about the power of lobbyists that the bail out is even being considered.

The Sideshow

You don't even talk about "limiting" CEO salaries and compensations, you talk about firing and heavily fining every single person at any level of management responsibility and investigating them for fraud. You don't talk about giving Paulson any kind of authority, you talk about impeaching any government official who played any role in facilitating any of this mess. You don't even talk about saving "the firms", you talk about nationalizing or dissolving them with all assets going back into the US Treasury. (I'll throw in a return to the 90% top marginal rate, too. Like I say, it's the absence of sufficiently confiscatory taxes that helped get us into this mess.)

You don't discuss new regulations, you talk about restoring every restriction they've been removing since Reagan entered office.

You talk like the plans offered by people like James K. Galbraith & William K. Black and Bernie Sanders and Nouriel Roubini are tepid half-measures that simply do not go far enough.

Anything Paulson and the White House and the Republicans and Blue Dogs offer should be treated with all-out derision, and conservatives should be told in no uncertain terms that there is no negotiating table for handing a bunch of irresponsible Malefactors of Great Wealth even more of our money to play with until they finally figure out how to make an offer that's not so laughable.

that the Bushies even tried to get this outrageous crap passed in the first place, especially with the no oversight clause.

Of course, with their successful track record of getting what they want, maybe not so incredible. I dare not hope that the dems will finally stop the juggernaut.

Paulson would look good in orange, too.

...that does need to be addressed. The Paulson plan was a typical Bush response - entirely unacceptable, on purpose, probably...

Krugman from yesterday's editorial:

Many people on both the right and the left are outraged at the idea of using taxpayer money to bail out America’s financial system. They’re right to be outraged, but doing nothing isn’t a serious option. Right now, players throughout the system are refusing to lend and hoarding cash — and this collapse of credit reminds many economists of the run on the banks that brought on the Great Depression.

But I completely agree with Avedon; hers should have been the response by Democrats.

On the other hand, I will say that I think the Democratic response was better than it's been in prior situations - as if they are jeeeeeest beginning to understand the whys and wherefores of those with whom they are dealing - rightwing Republicans always put self and politics above country, because they operate from that assumption that they are the only true Americans.

My question: what do we want to be telling Democrats in those calls.

The temptation I feel, like John Cole suggests, is "Walk Away." But I'm troubled by the possibility that Krugman is right. Something needs to be done, but the real problem is that Democrats did jump into a trap, (Hellooooo Barney Franks), by playing on the field layed out by Paulson's plan, and responding to the crisis framing by accepting the notion of a deal by Friday. They could have and should have said that what we are facing is profoundly serious, and therefore, they are prepared to stay in Washington until a solution is found that makes sense for the country, all of it, not just Wall Street.

My suggestion for a possible message - and the one I gave this morning when I called - got through BTW, but I always call very early - Yes, we are facing something serious in the credit markets that needs addressing - commit to stay in Washington next week and approaching this not in a spirit of hurry and crisis, but in a true spirit of transperancy - hold hearings starting on Monday where we hear from Ecnonmists across the spectrum about other ways to confront this crisis. Slow down the process, but keep markets from collapsing by signally the serious commitment on the part of the government to find the correct answer.

I also lauded the notion of not releasing the money all at once, and maintaining the right to rescind the authorization if it doesn't seem to be working as expected. I also put in a good word for the HOLC.

Use the fact of Sen Shelby waving those pages with the signature of 200 economists.

I emphasized - don't play the fools, don't take ownership of a deeply unpopular bailout that might not even work.

I don't understand why the Democrats don't simply roll out HOLC and other Depression-era ideas and frame them as having been what FDR, a DEMOCRAT, did to restore the financial sector and help the American people after the REPUBLICANS ruined it. Use history to show that Democrats know how to do this and that we don't have to re-invent the wheel.

Of course, that won't make all those Wall Street donors happy.

But cooler and calmer heads must prevail. I'm not as nervous as I was on Monday. It's gotten people's attention, for sure, and everyone should be doing as much as they can to safeguard what they have. I'm afraid we're going to have to trust Congress to do what's best. Scary, I know, because their track record sucks.

My husband looked into savings bonds the other day. Did you know that the limit you can purchase has been changed from $30,000 to $5,000/year (the limit applies separately to Series EE and Series I savings bonds, and separately to bonds issued in paper or electronic form.) This change took effect Jan. 1, 2008. The reasoning:

The reduction from the $30,000 annual limit in effect for both series since 2003 was made to refocus the savings bond program on its original purpose of making these non-marketable Treasury securities available to individuals with relatively small sums to invest. Approximately 98 percent of all annual purchases of savings bonds by individuals are for $5,000 or less. The minimum purchase price for Series EE bonds is $25, whether purchased electronically or in paper form; the I bond minimum purchase is $25 for bonds issued in electronic form and $50 for those in paper form.

Interesting. Looking out for the little guy. Uh huh.

I love this job!

I love this job!

Charlie Rangel?

I beg to differ.

(And I'm no fan of term limits, either. I understand why people think that they're a good idea, but it's the wrong solution to the problem as far as I can see.)

investigation.

Someone's out to get him--just not sure who. Start with Repubs? Someone commented at another time that the R's don't usually use the NYTimes as their launching pad. But if Roger Stone is involved, maybe it would go that way. Or, start with Dems to hobble him as chairman of Ways and Means?

Strange.

right now - it would just be an excuse to redredge the charges in the media.

In my more conspiracy-theory why-now moments, I begin to suspect that's the whole point - to silence him, for the nonce.