up against the wall motherfuckers

[topaz]

Earlier today, agaran posted a very thoughtful question about the Wall Street bailout bill: if the underlying cause of this crisis can be traced to bad mortgages, then why isn't anyone taking this as an opportunity to straighten out the actual mortgages and provide homeowners with a path to getting back to solvency?

I took a bit of a devil's advocate position: that even though those things should happen, the goal of the current bill is to keep the credit market functioning long enough for the dust to settle, until we know how many banks are left standing and can start to put the pieces back together.  If we are indeed on the brink of catastrophe, it doesn't make sense to hold up the rescue plan with negotiations over long-term fixes, no matter how sensible those fixes may be.  Only after we've achieved short-term stability should we even think about the long term.

I was feeling pretty smart about that answer.  Then I got this from another friend on a mailing list I'm on:

OK, now I support the bailout bill. They are finally meeting my needs.  Check it out.

 From <http://marketplace.publicradio.org/pdf/senatebillAYO08C32_xml.pdf>

Page 300 of the Senate's version of the bailout bill:

SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 4161(b) is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub-paragraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph:

(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROW SHAFTS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means of enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold separately or incorporated as part of a finished or unfinished product) of a type used in the manufacture of any arrow which after its assembly
"(i) measures 5⁄16 of an inch or less in diameter, and
"(ii) is not suitable for use with a bow described in paragraph (1)(A)."

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to shafts first sold after the date of enactment of this Act.

My official opinion on the subject of the bailout is now JESUS FUCK YOU GODDAMN FUCKING MORONS GET YOUR FUCKING ASSES BACK IN YOUR FUCKING CHAIRS AND IF YOU COME OUT OF THERE WITHOUT FIXING EVERY SINGLE FUCKING SUBPRIME MORTGAGE I WILL PERSONALLY COME OVER THERE AND SO HELP ME GOD I WILL SHOVE THE FANNIE MAE FY2008 BUDGET UP YOUR FUCKING ASS

Comments

[rwx.livejournal.com]

my theory is someone has offered up their vote for that. otherwise, it would just be too random.

[qnetter]

That's one possibility.

There's another even weirder technical possibility.

Money bills have to originate in the House.

In order for a bill that involves allocation of funds to originate in the Senate so the Senate can vote on it first -- since this has to be a new bill -- they have to take a non-money bill already assigned a number and insert the bailout into it...

[jacflash.livejournal.com]

I think that's exactly what happened.

[jacflash.livejournal.com]

Having had a cup of coffee, let me clarify: Sometime in the last 48 hours, I heard a report on NPR that said that that's exactly what happened. They stuck the bailout into an odds-and-ends bill that happened to be active in the Senate. They did lard it up with a few things -- the AMT provision, for instance -- but the Boy Scout Archery Act or whatever the hell this is was already in the old bill.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I would really like to believe that, but I'm skeptical. It looks like this is not the only pork in the bill (http://tbm.thebigmoney.com/articles/juicy-bits/2008/10/01/bailout-baloney) by a long shot. Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aKd0vyGN8L2k&refer=us) seems to think that these provisions were added specifically to buy votes on the bill, and a quote from Boehner's office suggests that they're right:

"Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, said the inclusion of the tax breaks 'will increase the appeal of the package for our members.'"

I'll look to see if I can find what bill the Senate bill was attached to because now I'm curious.

[dbang.livejournal.com]

Well, if it was attached to a pork laden original bill, then you'll have all the original pork PLUS the bailout (and any pork that added to lube up the bailout to ease the insertion into the public rear).

What's somewhat telling is that, had the bailout situation not happened, the pork-laden bill would have passed quietly through the senate without comment from the masses and media, eh? Which is business as usual up there on the hill.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

What's somewhat telling is that, had the bailout situation not happened, the pork-laden bill would have passed quietly through the senate without comment from the masses and media, eh? Which is business as usual up there on the hill.

No argument here. But I think the chief argument against agaran's suggestion (that we should push for the bill to include provisions for fixing the underlying problem of bad mortgages) is that the bill is too urgent to risk delaying it with additional measures.

If the Senate really feels that it's not more urgent than tax relief for NASCAR drivers and toy manufacturers and candlestick inspectors, then I daresay we can afford to put some real relief provisions in there.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

I don't think that fixing the AMT counts a pork. The problem with the AMT is a big one and it's hitting people it absolutely shouldn't. Most especially it's hitting sole proprietorships - small businesses that aren't incorporated or partnerships. These are taxed as personal income to the owner. If you have a decent cash flow then Boom! you're subject to AMT. One could create a partnership or corp, but that takes time and money, gumming up the engine that is our small business culture.

It's such a problem that even though I'd rather it be its own bill, I don't object too mightily to it being in the bailout bill.

[jacflash.livejournal.com]

The fact that we might like a provision doesn't mean that a) it wasn't added to draw votes for the main provisions in the bill or b) that it's relevant to or even a plus for the bill's larger goals.

It will cost money, it's addressed at a special interest group, and the bill includes no mechanism to fund it. That's kind of a textbook definition of "pork", even if we find it tasty. (Mmm, bacon.)

BTW, I've been in the AMT morass since 2000, so no need to convince me of the problem.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

You consider the AMT fix to be addressed to a special interest group?!? Which interest group?