This morning the song, Everybody Knows by Leonard Cohen has been running through my head – one line in particular, really: “The poor stay poor and the rich get rich, that’s how it goes, everybody knows.”

When Obama was elected the vast social networks that came together throughout the country were all counting on a change in what “everybody knows.” The team of rivals seemed to make sense at the time – after all, it was historically proven to work wonders. But since the Geitner plan has been released, I’m not so sure.

Many liberal economists are pointing out how buying up bad assets takes tax dollars and throws them at big corporations in order to subsidize the kinds of practices that got us all in trouble in the first place. The fear of “too big to fail” leads us to permit banks to continue to write bad assets down in their books as good, worthy assets. We need to them to lend, so why not keep them trucking along as usual?

But there are other alternatives.

Both Robert Kuttner and Dean Baker – respected economic thinkers – argue for a plan with more accountability and less chance of payouts in the short term to certain economic players.

The point is not that we need Geitner ousted or Kuttner elevated. We need to make sure Obama does not have the opportunity to follow the Geitner plan.
Social mobilization got Obama elected in the first place. It’s clear the country can get it’s act together when there is enough at stake.

Well, your tax dollars are about to go straight into the pockets of certain hedge fund managers. Organize. Call your representative. Give Obama the political capital he needs to get things done in a way that benefits all of us, not just those with lobbyists well placed in Washington.

This American Life: October 3, 2008

The tax relief package attached to the rescue bill promotes renewable energy development and extends dozens of tax breaks from the critical research and development tax credit to breaks for such narrowly focused groups as motor sports racetrack owners, film producers and bicycle commuters.

The renewable energy part of the package alone, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, will “create and save half-a-million good-paying jobs in America immediately.”

Virtually all of the tax breaks already exist. But many of them expired Jan. 1 for use in the current tax year, and the others will expire three months from now unless Congress renews them.

The largest group of beneficiaries in the tax portion of the financial rescue bill is about 20 million mainly upper-middle income taxpayers. Without congressional action, the AMT, with originally was supposed to affect only the very rich, would add some $2,000 this year to the tax bill of these people, most earning under $200,000 a year.

Thousands of businesses are waiting for renewal of the research and development tax credit, which expired at the end of last year. Without that credit, industry advocates say, high tech, biotech and aerospace companies would have trouble hiring the highly skilled workers needed to compete with foreign competitors.

The Information Technology Association of America reports an $18.5 billion drop in R&D activity since the beginning of the year, when the credit lapsed. The R&D credit extension would cost $19 billion over 10 years. The cost of the entire tax portion of the bill is close to $110 billion.

The renewable energy incentives include an eight-year extension of investment credits for solar energy, as well as breaks for wind, geothermal and other alternative sources. The solar industry says extension of the credits through 2016 would produce an extra 440,000 jobs and more than $230 billion in investments.

The measure also has $8 billion in tax breaks for disaster victims, $5 billion for higher education tuition deductions and $400 million in deductions for teachers who buy school supplies with their own money.

There are $3 billion in deductions for residents of states without income taxes that have state and local sales taxes. Extending the deduction would save Texans a projected $1.2 billion a year or an average of $520 per filer claiming the deduction, said Matt Mackowiak, spokesman for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

There are also some four dozen small provisions. Among them, with projected costs over 10 years:

-Extending an expired provision that gives Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands a rebate against excise taxes charged on imported rum. The rebate, at $13.50 per proof gallon, helps finance local infrastructure projects. The cost is $192 million.

-Establishing a new tax credit ranging from $2,500 to $7,500 for purchasers of plug-in electric-drive vehicles. Cost: $758 million.

-Extending tax credits that expired at the end of 2007 for certain domestic corporations involved in American Samoa economic development. Cost: $33 million.

-Extending a credit of up to $10,000 for the training of mine rescue team members. The credit expires at the end of this year and the one-year extension costs $4 million.

-Enacting President Bush’s proposal to erase the debt of the black lung disability trust fund at a cost of $1.3 billion.

-Extending for one year a seven-year depreciation timetable that NASCAR and other motorsport racing facilities have had for some years, the same tax break that amusement parks enjoy. Without the extension, the tracks would have to depreciate the cost of their improvements over 15 years, raising their taxes by $100 million.

-Extending for five years a program that reduces import duties on some wool fabrics. The tariff relief benefits U.S. worsted wool fabric producers that use imported fibers and yarns. Cost: $148 million.

-Increasing the single-year deduction in production costs, from $15 million to $20 million, that film and TV productions may take if the costs are incurred in economically depressed areas. In an effort to keep film and TV productions in the U.S., it also allows more companies to use a domestic production deduction. Cost: $478 million.

-Allowing commercial fishermen and others hurt by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska to average out damage awards over three years rather than taking a one-year hit from the IRS. Cost: $49 million.

-Extending two programs that fund rural schools and rural communities that have been relying on declining income from logging on federal land or have low property tax bases because they are located on or next to federal lands. This is a major issue in the West. Cost: $3.3 billion.

-Exempting wooden practice arrows used by children from an excise tax of 39 cents per arrow. Oregon’s two senators and two Wisconsin representatives previously introduced legislation calling for the action, saying the tax was meant for more expensive archery arrows and is untenable for makers of toy arrows that may cost only about 30 cents apiece. The bill would affect about a half-dozen manufacturers nationwide, including one in Oregon; the Oregon senators said they didn’t seek its addition to the bailout, however. Cost: $2 million.

-Allowing employers to exempt from taxation what they spend on some fringe benefits for workers who commute to work by bicycle, for example reimbursing the cost of parking the bikes. Cost: $2 million.

Some House members and radio-TV commentators have called for eliminating several of the measures, including those affecting wooden arrows, Puerto Rican rum, racetracks and film producers.

“All these things are called sweeteners in order to get votes from Democrats and Republicans in the House,” conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh said at the opening of his show Thursday. “To get this bailout through the Senate and House, they’ve added pork. Surprise, surprise.”

Senators loaded the economic rescue bill with tax breaks and other sweeteners before passing it by a wide margin, 74-25, a month before the presidential and congressional elections.

In the House, leaders were working feverishly to convert enough opponents of the bill to push it through by Friday, just days after lawmakers there stunningly rejected an earlier version and sent markets plunging around the globe.

The measure didn’t cause the same uproar in the Senate, where both parties’ presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, made rare appearances to cast “aye” votes.

In the final vote, 40 Democrats, 33 Republicans and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted “yes.” Nine Democrats, 15 Republicans and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont voted “no.”

The rescue package lets the government spend billions of dollars to buy bad mortgage-related securities and other devalued assets held by troubled financial institutions. If successful, advocates say, that would allow frozen credit to begin flowing again and prevent a deep recession.

Even as the Senate voted, House leaders were hunting for the 12 votes they would need to turn around Monday’s 228-205 defeat. They were especially targeting the 133 Republicans who voted “no.”

Their opposition appeared to be easing after the Senate added $110 billion in tax breaks for businesses and the middle class, plus a provision to raise, from $100,000 to $250,000, the cap on federal deposit insurance.

They were also cheering a decision Tuesday by the Securities and Exchange Commission to ease rules that force companies to devalue assets on their balance sheets to reflect the price they can get on the market.

There were worries, though, that the tax breaks would cause some conservative-leaning Democrats who voted for the rescue Monday to abandon it because it would swell the federal deficit.

“I’m concerned about that,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the majority leader.

As revised by the Senate, the package extends several tax breaks popular with businesses. It would keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million middle-income Americans and provide $8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana.

It doesn’t designate a way to pay for many of the tax cuts, though, angering the House’s band of conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats.

Leaders in both parties, as well as private economic chiefs everywhere, said Congress must quickly approve some version of the bailout measure to start loans flowing and stave off a potential national economic disaster.

“This is what we need to do right now to prevent the possibility of a crisis turning into a catastrophe,” Obama said on the Senate floor. In Missouri, before flying to Washington to vote, McCain said, “If we fail to act, the gears of our economy will grind to a halt.”

Critics on the right and left assailed the rescue plan, which has been panned by their constituents as a giveaway for Wall Street, and has little obvious direct benefit for ordinary Americans.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., a leading conservative, said the step was “leading us into the pit of socialism.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who’s a self-described socialist, said the rescue was fundamentally unfair.

“The masters of the universe, those brilliant Wall Street insiders who have made more money than the average American can even dream of, have brought our financial system to the brink of collapse,” Sanders said, and are demanding that the middle class “pick up the pieces that they broke.”

Still, proponents argued that the financial sector’s woes were already being felt by ordinary people in the form of unaffordable credit and underperforming retirement savings and without the bailout would soon translate into even more economic pain for working Americans, including more job losses.

“There will be no balloons or bunting or parades,” when the rescue becomes law, said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman. But lawmakers will have “the knowledge that at one of our nation’s moments of maximum economic peril, we acted – not for the benefit of a particular few, but for all Americans.”

The Senate specializes in high-stakes legislating by enticement, and the long list of sweeteners it added was designed to attract votes from various constituencies.

Tax cuts new and old are favorites for most House Republicans, the main target of intense lobbying to gain support for the measure. Help for rural schools was aimed mainly at lawmakers in the West, while disaster aid was a top priority for lawmakers from across the Midwest and South.

Another addition, to extend the deductibility of state and local taxes for people in states without income taxes, helps Florida and Texas, among others.

Increasing the deposit insurance cap was a bid to reassure individuals and small businesses that their money would be safe in the event their banks collapsed. It was particularly geared toward small banks that fear customers will pull their money and park it in larger institutions seen as less likely to fold.

The FDIC would be allowed to borrow unlimited money from the Treasury Department through the end of next year as a way to cover the increased insurance limit. If used, it would be the first time the agency has tapped Treasury for a loan since the early 1990s.

Raising the limit – along with the SEC’s decision to ease accounting rules on valuing assets – helped House Republicans claim credit for some substantive changes.

And with constituent feedback changing dramatically since Monday’s shocking House defeat and the corresponding market plunge, lawmakers’ comfort level with the package increased markedly.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky unveiled the plan Tuesday. The Senate plan would also raise federal deposit insurance limits to $250,000 from $100,000, as called for by the two presidential nominees only hours earlier.

The move to add a tax legislation – including a set of popular business tax breaks – risked a backlash from House Democrats insisting they be paid for with tax increases elsewhere.

But by also adding legislation to prevent more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from feeling the bite of the alternative minimum tax, the step could build momentum for the Wall Street bailout from House Republicans. The presidential candidates Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., intend to fly to Washington for the votes, as does Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the Democratic vice presidential candidate.

The surprise move capped a day in which supporters of the imperiled multibillion-dollar economic rescue fought to bring it back to life, courting reluctant lawmakers with a variety of other sweeteners including the plan to reassure Americans their bank deposits are safe.

Wall Street, at least, regained hope. The Dow Jones industrials rose 485 points, one day after a record 778-point plunge following rejection in the U.S. House of the plan worked out by congressional leaders and the Bush administration.

Before Reid and McConnell’s move, lawmakers, President Bush and the two rivals to succeed him all rummaged through ideas new and old, desperately seeking to change a dozen House members’ votes and pass the $700 billion plan.

The tax plan passed the Senate last week, on a 93-2 vote. It included AMT relief, $8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana, and some $78 billion in renewable energy incentives and extensions of expiring tax breaks. In a compromise worked out with Republicans, the bill does not pay for the AMT and disaster provisions but does have revenue offsets for part of the energy and extension measures.

That wasn’t enough for the House, which insisted that there be complete offsets for the energy and extension part of the package.

The Senate move seems aimed at jamming the House into accepting the deficit-financed tax cuts. Conservative Democrats won’t like the idea, but some Congress-watchers suspect most Democrats might be willing to go along.

Still, the House is where the problems are, and leaders there were scrounging for ideas that might appeal to a few of the 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats who rejected the proposal on Monday.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., told reporters, “I’m told a number of people who voted ‘no’ yesterday are having serious second thoughts about it.” He added, however, “There’s no game plan that’s been decided.”

The idea drawing the biggest support was to raise the federal deposit insurance limit, now $100,000 per account, to $250,000. Several officials, along with both presidential nominees, endorsed the change.

So did the agency that runs the program.

Within hours of the candidates’ separate statements, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairman Sheila Bair asked Congress for temporary authority to raise the limit by an unspecified amount. That could help ease a crisis of confidence in the banking system, Bair said.

She said the overwhelming majority of banks remain sound but an increase in the cap would help ease a crisis of confidence in the banking system as well as encourage banks to begin more lending.

Other ideas include extending unemployment insurance benefits, typically a Democratic goal, but one that appeals to some Rust Belt Republicans. Another Democratic-backed idea would double the property tax deduction taken by people who do not itemize their taxes. And another calls for more spending on transportation infrastructure projects, which would create more jobs. Budget hawks in both parties might object, however.

Monday’s House vote was a stinging setback to leaders of both parties and to Bush. The administration’s proposal, still the heart of the legislation under consideration, would allow the government to buy bad mortgages and other deficient assets held by troubled financial institutions. If successful, advocates of the plan believe, that would help lift a major weight off the already sputtering national economy.

But the proposal ignited furious responses from thousands of Americans, who flooded congressional telephones. The House voted 228-205 against the plan. Some lawmakers reported a shift in constituent calls pouring into their offices Tuesday after the record stock market decline. Many callers, they said, want Congress to do something without “bailing out Wall Street.”

Bush renewed his efforts, speaking with McCain and Obama and making another statement from the White House. “Congress must act,” he declared.

Though stock prices rose, more attention was on credit markets. A key rate that banks charge each other shot higher, further evidence of a tightening of credit availability.

Bush was talking about everyday Americans on Tuesday, not banks or other financial institutions. And no supporters were using the word “bailout.”

The president noted that the maximum $700 billion in the proposed bill was dwarfed by the $1 trillion in lost wealth that resulted from Monday’s stock market decline.

“The dramatic drop in the stock market that we saw yesterday will have a direct impact on retirement accounts, pension funds and personal savings of millions of our citizens,” Bush said. “And if our nation continues on this course, the economic damage will be painful and lasting.”

Republicans said the FDIC proposal might attract lawmakers on the left and right who want to help small business owners and avert runs on banks by customers fearful of losing their savings.

Another possible change to the bill would call on regulators to modify “mark to market” accounting rules. Such rules require banks and other financial institutions to adjust the value of their assets to reflect current market prices, even if they plan to hold the assets for years.

Some House Republicans say current rules forced banks to report huge paper losses on mortgage-backed securities, which might have been avoided.

There was a note of irony in that proposal. One Republican familiar with the discussions conceded it amounted to step toward deregulation at a time when Obama, McCain and House members in both parties are clamoring for greater controls on the financial industry.

The rescue package was Topic A on the presidential campaign trail.

“The first thing I would do is say, ‘Let’s not call it a bailout. Let’s call it a rescue,’” McCain told CNN. He said, “Americans are frightened right now” and political leaders must give them an immediate solution and a longer-term approach to the problem.

Obama issued a statement saying that significantly increasing federal deposit insurance would help small businesses and make the U.S. banking system more secure as well as restore public confidence.

The bill’s defeat in the House came despite furious personal lobbying by Bush and support from House leaders of both parties. But ideological groups on the left and the right organized against it. Even pressure in favor of the bill from some of the biggest special interests in Washington, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Realtors, could not sway enough votes.

Last Wednesday, McCain suspended his presidential campaign to insert himself into a $700 billion effort to rescue America’s crumbling financial structure. In so doing, he tied himself far more tightly to the bill than did his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.

Then, as the bailout plan appeared ready for passage Monday in the House, McCain bragged that he was an action-oriented Teddy Roosevelt Republican who did not sit on the sidelines at a moment of crisis.

The implication: that he played a critical role in building bipartisan support for the unprecedented bailout.

“I went to Washington last week to make sure that the taxpayers of Ohio and across this great country were not left footing the bill for mistakes made on Wall Street and in Washington,” McCain said at a campaign rally in the swing state of Ohio.

Both he and Obama had insisted the plan originally proposed by the Bush administration be strengthened with greater oversight and regulation.

Within hours, however, the measure died in the House mainly at the hands of McCain’s own Republicans.

Initially, McCain went silent, choosing instead to send his chief economic adviser out with a statement that blamed Obama, claiming that the first-term Illinois senator had put his political ambitions ahead of the good of the country.

“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country,” McCain senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin said.

It wasn’t long, however, before McCain told reporters in Iowa: “Now is not the time to fix the blame, it’s time to fix the problem.”

All in all, McCain might have been better served by staying out of the mess and above the fray.

If the congressional impasse leads to a credit crisis, “it’s not going to be good for McCain,” veteran Republican consultant John Feehery said.

Obama had predicted trouble last week when he said the four-term Arizona senator was wrongly inserting red-hot presidential politics into a critical bailout plan even as the package was finding little support among voters.

As the plan failed Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 777 points, the largest one-day point drop ever. Credit markets, whose turmoil helped feed the stock market’s deep anxiety, froze up further with the growing belief that the country is headed into a spreading credit and economic crisis.

Stunned traders on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange watched on TV screens as the House voted down the plan, and they saw stock prices tumbling on their monitors.

After the House vote, Obama – campaigning in swing-state Colorado – declared that McCain had “fought against commonsense regulations for decades, he’s called for less regulation 20 times just this year, and he said in a recent interview that he thought deregulation has actually helped grow our economy.”

“Senator, what economy are you talking about?” Obama said.

Sensing Obama’s advantage, spokesman Bill Burton piled on:

“This is a moment of national crisis, and today’s inaction in Congress as well as the angry and hyper-partisan statement released by the McCain campaign are exactly why the American people are disgusted with Washington.”

McCain has been routinely wrong-footed on the slumping U.S. economy throughout the campaign, starting last year when he said he was not as up on that subject as he would like to be.

Polls consistently have shown voters place greater trust in Obama to pull the country out of a financial crisis that has not been matched since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

McCain – apparently obsessed with those facts – gambled last Wednesday by declaring he had suspended campaigning to bring his considerable bipartisan credentials to bear in congressional negotiations with the Bush administration. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson sent the enormous bailout package to Congress 11 days ago and said passage was urgent.

The measure went down 228-205, with more than two-thirds of McCain’s own Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed.

Stocks plummeted on Wall Street even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was announced on the House floor.

When the critical vote was tallied, too few members of the House were willing to support the unpopular measure with elections just five weeks away. Ample no votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle.

Bush and a host of leading congressional figures had implored the lawmakers to pass the legislation despite howls of protest from their constituents back home.

The vote had been preceded by unusually aggressive White House lobbying, and spokesman Tony Fratto said that Bush had used a “call list” of people he wanted to persuade to vote yes as late as just a short time before the vote.

Lawmakers shouted news of the plummeting Dow Jones average as lawmakers crowded on the House floor during the drawn-out and tense call of the roll, which dragged on for roughly 40 minutes as leaders on both sides scrambled to corral enough of their rank-and-file members to support the deeply unpopular measure.

They found only two.

Bush and his economic advisers, as well as congressional leaders in both parties had argued the plan was vital to insulating ordinary Americans from the effects of Wall Street’s bad bets. The version that was up for vote Monday was the product of marathon closed-door negotiations on Capitol Hill over the weekend.

“We’re all worried about losing our jobs,” Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., declared in an impassioned speech in support of the bill before the vote. “Most of us say, ‘I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it – not me.’ ”

With their dire warnings of impending economic doom and their sweeping request for unprecedented sums of money and authority to bail out cash-starved financial firms, Bush and his economic chiefs have focused the attention of world markets on Congress, Ryan added.

“We’re in this moment, and if we fail to do the right thing, Heaven help us,” he said.

Bush called the election-year vote a difficult one for lawmakers but said he is confident Congress will pass a measure his top economic officials have argued is vital to averting a broader economic meltdown.

“Without this rescue plan, the costs to the American economy could be disastrous,” Bush said in a written statement Sunday.

Convincing their colleagues to back the plan despite thousands of angry phone calls, e-mails and letters pouring in from angry constituents proved a tall order for leaders in both parties.

“Now we have to get the votes,” said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the majority leader. He said the measure could pass the Senate as early as Wednesday.

“Nobody wants to have to support this bill,” said Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the House minority leader. But he said he was urging “every member whose conscience will allow them to support this” to do so. Officials in both parties expected the vote to be a nail-biter.

The two major party presidential candidates – Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama – expressed tepid support for the bailout.

The Bush administration gets broad power to use taxpayer money to rescue cash-strapped financial firms in the legislation, which is designed to unfreeze choked credit and avert a broader economic meltdown.

Congress won a hand in the program too, after 10 days of high-intensity haggling among lawmakers in both parties and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who sought the unprecedented amount of money with little supervision.

Instead, the bill lets Congress block half the money and force the president to jump through some hoops before using it all. The government could get at $250 billion immediately, $100 billion more if the president certified it was necessary, and the last $350 billion with a separate certification – and subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval.

Still, the resolution could be vetoed by the president, meaning it would take extra-large congressional majorities to stop it.

Lawmakers demanded curbs on the pay packages of top executives whose firms get the help, and assurances that taxpayers would ultimately be reimbursed by the companies for any losses. But the government would have broad discretion to decide how to implement both, something Paulson insisted was vital to make the rescue effective.

The legislation also requires that the government take ownership stakes in companies that receive federal infusions, so it could share a piece of potential future profits.

Banks, credit unions, securities brokers and dealers, and insurance companies, among others, could get the help as long as they had “significant operations” in the United States. Originally designed to help companies get rotten mortgage-related investments off their balance sheets, the legislation allows the government to buy up any kind of asset top economic officials think is necessary to promote market stability.

The final 110-page bill was released Sunday evening after a final weekend of intense negotiating, and Republicans and Democrats huddled for hours in private meetings Sunday night to learn its details and voice their concerns. Many said they left uncertain of how they would vote.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, an opponent, estimated that half of the House’s 199 Republicans are “truly undecided.”

Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said he was inclined to oppose the bill. But he added: “A lot of people are going to hold their nose and vote for it, because they’ve been put in a bad position and they don’t have any other option.”

Leaders in both parties were scrambling to put the most positive face on the deeply unpopular plan. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. said it wasn’t a bailout but a “buy-in” for taxpayers to rescue the economy.

Still, lawmakers in both parties who are facing re-election were nervous about embracing such a costly plan proposed by a deeply unpopular president that would benefit perhaps the most publicly detested of all: companies that got rich off bad bets.