One of the reasons why I was for the bailout (I think I spent more time on dkos talking about this than on here) is that it was probably the only real solution that a) addressed the problem at hand b) with the speed necessary, and c) had any chance of passing.
Now that the GOP couldn’t hold up their side of the bargain in getting 70 to 80 votes in favor of the bailout, options seem to be very few and far between.
Anything that will make the conservative ideolouges happy will probably be untenable to the Democratic majority while anything that will make the liberal ideolouges happy will be untenable to the Republicans, would probably face a Republican filibuster in the Senate, and could be vetoed by Bush even if it could get that far.
That basically leaves four options left:
1) Start from scratch in a bipartisan way. The problem with this is that we really would be starting from scratch, and it’s hard to see how a bipartisan “from scractch” bill would be anything other than an ineffectual Frankenstein bill.
2) Do a mini-bailout. The thought here is that if we cut the bailout in, say, half and try to pass it, that might win enough people over to pass it. The question then is whether it would be so small that you castrate the bailout from actually doing any good.
3) Try with the same, or a very similar bill, again. I have a feeling that this is what is going to happen first – that they may go back to the House, maybe even with the identical bill, and try to pass it on Thursday, hoping that the market volitility has convinced enough people to vote for it. If it fails again, then they can declare the Paulson plan dead, and head for door number….
4) Do nothing. This is about the worst possible choice, though I pretty much agree with Hunter that, if option 3 above doesn’t work, doing nothing is the most likely scenario.
I just don’t see a plan other than the current plan which will be able to pass Congress and get Bush’s signature. I just don’t.
