This Makes No Sense

I'm no economist -- my lack of paying attention in macroeconomics is still one of my great collegiate regrets -- so I'm not exactly sure what killed the "rescue" plan, but according to the early-line AP report I just read, it sounds like more politics that the economy are to blame.

This whole situation makes no sense.

For starters, why did House leaders put to the floor a bill that might not have had the votes to pass? Don't you do head count after head count to make sure you have the votes before this goes to the floor? The Dow is currently down 566 points. Would it really have been worse if they had taken one more day to smooth out the wrinkles? I really, really, don't understand this.

Much of the first part of the story deals with lawmakers being edgy about being re-elected if they vote for this. If they think it's the best thing to do, could someone please grow a pair and vote the way they think is best for the country? It's not like we're potentially facing a massive fiscal meltdown or anything. I know, I know, getting re-elected is the top priority for anyone in public office, but at some point don't some votes become bigger than that? I'm not reading "I wasn't going to be forced into a bad vote five weeks before election." I'm reading "I'm not voting this way before election." That's two very different things. It's a sad reminder of how these people work sometimes.

The bottom part of the story deals with Nancy Pelosi and apparently her nasty, partisan speech that kind of closed the debate. Some congressmen said they voted against based on that speech alone. I don't know who gets more blame here, Pelosi for not keeping her big mouth shut until it was over (jeez, have a press conference after if you have to), or lawmakers who couldn't rise above her pettiness and tuck her ridiculousness aside and do the right thing.

For what it's worth, Olver voted in favor. It looks like, with me going through the roster on memory, Lynch, Tierney and Delahunt voted against.

Like I said at the top, I'm no economist, so I don't know if this plan was really that good or not. I also don't know if the now-familiar claim of "if we don't do something -- fast -- we're screwed" is 100 percent true, or part-truth, part-guess, part-spin.

But I do know this: Based on the early returns, it sounds like politics -- and not simply doing what seemed to be right -- played a giant role in what happened today. Who knows how this shakes out in the wash, but the first blush of this one is pretty lousy.

Not to get too "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" here, but beyond some financial stability, I think what people want to see right now is a leader. Someone who can say "we're going to take care of this. It might not be pretty, it might hurt some, but we're going to figure this out." That giant sucking sound you hear right now is Washington.