The most insightful analogy I heard about the big bailout bill was by a financial expert on one of the cable channels. He criticized those who voted against the bill because they were afraid it would reward Wall Street mismanagement, saying, "When your 3-year-old lights the curtains on fire, the first thing you do isn't scold him for his terrible mistake. There's plenty of time for that later. You have to worry about getting the fire out first." I would add that you also don't micromanage the firemen. You trust at that moment they have the expertise to get the job done. There's plenty of time to review performance later.
Virtually anyone you talk to with any real knowledge of the situation says our financial system is on fire. We either choose to fight the fire or we don't, but decisions had to be made and a bailout bill was passed. So how did Idaho's politicians rate in fighting this blaze? Here are my grades, starting with the House.
Rep. Mike Simpson, (R) 2nd District. Grade, 'A': Simpson voted for the bill twice. His political courage and leadership reflects why he is the most influential Idahoan in the current Congress. Simpson knows this proposal is unpopular back home, but to his credit, he made his decision publicly based on what he thought was best for the nation.
Debbie Holmes, (D) Running against Simpson. Grade, 'A+': Holmes is running a doomed campaign against Simpson. Her fundraising is minimal and is her visibility, but when Simpson cast his first vote, she publicly thanked him for having the courage to cast his vote for what he believed was best for the country instead of what was politically popular. A+ indeed!
Rep. Bill Sali, (R) 1st District. Grade, 'A': Sali voted against the bill twice, earning criticism from Rep. Simpson and reflecting what Gov. Butch Otter lamented in a recent 'Today's 6 News' interview is Sali's overall lack of pragmatism. I would contend Sali was never elected to be pragmatic. He sells himself to voters as a politically conservative ideologue and was true to his ideals with his vote. Sali is right to say this has the potential to be a huge expansion of government. He's probably also correct that this may fundamentally change our American capitalist system. Sali held firm to his principles with his vote.
Walt Minnick, (D) Running against Sali. Grade, 'F': Minnick also opposed the bill, then criticized Sali anyway, saying he as a former businessman understood the flaws in the bill better than Sali. Yet during the bailout debate, Minnick also praised his friend Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as someone he trusted, saying, "Paulson's approach has won the support of Democrats and Republicans alike. If we can do it on this issue, we can do it on others." That's great except Minnick's friend's proposal didn't win his support, and unlike Holmes, Minnick refused to praise Sali for casting a vote he agreed with. This was a chance to stand tall, but in a tight race, it appears Minnick chose to take the politically popular position instead while also refusing to credit his opponent who did the same. If Minnick admires bi-partisanship, he didn't walk that walk.
Sen. Larry Craig, (R): Grade, 'A': Craig was a man of few words and bold action in this debate. He gave straightforward reasoning that invoked an image of the most powerful politician in Idaho before a sex scandal stained his legacy and crippled his clout.
Sen. Mike Crapo, (R): Grade, 'C': Crapo voted against the bill because he felt it didn't contain enough taxpayer protections. Crapo gets a 'C' because I believe he is truly concerned about taxpayer exposure, but then cast a vote that hurt most taxpaying Americans even more. His vote came after the House had rejected a $700B bailout and saw $1.1 trillion in market wealth evaporate. Taxpayers with 401K's working for publicly held companies lost in that deal and would have likely lost a lot more had Crapo prevailed. His reasoning seemed flawed because it didn't take the bigger picture into account.
Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, (R). Seeking Craig's Seat: Grade, 'F': Risch said he would not have voted for the bailout after putting out a press release hailing the Senate's version as a better bill. It reminded me of an argument I once had with a Risch campaign staffer about elections and leadership. The staffer told me the Risch campaign's philosophy was that "Governing is about leading but campaigns are about winning." My retort was "Governing is about leading and campaigns are supposed to be about convincing voters you are ready to lead." Risch went to D.C. to attend the bailout hearings for PR reasons, then sat on his hands until the Senate vote was over. It fits his "playing not to lose" campaign. Risch will win, but his campaign performance to date is not reflective of a man who is ready for this very big job in very important times.
Larry LaRocco (D), Running against Risch: Grade, 'B': I'll give LaRocco credit for supporting a politically unpopular bill he appears to genuinely feel is right for America, but I'm downgrading him for grandstanding. During the crisis, LaRocco held a news conference entitled, "LaRocco to announce America's path back to prosperity" in a news release that went on to say, "LaRocco has a comprehensive plan that solves the immediate crisis, ensures improved oversight, and promises new growth in Idaho." It is naive to think anyone is going to look to a Democratic Senate Candidate from Idaho to solve this crisis. There was one question before the nation. 'Yea' or 'Nay.' Craig understood that. LaRocco didn't.
I'm afraid your grading is backwards. The bailout that ultimately passed is a legislative embarrassment.
Posted by: Charles | October 08, 2008 at 01:21 PM