Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

Bailout fails: How Michigan reps voted

By Todd Spencer | 09.29.08 | 3:46 pm

The servers for the official Web site of the U.S. House of Representatives are melting down with traffic, so props to Michigan Liberal for getting the results of the bailout roll call vote from the Michigan delegation.

In summation, six voted yes, nine voted no, with Democrats and Republicans on both sides.

Among the “no” voters, were conservative Republicans like Thaddeus McCotter and Peter Hoekstra and liberal Democrats like Bart Stupak and John Conyers.

Constituents of reps such as Stupak and Conyers on the left were unhappy with the bailout because it smelled of massive corporate welfare at the expense of the little guy (taxpayers) and did nothing to assist the victims of sub-prime mortgages, many in danger of losing their homes.

On the right, free market fundamentalists like McCotter stood by their mantra of “free market uber alles” and voted against the bailout because it smacked of government interference or, worse, some kind of socialism.

And of course, the only totally predicable vote was from Republican Dave “rubber stamp” Camp, who naturally sided with the President and voted in the affirmative.

There are also reports that offer another explanation for the defeat of the package: That a partisan speech just prior to the roll call by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi spanking Republicans for deregulation that lead to the crisis stirred those Republicans to vote “no” out of spite.

Comments

  • chetlyzarko

    While Pelosi's speech was offensive and partisan and the wrong spirit for someone trying to build a coalition, there was much truly moderate and conservative opposition to this based not on your “free market uber alles” mentality, but on the idea that you attribute to Supak and Conyers. That is, there appears to be bi-partisan consensus here that this was “corporate welfare” as well as welfare to certain the liberal alliances (the inclusion of money for ACORN, if a true report, is truly offensive).

    As a conservative, I oppose all “corporate welfare”. Period. That doesn't mean I oppose properly and carefully constructed sub-contracting of work from the government to corporations, but the types of largesse that politicians from both parties have participated in to pay back corporate donors is disgusting. And I'm sure that many of these reps, as I could, could support some kind of bailout if it wasn't filled with goodies.

    This is a complicated issue – more complicated than you (appear to) or the media will give it credit for being since that is not sensational enough or fit within the “script” the advocacy media wants to write. I think both sides are right and wrong on this one, for different reasons.

  • Rayne1

    Via the International Business Times, here's the full text of the speech that Rep. John Boehner blamed for the failure of the vote on the bailout today, including the additional text which the Chicago Tribute says appeared in the rendered version of the speech versus the printed version offered before the speech was delivered on the floor of the House:

    Madame Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion?

    It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration's failed economic policies-policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.

    Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.

    That chaos is the dismal picture painted by Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke a week and a half ago in the Capitol. As they pointed out, we confront a crisis of historic magnitude that has the ability to do serious injury not simply to our economy, but to the American people: not just to Wall Street, but to everyday Americans on Main Street.

    It is our responsibility today, to help avert that catastrophic outcome.

    Let us be clear: This is a crisis caused on Wall Street. But it is a crisis that reaches to Main Street in every city and town of the United States.

    It is a crisis that freezes credit, causes families to lose their homes, cripples small businesses, and makes it harder to find jobs.

    It is a crisis that never had to happen. It is now the duty of every Member of this body to recognize that the failure to act responsibly, with full protections for the American taxpayer, would compound the damage already done to the financial security of millions of American families.

    Over the past several days, we have worked with our Republican colleagues to fashion an alternative to the original plan of the Bush Administration.

    I must recognize the outstanding leadership provided by Chairman Barney Frank, whose enormous intellectual and strategic abilities have never before been so urgently needed, or so widely admired.

    I also want to recognize Rahm Emanuel, who combined his deep knowledge of financial institutions with his pragmatic policy experience, to resolve key disagreements.

    Secretary Paulson deserves credit for working day and night to help reach an agreement and for his flexibility in negotiating changes to his original proposal.

    Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street.

    The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardize the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilization bill.

    So we insisted that this bill contain several key provisions:

    This legislation must contain independent and ongoing oversight to ensure that the recovery program is managed with full transparency and strict accountability.

    The legislation must do everything possible to allow as many people to stay in their homes rather than face foreclosure.

    The corporate CEOs whose companies will benefit from the public's participation in this recovery must not benefit by exorbitant salaries and golden parachute retirement bonuses.

    Our message to Wall Street is this: the party is over. The era of golden parachutes for high-flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will the U.S. taxpayer bailout the recklessness of Wall Street.

    The taxpayers who bear the risk in this recovery must share in the upside as the economy recovers.

    And should this program not pay for itself, the financial institutions that benefited, not the taxpayers, must bear responsibility for making up the difference.

    These were the Democratic demands to safeguard the American taxpayer, to help the economy recover, and to impose tough accountability as a central component of this recovery effort.

    This legislation is not the end of congressional activity on this crisis. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will continue to hold investigative and oversight hearings to find out how the crisis developed, where mistakes were made, and how the recovery must be managed to protect the middle class and the American taxpayer.

    With passage of this legislation today, we can begin the difficult job of turning our economy around, of helping those who depend on a growing economy and stable financial institutions for a secure retirement, for the education of their children, for jobs and small business credit.

    Today we must act for those Americans, for Main Street, and we must act now, with the bipartisan spirit of cooperation which allowed us to fashion this legislation.

    This not enough. We are also working to restore our nation's economic strength by passing a new economic recovery stimulus package- a robust, job creating bill-that will help Americans struggling with high prices, get our economy back on track, and renew the American Dream.

    Today, we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership that has left us left capable of meeting the challenges of the future.

    We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a New Direction to a better future.

    Addition to text in actual speech, according to the Chicago Tribune:

    “For too long this government, eight years, has followed a right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation.”

    If the shoe fits, wear it; I'd say that Republicans should be looking at members of their team like Thad McCotter, who failed to attend for two years any House Financial Services subcommittee meetings that provided oversight over key financial institutions before they can say this speech was inaccurate for its rather limited partisanship. (Frankly, I find the praise for Sec. Paulson unwarranted for someone who has so much personal vestment in this situation.) But there had to be a scapegoat to provide cover for the block of Republican Study Group members who voted as a block against the bailout; who better than Pelosi, after offering herself up as a target with her speech once it was clear after whip counts that the votes simply weren't there?

    Much of this debacle is based upon some pretty simple problems, like abdicated oversight; showing up and doing the job one is paid for is pretty uncomplicated.

    • chetlyzarko

      Some great analysis on Charlie Rose tonight, with a couple of analysts that appeared quite neutral (I only caught a few minutes so didn't get the names), but the best line I heard was an answer to the question of how to fix the issue long-term (since the discussion logically preceding it was the bailout and how its only a short-term cover). One interviewee suggested that the problem was both over-regulation and under-regulation in different sectors of the market (again, complicated and I didn't catch the distinction he drew before I picked it up) and the solution would be to tightly differentiate between which sectors needed regulation and which needed some streamlining of regulation.

      You can't put that into a neat philosophical box, and I don't have a neat philosophical box for corporate accountability because even as a free marketeer I don't philosophically oppose some regulation of corporations (not individuals or small businesses) because by its very definition the corporation receives special liability protections (which itself is interference) from government that smaller proprietorships don't enjoy. My pecking order of market protection starts with individuals and the consumer (half the market) and moves up from there.

      And if you want to critique McCotter for not showing up (which might be fair but I”d need to see more facts on that), lets apply that standard squarely to Barack O'Bama, whose current job is US Senator. On that note, McCain showed up (which probably harmed the process because his presence made it likely that the Dems would sabotage the process enough that McCain not get any political credit — a fact many Dem insiders acknowledge – although its not fair to criticize McCain for showing up because Pelosi could have chosen not to sabotage efforts) and Barack O'Bama didn't. Sure, the presidency is a “multi-tasking” position – but it is also one of commitment to doing the job you promise to do, and both candidates have elected to hold their JOBS while running. O'Bama should resign if he wants to “multi-task” – the people of Illinois aren't paying him to not prioritize his job over his candidacy. (even “multi-tasking” has some element of “triage” and “focus” to – you set priorities of order)

  • Kwaayesnama

    ARIZONA VOTED AGAINST MCCAIN

    I love the fact that John McCain blames the vote going against the bailout on Obama and Pelosi. But there is an interesting fact out there. ALL the representatives from Arizona voted against the bailout. It just shows how much the other reps from AZ respect McCain. If he can't get the Republicans from his home state to vote with him how is he going to get the rest of the nation to work with him? Maybe they are angry because while McCain brags that in 26 years he has never done anything for his home state. These good employees of their people are all working for the people of Arizona in DC, getting such things like EARMARKS for their communities.

    ARIZONA
    Democrats — Giffords, N; Grijalva, N; Mitchell, N; Pastor, N.
    Republicans — Flake, N; Franks, N; Renzi, N; Shadegg, N.

  • Kwaayesnama

    ARIZONA VOTED AGAINST MCCAIN

    I love the fact that John McCain blames the vote going against the bailout on Obama and Pelosi. But there is an interesting fact out there. ALL the representatives from Arizona voted against the bailout. It just shows how much the other reps from AZ respect McCain. If he can't get the Republicans from his home state to vote with him how is he going to get the rest of the nation to work with him? Maybe they are angry because while McCain brags that in 26 years he has never done anything for his home state. These good employees of their people are all working for the people of Arizona in DC, getting such things like EARMARKS for their communities.

    ARIZONA
    Democrats — Giffords, N; Grijalva, N; Mitchell, N; Pastor, N.
    Republicans — Flake, N; Franks, N; Renzi, N; Shadegg, N.

  • Kwaayesnama

    ARIZONA VOTED AGAINST MCCAIN

    I love the fact that John McCain blames the vote going against the bailout on Obama and Pelosi. But there is an interesting fact out there. ALL the representatives from Arizona voted against the bailout. It just shows how much the other reps from AZ respect McCain. If he can't get the Republicans from his home state to vote with him how is he going to get the rest of the nation to work with him? Maybe they are angry because while McCain brags that in 26 years he has never done anything for his home state. These good employees of their people are all working for the people of Arizona in DC, getting such things like EARMARKS for their communities.

    ARIZONA
    Democrats — Giffords, N; Grijalva, N; Mitchell, N; Pastor, N.
    Republicans — Flake, N; Franks, N; Renzi, N; Shadegg, N.