The stump speeches resounded with pledges to reach across the aisle; do the right thing, not the politically expedient thing; and save Main Street by saving Wall Street. And, in the end on Monday, September 29, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 228 to 205 to nix the bill that would have spotted $700 billion to shore up the credit market.
The arguments sway on either side. What happens when seven tenths of a trillion dollars doesn’t do the trick? We’re out to the tune of $2,250 for every man, woman, and child in the country and still going down the tubes. On the other side, some are saying that investment is the equivalent of one year of a 3 percent recession. Do you want to yank that bad tooth out all at once, or suffer a year-long (maybe longer) wave of layoffs, foreclosures, and probably inflation? (Remember when $100 a barrel for oil was outrageous? Well, now it’s a reason for celebration … all in less than a year.)
Anyway, with a fairly balanced tug of war—with resistance to the bill coming from both parties, and reasoning varying from belief that the federal government should take a laissez faire attitude toward the private sector to a fear of giving the Bush Administration too much power in administering that huge coffer of money—it seemed like a slight majority of representatives in the House were looking beyond the American people to November 4. Perhaps this is a natural reaction, given the widespread nervousness about so many things, and so many seats at risk this election cycle. But is it right?
And wait. Only a few days later, a slightly different bill faced a wholly changed attitude. Many who were against were now for, and vice versa. The difference? Try a record plummet in the stock market, tied almost to the minute to the news that the credit-market-support (aka, Wall Street-bailout) legislation failed to pass. The public sentiment swayed, and, lo and behold, so did the outlook on Capitol Hill. Are we to reward leadership at the polls, or followership?
In the meantime, the advice from the majority of the pundits and economists: Bear the pain, it will pass, eventually. Above all, don’t panic. If you’re five years or more from retirement, don’t even look at your portfolio right now. (And, yet, with the first wave of Boomers only two years from 65, that advice may seem a little thin. There are a lot of people who thought they were ready to retire and are now facing a more-than-persuasive argument from their 401k accounts that they are not.)
Do you know how your congressional representative voted on the 29th? Here, take a look.
The bottom line: it doesn’t matter if your congressional representative’s actions make you happy, sad, or even mad, it is incumbent on you to educate yourself on his or her record. (Use the AIA congressional issues tool for more details on that.)
Don’t forget that every one of them is up for re-election. Your vote matters. Be sure to exercise your right; your responsibility.
Comments (9)
Bad business policy and practice is often backed up by bad governance and bad government policy. It is a marriage of interests.
It is difficult to believe that no one did the relatively simple mathematics related to the consequences of exploding loans given to people without the resources to actualize the consequences of accelerated adjusting rates and the consequent
increased obligation at point of payment.
Thus engeneered to generate statistically certain defaults on mortgage loans, did any of these Ivy League educated wall street geniuses, simply do the associated due diligence of computing the scale of the massive risk, uncertainty and economic impacts?
They shot a hole in the hull of our collective boat with the cannons of stupidity. What choice is there ultimately but to bail the mess out as this is our only boat!
Posted by Terry L. Walker, AIA | October 17, 2008 3:56 PM
Posted on October 17, 2008 15:56
The bail out was another example of big government backing up big business. Why should anyone bail out these companies? If I don't pay my loan payments or mortgage do you know what happens. I get my items repossessed. Then my credit goes down the drain and will take years to rebuild. It is inconcievable how this is being allowed. Moreover, how will I ever be able to trust a bank again. They can't even control there own money. Plus, they knew when they were issuing these loans through the dirty and swindling realtors that after a few years the people who recieved the loans would not be able to make the outrageous increases in their monthly payments. I say shame on the government and shame on the banks for using the American public to gorge their already overflowing pockets. In the end if I am expected to control my budget, save as much as possible, and spend on items only when needed then I expect my government to do the same. I think it is time for real Americans to take the helm in DC and start making some change. If not we are going to be in this situation over and over again.
Posted by Josh Buono | October 6, 2008 3:04 PM
Posted on October 6, 2008 15:04
Mr. Adams,
Say no more...I surrender, lest I be decreed to be destined to be disappointed untill eternity! Oh, does that mean the same thing as "I'm wrong"?
Guess I didn't use eloquent enough language for you to understand...at any rate, seems you just didn't get it.
No, the general voting public doesn't vote on how that is handled, the Senators and Congressmen do. What I thought I said was "Attaching unrelated amendments to legislative bills for the sole purpose of bribing votes out of Senators & Congressmen should not be allowed". These "leaches" or so called "Amendments" are perpetrated by the legislators and attached to the main bill to bribe certain Senators and Congressmen to vote yes for the main bill. I was simply saying that should not be allowed by law. I understand it is, but it shouldn't be.
In regard to my comment about adding a "leach" to the bill for the architectural profession, I apologize for trying to be something I don't even know how to spell...(facetious)...had to look it up.
Posted by Jim McKenzie | October 4, 2008 12:34 AM
Posted on October 4, 2008 00:34
Mr. Gordon, I am unsure as to what your “very point” might actually be. If you feel “[t]his should not be a matter of politics,” (emphasis added) you may be destined to remain disappointed. [The issue of so called “climate change” should not be politicized either but, thanks to Al Gore and a host of willing accomplices, political science has taken on a whole new meaning.] If you seek “economic insight,” then follow the money (in both cases). The architect’s plight in the present economic climate is not so different from a great number of people across the country if not across the globe. Can you suggest a group of “knowledgeable professionals” qualified to debate the “best economic approach?” What exact matters should architects take to the polls?
Mr. McKenzie opines that “[e]ach piece of legislation should (emphasis added) be passed or voted down on its own strength alone.” Voters don’t get to vote on how this is handled. You too may be destined to remain disappointed Do you really wish for architects to be added to the list along with uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers . . . or is this just hyperbole? My suggestion related to professional architectural interest and not architectural “professional” interest. I am unsure how your conclusion follows from the rest of your blog. Merely because a professional is interested in something does not make it a matter of professional interest.
Posted by Michael Adams | October 3, 2008 3:10 PM
Posted on October 3, 2008 15:10
clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml
House Roll Call Vote #681
Posted by Shawn Emmons | October 3, 2008 1:48 PM
Posted on October 3, 2008 13:48
Can anyone tell me why this vote is entitled:
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."
This appears to be a vote on yet another "ammendment" to the original bill which was introduced by someone trying to sneak it through by tying it to the tail of the main issue, when it has absolutely nothing to do with the main issue. The part I think is particularly exemplary of the tactic is "and for other purposes".
Wow!!!...what has the system come to? Attaching unrelated amendments to legislative bills for the sole purpose of bribing votes out of Senators & Congressmen should not be allowed. Each piece of legislation should be passed or voted down on its own strength alone.
But if this is the way the system must work, how about coercing our Senators to attach another leach (OOPS - "Amendment") to the tail of this monster to the effect of:
"To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide certain tax relief and exemptions, tax credits (to be determined), and other stimulus and incentives, and other purposes to be determined, to members of the architectural profession.
So you see Mr. Adams, this is a matter of architectural "professional" interest...
Posted by Jim McKenzie | October 3, 2008 12:20 PM
Posted on October 3, 2008 12:20
Ah, my very point, Mr. Adams. This should not be a matter of politics but one of economic insight. If credit remains so tight that construction projects become impossible, then the design professions and construction industry will suffer, as we saw circa 1990. Therefore, this is a matter architects should take both to heart and to the polls. The specifics of what might be the best economic approach is currently a subject ripe for open debate among knowledgeable professionals.
Posted by Doug Gordon | October 3, 2008 11:59 AM
Posted on October 3, 2008 11:59
The answer to the rhetorical headline is "No, of course not." No one should find this surprising.
That said, I would like to suggest that those in control of this "Archiblog" return to topics of professional architectural interest. Political screeds belong elsewhere - not on an AIA sponsored website.
Posted by Michael Adams | October 3, 2008 11:46 AM
Posted on October 3, 2008 11:46
I am proud my representative (Virginia's 6th congressional district) voted NO.
A statement from his website:
GOODLATTE STATEMENT FOLLOWING HOUSE VOTE ON FINANCIAL MARKETS STABILIZATION BILL
"This legislation, which I voted against, represents the largest corporate bailout in American history. It takes $700 billion dollars of taxpayers’ hard-earned money and hands it over to the very companies that made the bad decisions which led us into this mess in the first place. I have consulted with many economic experts, bankers, as well as small and large businesses, workers and citizens of the 6th District to come to this decision.
I believe that there are other ways to help stabilize the economy. For example, I would support legislation that addresses the problems of Wall Street while at the same time protecting those on Main Street. I am supportive of initiatives to require the Treasury Department to insure mortgage-backed securities, funding the measure through premiums provided by the industry, rather than on the backs of taxpayers. In addition, we must eliminate the government-imposed mark-to-market accounting regulations that artificially devalue assets in times of market instability such as this. These are just two examples of how this legislation could be improved.
Congress must stay in session until we reach an agreement which addresses the instability in our financial markets while protecting the American taxpayers. I remain committed to working with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to address our current financial crisis.”
www.house.gov/goodlatte/
Posted by Shawn Emmons | October 3, 2008 9:58 AM
Posted on October 3, 2008 09:58