|
What amazing to me is how duplicitous both sides are. The house republicans want no part of this because 80+% of their constituencies are for it. If you were elected by a community that is 80% against something, and vote for it, are you really reflecting the "will of the people"? It seems to me that a majority of the people are against it because of the size and all the "extras" thrown in.
Why not just do a bill for the $100-250 billion (dep on who you believe) that's needed now for the banking issue and pass that as a straight treasury loan (most likely payed back in 4-5 years). Then, people can debate the content and payout of the other $600 billion later. It seems that both sides know it has to be done and are trying to get as much political gain from the bill while also hoping for "the cover" of bipartisan support.
Interesting enough, sometimes the majority just has to stomach a bad pill for the good of the country. The republicans did it in the mid 90s and early 2000s, now it seems that is the democrats turn to do so. Welcome to the responsibility of being the majority.
As an aside, I'm finding myself hoping more and more for Obama to win the election simply for the fact that the media and political factions will start talking more positive about the country afterwords. For the past 18 months, the US has been beaten like a rented mule on nearly every aspect by the press (foreign policy, economics, you name it). If Obama is president, we'll have 9-12 months of the "new camelot" with a ton of uplifting stories. If McCain is president, it will be another year of negative beat downs. I don't know that the country can withstand that.
|