANS who destroyed the noble American Experiment...

while I sit naked in my cave in the woods and laugh...

and have 'nother drank.

-- faye kane, homeless brain
Read more of my smartmouth opinions at

Posted by: Faye Kane | September 27, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have supported Voo Doo economics for 25 years, and now that it's destoyed our economy, they want to pretend they had nothing to do with it. Only an ignorant fool would fall for this.

Unfortunately, our country is made up mostly of ignorant fools. It's hard to deny it at this point.

The Republican Party consists of Wall St crooks, and the ignorant r*dnecks who vote for them.

Posted by: sick of ignorant r*dnecks | September 27, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

20% of profits will go to groups like ACORN who are left wing liberal groups. Why should they get 20%?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 27, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Count Dracula made a deal with the guardians of the people. " If you let me do my thing, i will give you campaign contributions so you may stay in power". Politicians from both parties agreed.

So Dracula went on his merry ways and suckle the blood of unsuspecting people and nobody cared. He was insatiable and suckle blood from everybody including sick people. He took so much poison blood that his health deteriorated to the point that he needed help to survive. He turned to his politican cohorts and lo and behold, the people's guardians found a miracle cure for Dracula.

They will take out the poison blood from Dracula's body and ask their constituents to donate and transfuse 700 billion cc of fresh blood to Dracula so he could continue and do his thing.

If the american people is smart and wise, they will let Dracula die and throw out from power all these corrupt politicians.

Posted by: tim591 | September 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Either the taxpayer will pay for the bailout, or the consumer will pay for the fallout. Take your choice, but consider that those are almost the same person with the exception that 10% of the taxpayers pay 50% of the federal taxes.
We need to control the damage first. We can hunt down the guilty at our leisure.

Posted by: Sternberg | September 27, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

A trillion here, a trillion there, and before long you're talking about real money.

Posted by: oldhonky | September 27, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

The article fails to mention that the Democrats package gives 20% of the returns to ACORN, which is a liberal group with a decade long history of voter fraud.

Posted by: JM | September 27, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

The bailout talks includes 9 democraps and 2 republicans, because the democrats in the Senate are shutting out the republicans, so the democrats can funnel money to their special interest groups, and we'll be stuck holding the bill.

Posted by: km | September 27, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

No mention that the Democrats are inserting 20% for ACORN before monies are returned to U.S. Treasury. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) told Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Sustren that the massive economic bailout package being hashed out in Washington, D.C., includes 20 percent of the profits from the $700 billion bailout going to ACORN, a group about which serious allegations of corruption. I can see why the majority Dems don't want to push this bill through without Republicans on their side because THEY know this is a dirty bill. With Republicans' support for the original bailout, the Republicans would also be responsible. Don't rush this help; take the time to exclude putting the burden on the tax payers shoulders. Wall street and many "others" need to recognize their part in the financial crisis in order to make the bill reasonable and honest with absolute accountablity.

Posted by: realitycheck | September 27, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone explain why the Democrats support the bailout bill? Could it be because some of their biggest donors are Wall Street executives? Chris Dodd received over $13 million in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Democrats need to explain why they support this bill. They should listen to Brad Sherman, the Democrat representative from LA, who is completely opposed to this bill. THe Democrats do not have a majority in their own caucus to pass this bad bill.

Posted by: GEORGIA | September 27, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

I have been a registered Democrat for 30 years, never voted for a Republican, until now. Republicans are the only ones saying NO BAILOUT, while Dems are doing their damndest to bury us in debt for decades!

Posted by: Ohio worker | September 27, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

The writer of this piece thinks Boehner's a conservative? Think again! He's a RINO and he replaced a worthless, fat RINO who all but caved to Bush's leftist shenanigans like the billion-dollar pill bill, the farm bill and so on. Hopefully, a real conservative like Immigration Caucus Chair Brian Bilbray will push for Boehner's position. It's time an anti-Invasion conservative headed the House Republicans instead of a RINO. RINOs are going to become extinct, you know!

Posted by: levotb | September 28, 2008 2:41 AM | Report abuse

I dont support a bailout at all,let the dems push this rotten bill if they dare.

Please give this link a view:

Posted by: Infidel_Jim | September 28, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Socialist dems have the majority, they can pass a "bail out" without republicans. But the deal stinks and they know it. The "bail out" is a rush to socialism and the conservative republicans know the deal stinks.

Ask yourself if it is so imperative to "bail out" wall street, why did the dems stick in $100 million more in funding for the left-wing housing entitlement thugs and heavily tax-subsidized fraudsters at ACORN?

Next you have Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity asking to ensure that minority-owned real estate, finance and legal professionals are included among the firms tapped to manage the multi-billion dollar asset portfolio the government plans to purchase from failing Wall Street investment houses, and flailing financial institutions.

They need to repeal the The Community Reinvestment Act. The culprit to alot of this mess. Anyone heard mention of a repeal?

To top it all off, Harry Reid tried to slip in place a ban on development of domestic oil shale deposits that expires next week:

SEC. 1602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 152 of division A of H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, the terms and conditions contained in section 433 of division F of Public Law 110–161 shall remain in effect for the 19 fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.

Kill the bail out!

Posted by: Crystal | September 28, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

It is hard for me to see how being a top seniority dog in a party that is growing increasingly irrelevant due to losses because of the party supporting increasingly far-out-of-the -mainstream views can be something that is attractive. But I welcome that, as I hope that the Republicans keep doing that so they are again ignored as they once were. The country will be better for it. Their gaining of influence with the election of Reagan in 1980 has been nothing short of disastrous for this country.

Posted by: majorteddy | September 28, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Just viewed the You Tube video suggested by Infidel_Jim...GREAT!!--as well as the following videos. Well worth your time, especially if you don't yet understand what steps and people lead to the current financial disaster. THANKS JIM

The average American citizen who was "hood-winked" into these bad mortgages IS NOW SUFFERING at the hands of those people who insisted that they should/that they deserved to own a house. In the hearts of those taken advantage of, they know that they should have trusted THEIR OWN JUDGMENT

Posted by: realitycheck | September 28, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Further,the mortgage/banking companies became pawns in a money-making housing scam that actually fined companies if they did not write sub prime loans. How much sense did it make to allow a potential buyer to purchase a house when in reality the mortgage lender would have preferred their past working scenario and said, "I am sorry, but at this time you do not qualify for the purchase of a house"? OLD FASHIONED TRUTH IN LENDING.

Do not confuse "house ownership" as the only way to have a home!

Again the You Tube video:

Posted by: realitycheck | September 28, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Just for the record anonymous who complains that money would go to ACORN and that Obama worked for them. Obama never worked for ACORN and the community organization he worked for would say that ACORN's style of organizing is not a good one. Get your facts straight. Also very little money for affordable housing would go to ACORN. The largest community non profits building affordable housing have nothing to do with ACORN. This is just a conservative, uninformed red herring.

Posted by: jcw | September 28, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

I am a hard core democrat. But for the first time, I actually agree with the Repubs this time. The GOP understand that this bailout is off the chain. Besides, there are too many people in Washington that were benefiting from Wallst thugs.

Posted by: ivyleaf98 | September 29, 2008 4:17 AM | Report abuse

The rich do have a higher tax bracket. The rich did not receive anything due to the stimulus package. But the rich also have the capitol to invest more in themselves. These certain investments allow them more deductions enabling them to keep a higher percentage of their gross income per year compared to middle class.

Posted by: Ken | September 29, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Let's not forget the philosophical underpinnings of the conservative Republicans; they are fundamentalists who still believe that the New Deal was the beginning of the end, rather than the end result of greed gone wild, which is precisely where we find ourselves today. But, instead of proposing a New New Deal to get us out of this gigantic pit, conservative members of the House, led by dimwit, Eric Kantor, propose letting the whole thing sink to the center of the earth in the hopes of eliminating every social program, government oversight agency and tax along the way. Their concerns about this particular bill may dovetail with some expressed by the Dems, but their end goals are antithetical. If Kantor and Co. had their way, feudalism would reign.

Posted by: Dexter | September 29, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

tell the truth for once.The republicans balked because the american people do not want this bailout.They had to find a way to make thier cooperation seem like they were doing something before they sold us out.Make no mistake they will sell us out as soon as they find something that lets them say we had to do this but we saved the country which is nothing more than a bold faced lie.
They sold us out and the dems sold us out.
These are nothing more than corporate shills who care nothing about the people.They do not listen to the people,they listen to thier corporate sponsers.Voting third party and getting rid of all the democrats and republicans
is the only way we the people are going to get our beloved united states back.

Posted by: pooty | September 29, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Just a question for ModeratelyModerate (good posts, by the way): if the entire world's economy is really at risk if a few of these Wall Street behemoths bite the bullet, why is it up the American taxpayer, all alone, to save them?

I think the bailout is just another instance of the connected wealthy elites taking good care of themselves and each other, at everyone else's expense. I think they are scamming Bush just like the warhawk Iraqi expatriots who wanted us to invade Iraq and unseat Saddam for them did. The Bush crew were willing "victims" for Chalabi... is Paulson pulling "a Chalabi", screaming the sky is falling and the end is near unless the U.S. taxpayer saves his rich buddies? And is Bush a willing "victim" this time, too?

Posted by: Iconoblaster | September 29, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Here is the language from the Democratic proposal regarding how money returned would be divided and dispensed:

"Deposits. Not less than 20% of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).

"Use of Deposits. 65% shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act . . . ; and 35% shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund . . .

"Remainder Deposited in the Treasury. All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt."

THIS (Acorn handout)--SO FAR--will not be part of the Democrat/Bush first writing of the bill. How can one agree with Pelosi who says this is not a bail out but a buy in? What the heck does that mean? And she is a leader???

Posted by: realitycheck | September 29, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

...and the bailout fails to get the votes.

Posted by: karlron | September 29, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse


The holdout Repubs. on the bailout should be fired on Nov. 4. They're beholden to lobbyists & some of them are losing their cash-cows somewhere. The gov't. ought to sue some of these Big companies & their CEO's & recoup millions of dollars to put it back in our economy for people who REALLY need that money.

Posted by: elizabeth | September 29, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

If the House Republicans had shown this much fortitude when they were in power, they'd still be in power.

Better late than never.

Posted by: info | September 29, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

This bizarre comment is based on two ideas: The bailout is vitally needed, and the only possible way to fix things; anybody who doesn't agree is poorly informed, or an idiot.

Where the bailout plan went wrong seems to have been the original Paulson approach, which was give me $700 million right now, and abandon any possibility of complaining or restraining me if I choose to spend it trying to win the Americas Cup, or growing cocaine in Latin America, or, if you're lucky, fixing the current credit mess.

Such demands for absolute power make any prudent person wary. It's possible that no scheme will ever win its way through Congress if it's to be operated by Paulson, even a Paulson now with certain clearly defined restraints and limitations.

The idea that Paulson could be the wrong man is easy to consider, unless you happen to be a political leader in Washington this week.

Posted by: kunino | September 29, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

The republican strategy was to make this look like a democratic and Bush bailout. The wanted to claim Bush was incompetent and not really a conservative like they were, so it would be ok to vote for a republican.

The democrats did not fall for the bait this time. The dems voted just enough where it would force the republicans to vote for the bill also for it to pass. The dems needed 110 votes from the republicans so they would not be solely blamed for the bailout.

Pelosi outsmarted Rove and Gingrich and now she and Reid might take their marbles and go home without any bailout. If the economy tanks into a deeper depression, the republicans will get the blame. If it doesn't get any worse, the republicans still get the blame for screwing it up in the first place. The dems are not going to let you forget it was the Bush who came hat in hand asking for this bailout.

Posted by: Bobby | September 29, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

What's next? helicopters flying over different cities with survival packages.
American, Americal God has shed his Grace on thee.

Posted by: WJ/NY | September 29, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

What;s next? helicopters flying over cities dropping off survival packages. America, America God has shed his grace on thee.

Posted by: WJ/NY | September 29, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Why did we not debate declaring war on Iraq as openly (& fiercely, I might add) as we are questioning the 'bailout' ? Sad commentary on a nation easily led by fear... but, perhaps, we are learning. As earlier stated, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant." Are we to give ANY MONEY to those who got us here in the first place ?

Posted by: SP in Monterey, CA | September 29, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Born and still live in Texas. I warned people in Texas not to vote for George W Bush for Governor , they did and he left Texas in a Mess. I warned people not to vote for George W Bush for President two times but they did and now this country is in a big mess , just got worse each day he was in office. The only way out of this is to take it on the chin because we are heading for that great big depression. I lived thru the last one and it took 10 years for the Democrats to bring in under control. This one will never be under control. Face it we are here. I am old and have not much time left but God Help my Grandchildren.

Posted by: Westexacan | September 29, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm a democrat and I'm dumbfounded that the majority of democrats, approximately sixty percent, voted yes for this ludicrous bailout bill. Thank you conservative republicans!

Posted by: jrgotz | September 29, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

SOME Democrats ARE withholding their votes/support for a few reasons: some may actually have a conscious and are concerned for their constituents and how this reflects on themselves or they are concerned about getting reelected. Even the last reason (reelection) is causing them to pause and reflect, rather than blindly following "Pied Piper" Pelosi, Reid and those Dems who want to APPEAR to be the savior--without recognizing that they are PART of the reason this occurred in the first place. The following link shows that the concern regarding Fannie and Freddie and other companies began many years ago:

The Democrats need to remember that they must join President Bush to have this bill passed; therefore as much as they view Bush as the problem he is the solution for their agenda--an agenda that Bush did NOT create in the first place. The already mentioned You Tube link

gives an in depth look into who are the Democrats that benefited with money gifts from Fannie and Freddie. By the way Pelosi we are STILL waiting for the solution to the gas problems that you promised you and your party had when you were seeking election a couple of years ago!!!

Posted by: realitycheck | September 29, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

This isn't a Wall Street bailout. This is disaster. Do you know why the credit card companies are reducing your credit even though you pay on time? What will everyone do when they lose their credit cards, can't get a car loan and there are no student loans to be had? If this collapse take place, there will be no money to borrow, not for houses, not for cars, not for Big Macs at the food court with the Visa card. Those opposing this are dooming Americans to unprecedented financial disaster.

Posted by: Brian | September 29, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

This article, like the pundits I've seen on TV today, completely ignores the major factor in the defeat of the House bill: the PEOPLE wrote and called their Representatives, and opposed this bill with outrage by 100 to 1.

Pundits and wonks inside the Beltway seem to have complete contempt for the American citizen. You are abetting the thievery, and blood is on your hands. People are starving to death, living in tent cities, while you croon banalities to each other. Shame on you!

Posted by: Jeff | September 29, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

The unbelievable damage that this Republican Administration has done to this country, both domestic and international, is unprecedented.
Hopefully they will be defeated in the upcoming election---------------then we can "put 'em in a box, tie 'em with a ribbon and throw 'em in the deep blue sea"!------------With a cement anchor!

Posted by: Kecam | September 29, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

This article, like the pundits I've seen on TV today, completely ignores the major factor in the defeat of the House bill: the PEOPLE wrote and called their Representatives, and opposed this bill with outrage by 100 to 1.

Pundits and wonks inside the Beltway seem to have complete contempt for the American citizen. You are abetting the thievery, and blood is on your hands. People are starving to death, living in tent cities, while you croon banalities to each other. Shame on you!

Posted by: Jeff | September 29, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Make sure the rope attached to the cement anchor doesn't accidentally get caught around your ankle and pull you in too. Again check out the You Tube link above and the see how this problem occurred. Google and find out WHO was concerned about the potential future disaster in Fannie and Freddie, etc. many years earlier. You will NOT find this information in the average newspaper or t.v. news. I understand those who have anger over what is happening, but direct your anger correctly. My disgust is toward those who have not been honest with the American citizens.

Posted by: realitycheck | September 29, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Well maybe now Americans will live with one credit card and consume what they really need... you cannot flood low interest capital out in the market without some kind of financial regulation.

Look at it this way... you remove all the stop lights and stop signs on our transportation roads... you are going to have crashes all over the place! That is the result of all this loss of equity .

There is enough blame to go around with our government,wall steet, and our market system. And sad to say there are people out there who operate our capital markets who are plain CROOKS... they should be held accountable for their greed.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 29, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

please use my handle for: Anonymous September 29, 2008 10:31 pm .

Posted by: soria35 | September 29, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Hey peoples have any of you read what this draft bill said? P.22, lines 7-12 states that ALL the bailout money will go into the General Fund!.......thus the government can use the money for whatever they wish no matter what the bailout deal states.........tell your congress people to demand these monies go into a Trust Fund, so it can only be used for what it's supposed to be used for........ Remember Social Security? it used to be in a Trust Fund until the democrats & their controlled congress voted to put it into the General Fund....... put it back into a Trust Fund & watch how people will have money to actually live on & the economy will improve like it's always done!

Posted by: caroltate2 | September 30, 2008 2:55 AM | Report abuse

In 1995, the New Ground, the newsletter of the Chicago Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, noted, “In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.

“Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics -- until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party.”

Naturally, Barack Obama was an active part of ACORN at the time, helping it legally in court and helping it organize voters. By 1996, ACORN and the New Party were essentially the same body. Along with the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his State Senate bid.

Obama began seeking the New Party endorsement in 1995. He had been running in a four way primary against his former boss, Senator Alice Palmer, herself a far left radical, and two other individuals. But an election law quirk gave Obama the upper hand. In order to get on the ballot, candidates had to collect signatures of voters. Printed names were not allowed. Obama challenged the petitions of his rivals and was able to get every one of them thrown off the ballot. By the time the ballot was drawn up for the 1996 election, Obama’s was the only name in the race.

Nonetheless, Obama still coveted the New Party endorsement. The New Party required candidates who received the endorsement sign a pledge of support for the party. Obama did not need to support a party that was, in effect, a front group for communists; yet he still chose to. The July issue of the New Ground noted that 15% of the New Party consisted of Democratic Socialists of America members and a good number of Committee of Correspondence members.

Barack Obama, not needing to, chose to affiliate himself with this band of quasi-communists. As the nation moves closer to the election, it is clear that Obama chose to affiliate with assorted anti-American radicals. Machiavelli once noted that we can know a leader by the people he surrounds himself with. What does that say about Barack Obama, who chose to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?

Obama Sought Endorsement of Marxist Third Party in 1996
By Warner Todd Huston Posted in 2008 | Obamafiles — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here is some interesting as well as character confirming info about one of Barack Obama's former runs for office. Apparently, Obama actively sought and received the stamp of approval of a Marxist third party that operated briefly in Chicago between 1992 and 1998. The group was called the "New Party" and was started in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison).***** Any questions bamabots?????McCain/Palin'08..nobama or anyone like him EVER!

Posted by: caroltate2 | September 30, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

What will everyone do when they lose their credit cards, can't get a car loan and there are no student loans to be had? If this collapse take place, there will be no money to borrow, not for houses, not for cars, not for Big Macs at the food court with the Visa card. Those opposing this are dooming Americans to unprecedented financial disaster.Posted by: Brian | September 29, 2008 8:45 PM ******** Guess you'll have to do like the rest of us DO WITHOUT!.....If you can't afford to pay for it, don't buy it......noone made you a slave to the credit cards but your own greed!

Posted by: caroltate2 | September 30, 2008 3:29 AM | Report abuse

Infedel_Jim: SORRY to see the You Tube is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Warner Music Group. That claim is understandable, but it is unfortunate to not have the video available. I wonder if it would be possible to delete the music or did the copyright infringement make the video totally unusable? Anyone can still google for info regarding the monies paid by Fannie and Freddie to some in Congress, but the video was dramatic!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 30, 2008 6:13 AM | Report abuse

Sorry to see the You Tube video is unavailable because of a copyright claim by Warner Music Group. One can still google and find a lot of info regarding who received monies from Fannie and Freddie (and who else)???

Posted by: realitycheck | September 30, 2008 6:17 AM | Report abuse

Here is another Washington Post article (Sept. 12, 2008)

Posted by: realitycheck | September 30, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

You talked about why the conservative repub didn't vote for this bill. Hard core, no body expected them to. Tell us your take on why the dems didn't vote yea. The 95 Dems voted no. Do you actually think there is a compromise?

Posted by: linda521 | September 30, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

I can't beleive how uninformed so many people are on this. The government is not giving money to Wall Street, it is purchasing de-valued MBS (mortgage backed securities) to free up captiol for our major lenders to lend to back to us. The value of many of these MBS are pegged to the value of our homes. When our homes appreciate in the future, so will the value of these securities.
The Government might actually make money on this.

Posted by: CapHill Dave | September 30, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

The House repubs balked because their leader Rush limbaugh gave them there brown
shirt marching orders! Blame the middle class and the poor and the blacks, wall
street failure is because of them,heck
a got 400 million dollars,what the hell
I care,well I hope you be the first to just out of your golden eib ivory towers
hater chief finger pointer

Posted by: king midas | September 30, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

What is this thing about ACORN? I read (skimmed) the legislation last night and did a search this morning. I don't see that in the bill

Posted by: Kate | September 30, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

They could work towards earning my trust if they would put some of those thieving wall street fat cats in JAIL! My grandchildren's future depends on this compromise! They have already committed my son to war, what is the promise for the future!

Posted by: darling | September 30, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Maybe thay should consider the Paris Hilton bailout plan?!?

Ha! Pass it on!

Posted by: the spy | September 30, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Thank you to The Crypt for Acorn discussion and how it relates to a bill solution (could not send the link as it does not pull up the article, so it follows):

September 27, 2008
Categories: Housing crisis
ACORN issue fueling bailout opposition

Earlier today, when House Republican leadership framed its opposition to the bailout bill as it currently stands, a principal objection focused on the group ACORN, which the e-mail alert called "the scandal-tarnished 'community organizing group'" -- with scare quotes in the original.

They're referring to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a group generally allied with Democrats and derided by the GOP as corrupt, inefficient and a front-group for Democratic efforts on the ground.

In issuing the statement, House leaders are reflecting -- and also feeding -- a reaction to the provision that has exploded in the last day or more. Our colleague Ben Smith says he's gotten more than a dozen anti-ACORN e-mails in just the last few hours. The viral uprising is both organic and institutionally driven. Prominent bloggers have fed the flames and so has the Wall Street Journal editorial page; several of the e-mails sent to Smith reference a House leadership alert on the "ACORN Slush Fund" and others refer to the Journal opinion. On Thursday night, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told The Crypt that his friend Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) opposes the provision.

"The draft bill includes a left-wing giveaway that would force taxpayers to bankroll a slush fund for a discredited ally of the Democratic Party," reads one leadership alert. "At issue is ACORN, an organization fraught with controversy for, among other scandals, its fraudulent voter registration activities on behalf of Democratic candidates. Rather than returning any profits made in the long-term from the economic rescue package, Democrats want to first reward their radical allies at ACORN for their (often illegal) help in getting Democrats elected to office."

In the end, how much of the bailout's potential profits are earmarked for ACORN? "None. Absolutely none. All funds would go to state and local governments," said Steven Adamske, spokesman for Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and a lead negotiator.

The opposition has grown so intense that critics refer to the measure in arcane legislative lingo. Erick Erickson titled a Friday morning blog post at RedState: "Section 105(d) of the Bailout Must Go."

Here's the relevant language:


DEPOSITS. Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).

USE OF DEPOSITS. Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1) 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).

REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY. All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.

And here's Frank's one-page summary of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and to find the relevant bill go here and search for H.R. 2895.

State and local governments can then dole out the funds and could send money to ACORN if they so choose and if the organization's efforts meet the standards set out in the law. For their stand against the provision, Adamske tweaked House Republicans, who have long called for more state control of federal funds.

"Are they worried that the Governor of Alaska and the Mayor of Wasilla will give money to Acorn?" he asked.

Regardless, House Republicans are saying that unless the possibility of ACORN seeing any money from this bailout is eliminated, there's no deal. "Doling out favors to ACORN and other liberal special interest groups are a non-starter for House Republicans," said Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith. "If Rep. Frank wants to keep ACORN in the bill he can secure the necessary Democratic votes for passage because he'll need every one of them."

UPDATE: Here's a WSJ piece about the connections between Dems, Acorn and the Housing Trust Fund. The Crypt is now looking through the organization's 990s to see how much of their funding comes from the federal government. ACORN has several different arms so there's a lot to look through. If there are any insomniac Crypt readers out there, go to, get yourself a free subscription and poke around. Send me what you find or post it below.

For starters, the tax returns for the year 2005, filed in 2006, show $1,700,317 dollars in government support for Acorn Housing Corporation, Inc. Gross receipts were roughly $7,000,000.

UPDATE 2: The Acorn Institute, which does voter outreach and registration, lists $3.5 million in revenue that same year, $2.3 million of which came from government contributions. So we're at about $4 million. Not exactly breaking the treasury, but not chump change, either.

UPDATE 3: Now seems as good a time as any to note that the ACORN website says, "To maintain independence, ACORN does not accept government funding and is not tax exempt." There's probably an arm of ACORN that doesn't accept government money and isn't tax exempt, but given updates 1 and 2, let's say that's not quite the whole truth.

UPDATE 4: The issue is now moot. From readers in the comments sections, here are some of the reactions to the plan:

"Ryan-Regarding your Update 3, if you know anything about nonprofits, you know most groups have local chapters, etc, register under different tax structures. The ACORN Institute is not the same entity as ACORN. The ACORN Institute is a 501(c)3 nonprofit that does tax Federal funds and that is tax exempt. It's like the difference between Ford and the Ford Foundation. It's not that it's "not quite the whole truth." It's that YOU don't understand how these organizations are structured. I would appreciate it if you refrained from unsubstantiated speculation. This is a common socialist tactic (not a strategy) - responding to critique or investigation with "you dont understand". I have heard it before from the Obamatons."

In response, a reader says: "None of you rightwing idiots understand. No funds are being directed to ACORN or anyone else in this bailout language. ACORN is composed of several different entities, just like the NRA and any other organization that deals with community outreach. Oh, and the House Republicans WILL vote for the bailout because they know that if they don't we will be in a depression. They are coming up with this whole, "We are going to stop ACORN" thing to pacify clueless idiots like you so that when they vote for taxpayer dollars to be used they can claim a victory. A fabricated victory."

Hope this helps???

Posted by: realitycheck | September 30, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Can someone explain why when I try to go to the website for the video link, it is not linking?

Posted by: Mad | September 30, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Mad: Go back and check. There is a note that says the video was removed because of a copyright claim made by Warner Music Group. I DID see the video and there was music, so I understand the copyright infringement. It was VERY good. I just wish that the video would still be available without the music, but perhaps that copyright infringement killed the video??

Posted by: realitycheck | September 30, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

I found another video in the politicians own words in Congress:

Must see!

Posted by: Mad | September 30, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Mad: I just viewed the suggested video. It is a little different than the unavailable You Tube video, but the SUBSTANCE IS THE SAME and is very good. At least there should be no musical copyright infringement. This video needs no extras--it says it all without hoopla. Thanks

Posted by: realitycheck | September 30, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

The moderator for the mccain/obama was great. Read about the biased moderator for the palin/biden debate on Thursday. Does this link fit in with this discussion...probably as the financial crisis (economy) could easily be part of the debate.

Posted by: realitycheck | October 1, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

the cretins in congress are busy claiming the bailout is too difficult for the understanding of the dimwitted public; they do this indirectly by asserting they did a poor job of explaining the problem

it's the other way round; the dimwits in congress are too stupid to understand the problem

they're so stupid they meekly sat before bernanke and paulson like deer caught in the headlights; too fearful to exhibit their lazy ignorance and stupidity by forcing bernanke and paulson to elucidate fully their train of specious economic logic, which necessitated a trillion dollar bailout

synopsis of the bernake and paulson drivel:

the investment banks are failing ... the sky is falling ... give us one trillion dollars

those congressional morons were so fearful of appearing stupid, that they let bernanke and paulson snow them

no only that, but congress fearful of publicly exhibiting their stupidity, were paniced into not calling real economists, who opposed the bailout

the craven jackasses in congress have taken what at this moment appears to be the percentage play ... by getting behind the skirts of the recommendations from those two establishment idiots who brought the country this mess

hopefully, if congress agrees to parade the bailout pig in a new dress and bonnet, lipsticked up of course, when the economy tanks before election day, the public will be able to work their electoral vengeance on the dems, who've cravenly gone belly-up from their position of strength

the republicans must be astounded by the cowardice and stupidity of the dems, and how easy it was to roll them

Posted by: jim | October 1, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

While listening to the Rush show this afternoon there were several callers. The first caller was from Northern Michigan. He told Rush that he called 5 different banks near him and asked to speak with the bank manager. He then asked the bank manager if it is possible to get a house mortgage. Each bank said "YES" providing he put 20% down and could cover the bank fees. The next caller told Rush that he lives in Florida. Yesterday he got an $8,000 loan for a new air conditioner at 6.25% for 4 yrs. with no money down. A caller from Virginia said he got a $30,000 unsecured loan with a bank that knows him and has given him loans before (all previous loans had been paid back). Another caller from Florida said his mortgage lender has money to lend. the lender actually spoke with Rush. She said her phones are dead and she has a $1,000,000 quota for each month. Upon further questioning Rush asked her if she owns the motgage and she replied no, Fannie Mae would. Credit crunch...hmm..not it appears for "qualified" applicants. Business as usual with Fannie Mae??? The Senate passed bill has PORK. Not on my watch says House of Representatives--that would be a good newspaper headline...

Posted by: realitycheck | October 2, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Did I miss reading/hearing about this in the news:

On the FHA Mortgage website (interesting articles):

"President Bush Not Fighting Housing Bill

"President Bush has been a long standing opposing figure against the housing bill that’s currently working its way through Congress. His reasoning here is sound: there are too many piggyback conditions being added to the bill, which is often the case with any legislation today. Yet, today, he announced that he would no longer fight this bill’s passage. In other words, he has put the VETO stamp down, at least for now.

The housing bill has merit: give homeowners who are struggling to keep up with their mortgages the ability to find new loans, with lower interest rates and payments, so they can get back on their feet. These new loans would come from federal programs. The housing bill would also provide support to the struggling mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These organizations are in dire need of additional funding and a cash infusion.

President Bush’s problem with the housing bill is noteworthy. There is an estimated $3.9 billion worth of provisions that would be aimed at providing lenders with additional financial support (that is not homeowners, but lenders) which Bush did not agree with.

In a telephone conference call with reporters today, the White House’s Press Secretary Dana Perino made this statement, as quoted by the Associated Press. “We believe this is not the time for a prolonged veto fight but we are confident the President would prevail in one.” Then, added, “The positive aspects of the bill are needed now to increase confidence and stability in the housing and financial markets. While we have concerns with other aspects of the bill, it is important that the new authorities are put in place promptly. And so President Bush will accept Secretary Paulson’s recommendations to sign the bill.”

So, what does this mean to those who are struggling with the current foreclosure market? If and when the bill passes through Congress and President Bush signs it into effect, it could mean additional protections and more loans available to keep homeowners out of the financial stresses they are currently in. The housing bill is designed to pump more opportunities into the system.

For those who are currently struggling with home loan, it also is important to get help as soon as possible. Do not wait for this bill to go into effect. Instead, seek out the help of an FHA loan specialist to offer you solutions. FHA loans are also readily available to those who need a new home loan."

Posted by: realitycheck | October 2, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: realitycheck | October 2, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Bush/Cheney called 800 Battalions to harass Remaining House Members to Vote for Bailout Tomorrow!!

Just heard this - hot off the press at 9:30pm, Thursday night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will Bush/Cheney start WW III over this? We know they have been itching to start a war to counter/cancel November's elections so they can stay in power for the past year. Is this it?

The House members whom voted against are those who represent poor and low income areas throughout the country and areas that do not benefit from bailout. They are enough in numbers to make a difference in Monday's voting. Let's keep supporting them!!!

Pass this around to others so they know they have and are supported by the public!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

And the bill has pork in it. I thought we were in a financial crisis--why the add ons?
It totally distracts from the essence and purpose of the bill. I would not be surprised if the House had trouble with the bill. There should be something better.

Posted by: realitycheck | October 3, 2008 6:32 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company