Today in the Senate, Senate Hillary Clinton said:

. . . I think we all recognize that this is not the end but the beginning of what we must do. And I believe there are three big goals that we will have to address even after we pass the Rescue Package tonight here in the Senate and send it over to the House.

[MORE . . .]

As someone who supported the defeated House mortgage/credit crisis Wall Street Bailout, this may come as a surprise, but I oppose the Senate Bailout bill to be voted on today. Why? Because it includes irresponsible sops to the Republicans, corporate tax breaks:

Top lawmakers said the Senate proposal, worked out after a day of behind the scenes maneuvering, would include tax breaks for businesses and alternative energy and higher government insurance for bank deposits.

(Emphasis supplied.) The silly Obama/McCain proposal to raise the FDIC insurance limits does nothing to address this crisis. It is a silly stupid gimmick. And the idea of giving more corporate tax breaks and suspending the Alternative Minimum Tax in the face of record deficits is absolutely outrageous. Harry Reid has produced a travesty. It shocks me to say this, but Steny Hoyer is absolutely right:

The Senate will vote on its own bailout plan tomorrow night.

Majority Leader Harry Reid and GOP Leader Mitch McConnell say, however, that they're going to add a tax cut package already rejected by the House on Monday....The Senate plan would also raise federal deposit insurance limits to $250,000 from $100,000.

Sen. Barack Obama and John McCain today both urged passage of a bill.

Here is Barney Frank's priceless reaction to House GOP Leader John Boehner saying Republicans voted against the bailout bill because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings:

You gotta love Barney Frank.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Via Atrios, Dem option 4:

#4 -- Get More Democrats On Board: Finally, one other unlikely option talked about on Capitol Hill is to try to pass the bill almost entirely with the Democratic majority in the House. That would require adding a major stimulus package favored by Democrats, infrastructure spending, unemployment insurance spending, and heating and food stamp assistance for low-income Americans.

Um, why unlikely? Today changed everything. The Dems reached out and got their hands slapped. The Republicans do not want to be bipartisan. Nancy, Harry, Barney, you tried. Now you have to act for the American People. Time for Option 4.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Allrighty then. The GOP and McCain do not want the bipartisan bailout solution. Fair enough. Then it is time for the DEM bailout bill. With HOLC, a stimulus package, rigorous oversight of Paulson, equity stakes in the bailoutees, and everything the Democratic caucus thinks is necessary now.

Pass it on a party line vote. The Senate can then decide what to do. And then President Bush can decide what to do. The House Republicans do not want to be a part of this bipartisan short term bailout solution? Fair enough. Then Bush has to take the Dem bailout solution.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

The Nay's are here, and the 95 Dems who voted against it are in Roman letters, while the Republicans are in Italics.

Of note: Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.)voted against it. Udall, a true progressive in my view, is running for the Senate in Colorado. Another Colorado Democrat who voted against it is the much more centrist John Salazar, brother of Colorado Senator Ken Salazar.

Update: Rep. Dennis Kucinich says the bailout will not keep homeowners in their homes, urged colleagues to vote against it and provides this letter (pdf) from an Emory law professor.

Whose vote do you find surprising or laudatory?

The House of Representatives has rejected the proposed bailout.

The vote against the measure was 228 to 205. Supporters vowed to try to bring the rescue package up for consideration against as soon as possible.

Stock markets plunged sharply at midday as it appeared that the measure was go down.

Rep. Paul Ryan, an "admired conservative" who in reality is getting by on his good looks, was against the bailout bill before he was for it. He expresses a view of the bailout upon which liberals and conservatives can all agree:

"It sucks."

So would the heralded economic collapse or the lesser catastrophes that are predicted by many in the absence of action. Having jammed a face-saving insurance program into the bill, key Republicans are showing reluctant support for its passage. House Minority Leader John Boehner is among them. Boehner recognizes that some Republicans who face tough reelection battles can't come on board, and that some will refuse on principle. He encouraged "every member of our conference – if their conscience will allow them to -- to support this bill." [emphasis added]

Predictions? Will Boehner and his buddies find enough loyal Republicans to get the bill passed? Will Democrats follow their leader?

Krugman's take:

Section 113, MINIMIZATION OF LONG-TERM COSTS AND MAXIMIZATION OF BENEFITS FOR TAXPAYERS, is where the rubber meets the road — it’s where the plan says something about how the deals will be done.

As I read it, Treasury can
(1) conduct reverse auctions and suchlike
(2) buy directly — but only if it gets equity warrants or, in companies that don’t issue stock, senior debt

. . . The plan’s real traction, if any, is in (2), which is a backdoor way to provide troubled firms with equity — and the bill seems to say that taxpayers have to own this equity, although I wish it was clearer how much equity will be judged sufficient. Not a good plan. But sufficiently not-awful, I think, to be above the line; and hopefully the whole thing can be fixed next year.

Obama and Dems should run on how they will take care of ordinary middle class American homeowners if and when they win the election.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Here's the summary of the Bailout Proposal from Nancy Peloisi's office.

It's now a $350 billion bailout, at least up front. I'm not seeing anything that prevents home foreclosures or that helps those who underwent foreclosures in the past year.

The government can use its power as the owner of mortgages and mortgage backed securities to facilitate loan modifications (such as, reduced principal or interest rate, lengthened time to pay back the mortgage) to help reduce the 2 million projected foreclosures in the next year

There's tax relief -- for banks. [More...]

Jeralyn does not like the deal, I think it is the right thing to do. The NYTimes reporting, as opposed to the wire service report Jeralyn read, explains why.

First and foremost, on helping distressed HOMEOWNERS:

[The proposal] requires the government to use its new role as owner of distressed mortgage-backed securities to make more aggressive efforts to prevent home foreclosures.

In my view, this will be HOLC in the next Administration should Obama win. Barack Obama needs to run on this issue from now until the election. The bill will be vague on how the government will be "required" to prevent home foreclosures. Obama, and Hillary Clinton., and every good Democrat should say HOLC will be how it is done.

MORE . . .