More News

Predictably, the media gave congressional Republicans the full discredit for the $700 billion bailout plan's 228-205 defeat on Monday. But the voting patterns show a different story. A once-in-a-lifetime, unholy and inadvertent coalition of disparate congressional voting blocs sank the measure.

First, a bipartisan combination of conservative Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats balked at such a risky and expensive taxpayer-financed free market intervention.

Second, 78 percent of the 41 incumbents in tight re-election contests voted "no," responding to angry constituent e-mails. Political self-preservation knows no party lines: 17 of the "no" votes were Republicans, 15 were Democrats. Lesson: Don't propose sweeping, highly controversial legislation five weeks before a national election.

Third, the Congressional Black Caucus broke ranks with the Democratic House leadership and overwhelmingly voted against bailing out white, wealthy Wall Street.

House Democratic leaders, in one of those inexplicable Capitol Hill double standards, excoriated the Republicans but excused the Black Caucus because its members were casting "a vote of conscience."

Maryland's Congressional delegation offers a good example of what happened. The four white Democratic liberals (Hoyer, Van Hollen, Sarbanes and Ruppersberger) all voted "yes." Meanwhile, "no" votes were cast by Roscoe Bartlett, the Western Maryland conservative Republican, and by Maryland's two liberal Democratic blacks, Elijah Cummings (Baltimore City) and Donna Edwards (Prince George's and part of Montgomery). This has to be the first and last time in history that the 4th, 6th and 7th districts band together against the rest of Maryland's congressional delegation.

Missing from Maryland's voting pattern was a "no" vote by a closely contested incumbent. Wayne Gilchrest, the Eastern Store moderate Republican, might have played that role, but he was defeated in the primary, so he voted "yes." Likewise, in a fit of lame duck spite, he's backing Obama for president.

Congressman Bartlett and congresspersons Cummings and Edwards voted "no" together, but for completely different reasons. Bartlett, a free market conservative, wants to let the financial institutions solve their problems by themselves. In his view, the extent of permissible government intervention is taking the current $100,000 ceiling off FDIC deposit insurance and making it unlimited.

Meanwhile, Cummings and Edwards want to bypass Wall Street and spend the $700 billion directly on home foreclosure aid, unemployment payments, food stamps, home heating assistance and Medicaid. It's no coincidence that, together, Cummings' and Edwards' districts contain 58 percent of the state's recent home foreclosures. But neither their plan nor Bartlett's has a prayer of becoming law. Nor is doing nothing an option. Without a comprehensive approach, the government is left limping along, dealing with one bank failure after another.

Our financial system runs on credit and confidence. People must borrow money to make money. But banks won't lend to businesses and depositors won't lend to banks (or governments) without the reasonable expectation of being repaid, with interest. When that confidence disappears, so does our economy. The bailout stabilizes lenders and investors by having the government take $700 billion of devalued mortgage-backed securities off the balance sheets. In other words, in order to jump-start the nation's financial system, Uncle Sam becomes this toxic paper's buyer of last resort.

Maybe this is a bad idea. Maybe Roosevelt's New Deal was, too. But what's the alternative? Or put it this way: Isn't it wiser and cheaper to try something before, instead of after, the train wreck? How much would our parents and grandparents have paid to avoid the 1930s Great Depression and its aftermath, World War II?

Apparently, public opinion against the bailout is shifting somewhat: 45 percent now support it, while 44 percent say do nothing. Meanwhile, a revised $700 billion bailout bill passed the Senate on Wednesday night and heads to the House.

Senate passage was less difficult, because only one-third of that body is up for re-election, as opposed to all 435 House members, so only three senators in tight re-elections felt compelled to vote "no." Also, the Senate's Black Caucus is a group of one, Barack Obama, and he's now playing to a national constituency.

To gain House passage, the Senate's bill is loaded with billions and billions of new tax cuts and new spending to win the votes of naysayers like Bartlett, Cummings and Edwards. It will probably work at the expense of ballooning, even further, our national debt and national interest payment. Yes, folks, we're addressing the national crisis brought on by fiscal recklessness by being even more reckless. God help us.

Blair Lee is CEO of the Lee Development Group in Silver Spring.