pith…

For George W. Bush’s $700 billion economic bailout plan, the republicans had no problem bailing out Wall Street, with the house voting 263 to 171 in favor of the bill (with 91 of 199 republicans voting for it). So the question now: Why are House republicans putting up such a fight when it comes to bailing out things more relative to Main Street (education, tax cuts and potential job growth)? Are they playing partisan games, or do they really find Mr. Obama’s plan wasteful (as if Bush’s plan hasn’t been)?

Bush’s tone regarding his administration’s Wall Street bailout was urgent. Bush threatened congress by saying that if they did not act now, America would be in a national crisis and possibly provoke a global crisis. Mr. Bush said, “By coming together on this legislation, we have acted boldly to prevent the crisis on Wall Street from becoming a crisis in communities across our country.” Mr. Bush, I think a lot of the United States disagreed with your bailout, but I question why your Wall Street crisis bailout package found almost half of the House republicans voting in favor of it.

Now, during Mr. Obama’s presidency, his tone concerning his stimulus is urgent as well. Obama has gotten more fired up than we have seen him before, going off the teleprompter, espousing the urgency for this bill. His tone has been thus: “Just this week, we saw more people file for unemployment than at any time in the last 26 years, and experts agree that if nothing is done, the unemployment rate could reach double digits.” This is just as urgent as Mr. Bush’s Wall Street bailout, is it not? According to House voting, absolutely not, with the total number of House republicans voting for the bill equaling nil.

Our country is in one hell of a bind, and again our House republicans are playing partisan games. The senate is expected to pass the bailout on Tuesday, with several provisions and some money cut altogether. But whether it passes or not, the question is: Why was the House so supportive of Mr. Bush’s package? Because of lobbying or partisanship? And why is the house so opposed to Mr. Obama’s package, which presumably would help more of the American people, not just the bonus-boasting buffoons on Wall Street.

These republicans are either credulous jerks or they are playing games. The democrats have been more consistent in their bailout voting. For Bush’s bailout, 172 democrats voted in favor of the bill while 62 opposed it, and for Obama’s stimulus 233 dems voted for it while 11 opposed it. This is far more consistent than the partisan-playing republicans, who supported Bush’s bailout, but denied Obama’s.

One person may have it right, and that’s Congressman Ron Paul. He doesn’t understand his fellow republican’s hypocrisy. Paul says, “It is like they’re born-again budget conservatives,” Paul said. “Where were we in the past eight years, when we could have done something? And you see our last eight years that has set this situation up. So we can’t blame the Democrats for the conditions we have.” The republicans have failed to hold the line of spending during the Bush administration, and now they want to be fiscal conservatives? Balderdash!