Bailout bill fineprint: who gets rescued in this plan?
The reason why Washington managed to pass the bill today was because it was a “Christmas tree Bill”, the term used for having special interest groups and parties add their wish-lists to the now 442-page bill.
The “special provisions” are pork barrels, and include tax breaks for:
* Manufacturers of children’s wooden arrows – $6 million.
* Puerto Rican + Virgin Islands rum producers – $192 million.
* Wool research?????
* Auto-racing tracks – $128 million.
* Several federal income tax breaks that were due to expire will now be extended through 2009.
* Corporations in American Samoa – $33 million. WHY? Answer: StarKist has a tuna-canning operation there. Their parent company is located in the district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
* Low budget film and television productions – $10 million.
* $223 million tax benefits for fishermen and others whose livelihoods suffered from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill
*$3.8 billion healthcare that forces insurance companies to provide coverage for mental-health treatment
* A one-year extension for wind and refined coal energy tax credits.
* A production credit for electricity produced from renewable marine energy sources .
* Energy credits for small wind properties, geothermal heat pump systems, and energy efficient residential properties.
* Up to $800 billion in energy bonds may be offered to the public, with a third from public power providers, a third from governments, and the remainder from cooperative electric companies.
* Tax credits for cellulosic biofuels and for carbon dioxide sequestration.
* An extension of an alternative fuel credit.
* Tax credits for new qualified plug-in electric-drive motor vehicles.
* Tax credits for bicycle commuters get a nod,
*Tax credits for regulations aimed at residential top-loading clothes washers.
* The Internal Revenue Service has authority to conduct undercover operations. IRS agents can run businesses for a sting operation, open their own personal bank accounts with U.S. tax dollars, and even make a storefront to see if you are willing to cheat when you file taxes.
* It continues to permit the IRS to give information from your individual tax returns to federal law enforcement agency investigating suspecting terrorist activity.
* It’s now possible for a bank to buy $100 billion of bad debt, declare bankruptcy, and sell it to the Treasury Department for $200 billion.
* The Treasury Department is authorized to guarantee home mortgages to reduce the number of foreclosures. We- the taxpayer- will cover it, don’t worry about it. The Treasury Department can eliminate an amount of a home owner’s mortgage debt. How is all of this going to work in real life???
*Golden parachutes still exist.
*The bill doesn’t have revenue hikes to keep the budget balanced.
In other words: each congressmen added their special interest group’s demands or own selfish gifts into this bill. It was the only way for it to pass. Henry Paulson used fear to pass it last week, but that didn’t work. George Bush came out of hiding and made fear demands, but that didn’t work. Only by making this bill a bloated monster could it have gotten passed. Obama and McCain both supported this bill. Remember that Election Day.
Didn’t we already see this movie?
Similar Posts:
- Taxpayers support Bill Clinton
- Hillary Clinton loaned herself $5 million dollars
- Bush’s Bailout Round II
- Huge workplace mistake
- Workplace accident (Tashman Technologies)
DailySkew RANDOM Posts:
- Palin 2012?
- Latest Nick Hogan Jail Phone Call
- Jillian Grace and David Spade
- China Blogger Killed by 50 Officers
- Obama fires GM CEO: Reaction
great post.
I don’t get this bill at all.
how much goes to wool research?
and what is there to research?
I thought we knew enough about wool already.
“Manufacturers of children’s wooden arrows – $6 million.”…
huh?
and shouldn’t at least 3 million go to non-dairy creamer research,
while a few more million go to the manufacturing of scented candles, and bowling trophies?
that stuff is important too you know.
truth is indeed stranger than fiction,
but the rest of the bill doesn’t surprise me.
now if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna go take a nap.
Great post. Which independent candidate do you endorse?
i am so thoroughly depressed now.
“To vote for a candidate whose name is not printed on the ballot, fill in the oval, and write in the
candidate’s name on the blank line provided for a write-in candidate.”
Might as well write-in someone who speaks for the people.
Truthfully, millions of people chose Bush over Kerry because he was the so-called lesser of two evils.
But you don’t have to do that this time.
Obama is just a more charismatic version of Kerry, Mondale, and Carter.
McCain really is senile.
I won’t be picking either.
There may not a well-known Independent name on the ballot, but you can still show your protest by voting for someone besides these two via write-in.
Let’s face it, we will be complaining about the mistakes and policies of whoever wins, it’s just that for McCain it will be instantaneous and Obama’s honeymoon will last a little longer.)
Back in 2004, if you re-watch the debates on Youtube, you can see that Bush was exposed by Kerry, that Kerry spoke for the Common Man, but Kerry would have been a horrible commander-in-chief for the same reasons that Obama seems unpatriotic for wanting to pull out of Iraq with his white flag, and cut military funding, and increase spending on unmanageable liberal domestic policies.
"Obama seems unpatriotic for wanting to pull out of Iraq with his white flag, and cut military funding, and increase spending on unmanageable liberal domestic policies."
True enough,
but im also feeling a bit unpatriotic myself these days,
(how proud are you to be an american lately with a leader like bush?)
I would also like our troops out of Iraq,
(has it been 6 years already?)
and I think we might have to increase spending on domestic infrastructure
in order to fix the myriad of things that are wrong in this country.
(problems cant be fixed for free, what else can we do?)
You compare Obama to John Kerry who I also voted for, so that's not a mark against Obama either…
but really what I want to address is this "white flag" talking point because I find this one to be the most interesting.
This "white flag of surrender to the terrorists" argument is pretty common in all republican circles,
but I know damn well that if a REPUBLICAN said lets pull out of Iraq, Fox news, and AM talk radio would all say…
"Hooray, victory has been declared and its time for our troops to come home!"
and
"thank God we waited until the job was finished instead of pulling out early like the democrats wanted us to!"
I can just hear it all now, and that's what they would say.
They're only calling it "surrender" because a democrat wants to withdraw the troops.
Saying that America has been beaten by the terrorists or creating that perception does I think endanger this country,but Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and most republicans are willing to create that perception if it makes "liberals" look bad for "surrendering" because they care more about making "liberals" look bad than making america look good.
We all know that these same people would call it victory if a republican withdrew the troops.
If Limbaugh ,Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter want to endanger America by saying we surrendered to the terrorists by withdrawing,
well we cant stop them from saying it, but they're so contaminated by their own partisanship that they can't be honest about whats really going on or what needs to be done.
Admittedly the troops have to be withdrawn the right way but they still have to be withdrawn.
I think our troops have done a great job of overthrowing the government of Iraq (which was never really a threat to us), but now its like 6 years later,and they should have come home a while ago.
Is Bin Laden in Iraq ?
no?
nuff said.
but Its not only people on the right Ive got a problem with,
there are similar people on my side who seem to rejoice when they hear things are going bad in Iraq because they get to blame bush for it.
I hate these people too, because these people put their party first and country second.
Not only do I want my country as a whole to go in the right direction no matter who gets the blame or credit, but I think the level of dumb hypocritical partisanship in this typical right/left debate is a greater danger to destroying this country than terrorism is, because our country can only be destroyed from within.
As for this bill,
I think this bill was garbage and should not have been signed from what I can see.
Id be curious to hear what McCain's & Obama's rationale was, because
Im not so closed minded that I dont want to hear what they have to say about it, but I dont expect any perfect leader to rescue our country from every problem we are going through, and there will NEVER be a candidate running that I would be able to agree with 100-percent of the time.
Yes, from what I can see Obama sold out on this one, and its not the first time.
but its him or McCain.
Im gonna have to turn my head the other way on this one and vote for Obama anyway.
We have to be realistic about this, one of these guys is going to end up being president and the guy you write in wont.
The personal satisfaction I would get by writing in a protest vote of Kuscinich, Al Goldstein, Howard Beale or Beettlejuice just isnt worth it in times like these.
The stakes are too high.
Fair enough RAW, thanks for your input as always. I can’t disagree with you. I can go either way on the Iraq issue, and enjoy being the Devil’s Advocate.
Allow me to explain where I am coming from:
Our soldiers, who volunteered to put their lives on the line for us, will be told by President Obama that their sacrifices and the sacrifices of their fellow soldiers were in vain. How would you feel about that if you were there? The rest of the world will be laughing when we withdraw without finishing.
To have a commander-in-chief say, “We never should have been there; it was an unjust war since their were no MWD’s, and terrorists aren’t even in Iraq” sounds like ‘Nam all over again and is demoralizing.
How does Obama know about CIA intelligence? How does he know al-Queda has rebuilt in Afghanistan? Senate Intelligence only gets a glimpse of Oval Office CIA and Military Intelligence. Usama bin Laden can be anywhere, but he’s a figurehead now, not the true director of al-Queda according to unclassified material.
We can only leave Iraq when:
1)The Iraqi people can secure the country from terrorists, manage themselves, be partners with us with oil, have free elections without our presence there, etc.
To put the white flag up when the going gets tough, which is what Democrats do, and start bombing sand and empty caves in Afghanistan again is a step-backwards.
You don’t believe there are terrorists in Iraq? Every week people get blown up there. Terrorists cannot be appeased. I know you and a lot of my other friends lean to the left, but you have to understand that al-Queda, Hamas, and other Middle-East militias and organizations would never rest even if we pull out.
We need to continue to train, arm, and secure Iraq for the Iraqi people. Obama frankly doesn’t know the whole story as a Junior Senator, just like we don’t know what the generals and CIA know about how unstable Iraq is when it comes to terrorist activity.
I’m actually surprised Obama WANTS to even continue Bush’s War on Terror anyway. US policy since 9/11/01 has been to target any country that “harbors terrorists”. That sounds like an Imperialistic War Machine, something Obama couldn’t possibly want. I mean, Iraq has been a quagmire. Certainly, it ends there. Go back to Afghan? Who’s next? Smells fishy to me.
Instead Obama will most certainly use President Clinton’s foreign policy: airstrikes, UN, and NATO, as opposed to flexing real muscle.
Usama bin Laden may actually become more powerful with liberals in power. He certainly will not be afraid. Ronald Reagan would have NUKED the Tora Bora mountains as soon as the CIA told him Usama was behind 9/11, which means 9/12 Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan would be radioactive right now, and Saddam would not play his stupid UN weapon inspector games.
The Bush admin just couldn’t execute. Bush’s initiatives were refreshing at the time; he still was the most popular president since polls existed.
Don’t be surprised if terrorists regroup under President Obama and we have something worse than 9/11.
And I’m not just targeting Obama- any Democrat elected would do the same thing. Believe me, I always got inspired about the Democratic message from previous elections. It’s just that they are so naive and gullible, pleasing, and….weak. Look at Congress.
I think if Colin Powell’s wife let him run for president back in the day, we would be better off. Republican Colin Powell was awesome and a great balance of domestic and foreign policies. He was better than Bush on every measurable skill. But we the people elected Bush twice, and the 2nd time was AFTER the WMD were missing…
I know I was angry along with everyone else over John Ashcroft, Patriot Act, $10 billion a month in Iraq, Condi Rice, Bush, airline security, wiretaps, Donald F’n Rumsfield, and all that stuff, but the next step for terrorists after 9/11 was a nuclear bomb, poisoning the water supply, knocking out satellites/communications, and thankfully the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and Military have prevented those attacks since 9/11.
That being said, the Republicans had their time, and it looks like the people want a Democratic Prez. As much as I had bashed Clinton in 1990’s, I think he was an intelligent and capable prez who had to constantly fight Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Rush Limbaugh in his prime, etc.
I don’t see Obama being anywhere near having the skills or efficiency as Clinton in his prime or JFK. He wishes. It’s gonna be Jimmy Carter II, and we will be headed to the Recession, and possibly another Great Depression with this sick bill that was passed.
Remember, when he gets elected, he will be at the whim of Nancy Pelosi and from the donors of the *record* millions of dollars he raised.
Trust me, my friends, “The War on Terror” is NOT on Obama’s “Things to Do…” list. His entire cabinet that he will appoints don’t want anything to DO with it.
I, too, have the same reservations about a Democrat administration and Iraq. As you know, Damian, I wasn’t excited about the idea of going into Iraq … but, once Bush committed us, I think we have an obligation to our troops to make sure their efforts are not in vain.
Of course, I’ve spoken with some military folks who are accustomed to death and are tired of police actions. It’s anecdotal, but it appears they are already demoralized by our current foreign policy.
You did raise one interesting point about Obama that I’d like to address — the thought they he will be Jimmy Carter II.
My suspicion is that whoever the next President is — they will be a one-term wonder … a Herbert Hoover.
I just wiki’d Hoover, and was shocked by the similarities between him and the Democrat agenda. Here’s some snippets:
Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by encouraging volunteerism. Long before he entered politics he denounced laissez-faire thinking.[11] As Commerce Secretary he had taken an active pro-regulation stance. As President he helped push tariff and farm support bills through Congress.
Hoover expanded civil service coverage of Federal positions, canceled private oil leases on government lands, and by instructing the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service to go after gangsters for tax evasion, he enabled the prosecution of gangster Al Capone. He appointed a commission which set aside 3 million acres (12,000 km²) of national parks and 2.3 million acres (9,000 km²) of national forests; advocated tax reduction for low-income Americans (not enacted); closed certain tax loopholes for the wealthy; doubled the number of veteran’s hospital facilities; negotiated a treaty on St. Lawrence Seaway (which failed in the U.S. Senate); wrote a Children’s Charter that advocated protection of every child regardless of race or gender; built the San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge; created an antitrust division in the Justice Department; required air mail carriers to adopt stricter safety measures and improve service; proposed federal loans for urban slum clearances (not enacted); organized the Federal Bureau of Prisons; reorganized the Bureau of Indian Affairs; instituted prison reform; proposed a federal Department of Education (not enacted); advocated fifty-dollar-per-month pensions for Americans over 65 (not enacted); chaired White House conferences on child health, protection, homebuilding and homeownership; began construction of the Boulder Dam (later renamed Hoover Dam); and signed the Norris-La Guardia Act that limited judicial intervention in labor disputes.
Hoover’s humanitarian and Quaker reputation, along with a vice president of partial Native American descent, gave special meaning to his Indian policies. His Quaker upbringing influenced his views that Native Americans needed to achieve economic self-sufficiency. As President, he appointed Charles J. Rhoads as commissioner of Indian affairs. Hoover supported Rhoads’ commitment to Indian assimilation and sought to minimize the federal role in Indian affairs. His goal was to have Indians acting as individuals (not as tribes) and to assume the responsibilities of citizenship granted with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.[12]
In foreign relations, Hoover began formulating what would later become Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor policy following the 1930 release of the Clark Memorandum, by withdrawing American troops from Nicaragua and Haiti; he also proposed an arms embargo on Latin America and a one-third reduction of the world’s naval power, which was called the Hoover Plan. The Roosevelt Corollary ceased being part of U.S. foreign policy. In response to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, he and Secretary of State Henry Stimson outlined the Hoover-Stimson Doctrine that said the United States would not recognize territories gained by force.
I think Obama or McCain, whoever is elected, will take the hit for the bad economic times to come. The right/left wings of the MEDIA may try to blame it on the prior administration, but the public doesn’t play that game. The public looks at who is in charge now, whether it’s sports, business, or politics, and blames them when things go bad.
NO one was blaming Nixon or Ford for the bad economy when Carter was running for reelection.
Strategically speaking, I’m amazed either party wants to win this election — particularly since both candidates voted yes on the bailout bill.
Train civilians for some peacekeeping, police action, and nation building.
Vahl- regarding the one term scenario:
Since both canditates are promising “change”, and it’s likely American lives will not change for the better in 4 years, and the nation will still be fractured due to left vs right MEDIA coverage, yes, it is a strong possibility that Obama or McCain will be one hit wonders, footnotes in history, to be Wikied in 50 years.