I know that many of us were deeply disappointed when the U.S. House of Representatives today failed to pass Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s emergency stabilization plan. We believe that the defeat of this plan is not only bad for the markets and for our firm - but a dangerous course for the country with negative consequences for people far from Wall Street.

Indeed, following the vote today, the financial markets sent Congress a loud and clear message about the consequences of Congress’s failure to respond to the financial crisis at hand - sending the Dow down more than 700 points. In the aftermath of the vote and the market’s reaction, the leaders of both parties have vowed to regroup and consider how they can bring the financial market rescue package back to the floor of the House for successful reconsideration.

We believe it is critical that members of Congress hear about the importance of passing a plan this week.

If you share this view, I encourage you to call your Congressman and Senator at (202) 224-3121 and let them know how important this plan is for the American economy.

Translation: “We fucked up and now you need to bail us out or it’ll hurt you too. We promise.”

The individual who released this received 13.33 times his salary as his bonus in 2006 and after all other forms of compensation are calculated in: over 20 times. Much of that was stock. My guess is a bailout by the taxpayers would significantly impact his bank account. I think it’s safe to say that likely has a significant impact on his opinion. I’m not seeing any hesitation, no condemnation of the CRA, no concern for artificially low interest rates, moral hazards or the Federal Reserve System.

If the company he works for can’t keep itself afloat without interference by the government it deserves to fail.

Bias and political points aside, the NYTimes presents a nice breakdown of the Republican (red) and Democrat (blue) votes against the bailout bill.  Those voting for the bill are represented in gray.  Not shown in the screenshot I grabbed is the entire listing of those voting No, their states, districts, party affiliation and margin of election victory.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

H R 3997 RECORDED VOTE 29-Sep-2008 2:07 PM
QUESTION: On Concurring in Senate Amendment With An Amendment
BILL TITLE: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes

http://www.breitbart.com/…

The US Senate Saturday approved 25 billion dollars in loan guarantees for the financially strapped US auto industry, intended to spark a wave of automotive innovation.

The loan guarantees were included in a continuing resolution that included funding for the US government and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

President George W. Bush has indicated that he intends to sign the bill.

“We’re very pleased Congress has chosen to act at this critical time,” said Greg Martin, director of communications for General Motors Corp’s Washington office.

GM had been subject of much speculation that it could be forced into bankruptcy.

The bill, which was approved by the House of Representatives on Wednesday, are the first loan guarantees for US carmakers since Congress approved a similar 675 million dollar measure for Chrysler Corp. in 1980.

Chrysler Chairman Robert Nardelli, however, said this week the loan guarantees should not be considered a rescue package for struggling carmakers. “This is not a bailout,” he said.

Under provisions of the new legislation, not only US carmakers are eligible for the guarantees but also suppliers and foreign automakers with plants in the United States that are more than 20 years old — Nissan and Honda’s US operations qualify.

Not a bailout?

Bailout in economics and finance is a term used to describe a situation where a bankrupt or nearly bankrupt entity, such as a corporation or a bank, is given a fresh injection of liquidity, in order to meet its short term obligations. Often bailouts are by governments, or by consortia of investors who demand control over the entity as the price for injecting funds.

Obviously Mr. Robert Nardelli and I have different definitions of ‘bailout.’

How about we let them burn just like the banks? The unions want to complain about it? Let’em! They have brought this on themselves by using the guns of government to minipulate and regulate the auto industry out of competitiveness. Though luck.

firstdraft.pdf

http://money.cnn.com/…

Among the provisions of the draft bill:

• The $700 billion would be disbursed in stages, with $250 billion made available immediately for the Treasury’s use.

• Curbs will be placed on the compensation of executives at companies that sell mortgage assets to Treasury. Among them, the bill would limit golden parachutes to executives at companies that participate; they will not be able to deduct the salary they pay to executives above $500,000.

• An oversight board will be created. The board will include the Federal Reserve chairman, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, the Federal Home Finance Agency director and the Housing and Urban Development secretary.

• Treasury is allowed the option to take ownership stakes in participating companies under certain circumstances.

• Treasury may establish an insurance program - with risk-based premiums paid by the industry - to guarantee companies’ troubled assets, including mortgage-backed securities, purchased before March 18, 2008.

I’m going to look through it tonight. See what they have snuck in. Some at DailyPaul.com have taken chunks of the bill to scan it quicker.

UPDATE from LewRockwell.com/blog:

New debt limit: $11,315,000,000,000.

That’s $38,000 per capita.

Update: Michael Hall writes:

Section 128 changes effective date from Oct 1 2011 to Oct 1 2008 for this section of current law:

SEC. 202. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO ESTABLISH RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.
Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)(A)) is amended–
(1) in clause (i), by striking `the ratio of 3 per centum’ and inserting `a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)’; and

(2) in clause (ii), by striking `and not less than 8 per centum,’ and inserting `(and which may be zero),’.

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XIV > § 461
Amendment of Subsections (b) and (c)
Pub. L. 109–351, title II, §§ 201–203, Oct. 13, 2006, §§ 201–203, 120 Stat. 1968, provided that, effective Oct. 1, 2011, this section is amended— (1) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by striking “the ratio of 3 per centum” and inserting “a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)” in clause (i) and by striking “and not less than 8 per centum,” and inserting “(and which may be zero),” in clause (ii); (2) in subsection (b)

This will allow banks to hold zero reserves if the fed says so.

http://www.voterbomb.com/…

In case you can’t read what the snip says, it says:

With polls showing the public opposes the administration’s plan by a wide margin, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to make sure that the measure has bipartisan support.

If the public opposes the plan, and she is Speaker of the House, if she were actually doing her job - instead of pandering to Wall Street - shouldn’t she want to make sure that the bill doesn’t pass? The bill could pass strictly on the votes of the Democratic majority, but Pelosi wants to make sure that the Democrats aren’t made the scapegoats for the bill’s passage.

What kind of an opposition party is this?

Democrats were swept to power in 2006 in the hopes that they would 1) end the war and 2) start impeachment proceedings on this criminal administration. They did neither.

On November 4th, it is time to clean house and vote every incumbent Congressperson out of office. We have five weeks to spread the word: If in doubt, vote them out!