you have GOT to be kidding me

"The House will be voting on a bill packed with $100 billion worth of extra incentives than Monday's proposal had.

Some of those additions have been assailed by spending watchdogs as "pork," like the $6 million for the makers of kids' wooden arrows, according to a summary of the bill released by the Senate Finance Committee.

Other goodies intended to attract the votes of individual members of Congress include $192 million for the rum producers of Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, $128 million for car racing tracks, $33 million for corporations operating in American Samoa, and $10 million for small film and television productions." (Source)

So from what I've read over the last two days, I'm understanding it this way: The House rejected the original SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR package, mostly based on the "will of the people". Their constituents said "Don't do it", and they listened.

Now they're trying to pass a different bill in which they're changi....

Wait.

What?

They're not passing a different bill?

Oh I see. America didn't like the bill. So instead of changing IT, they're going to run it back through again. Only this time, they're going to add another $100 billion in "incentives" to get more votes. Most of those incentives being "pork".

Riiiiight.

this time, it's personal

"Reid made it clear that winning congressional approval of any rescue package will require Congress to delay a long-sought adjournment calculated to let lawmakers have five full weeks to campaign before the election." (Source)

Well no shit, Sherlock.

While my post this morning was made in reference to this plan, it did spark another idea in someone else: the debate.

I wasn't actually referring to whether McCain and or Obama should be campaigning, but since it was brought up...

I don't think there was necessarily anything wrong with McCain heading back to Washington to try and put his two cents in. Having to publicly declare it was a bit much though. To claim he was suspending the campaign until a deal was reached? Okay. Get real. You're running for the highest office in the country, John. None of us believed for a second your campaign was going to grind to a screeching halt. None of us expect you to try, either. You may have tried to sound altruistic, but it came across as grandstanding at best.

As for skipping the debate, in my opinion, I agree with Obama that it should go on. He said it rather well when he pointed out that as the leader of the nation, you sometimes have to juggle more than one thing at a time. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it.

I personally don't see the media circus and speculations that follow these two candidates adding anything of value to these negotiations. I feel as Senators that they should definitely be participating, but from a distance. Bile actually rose up in my throat when I saw footage of the "powers that be" flanking Dubya at the "negotiation table." That was a photo opp, plain and simple.

I think the debate should go on tonight. I think that both candidates should address this very important issue. I also think, however, it could be hurtful to the process. While I'm sure they both have opinions on what should be done, the fact of the matter is, while they're debating, their colleagues will be hammering all of this out. Best case scenario, the candidates will be able to tell us about the progress being made in Congress. The things is, on this subject, they should both have the same story. It's not all about them and what they want. Tonight it's about what Congress is actually doing.

I don't want to watch these two go at it over who is helping and who is hurting this process. Tell me how you think we got here. Tell me how you think you can prevent it. Just don't tell me the other guy is keeping us from finding a fix, because there are a few hundred other people with that weight on their shoulders right now, not just your opponent.

Interestingly enough, and just you don't think I'm saying all this because I'm leaning towards Obama (I'm still kind of undecided, actually), I found this quote while reading up on the progress after work today:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a McCain supporter, said the Republican made a "huge mistake" by even discussing canceling the debate.

"You can't just say, 'World, stop for a moment. I'm going to cancel everything,'" Huckabee told reporters Thursday night in Alabama before attending a benefit for the University of Mobile. He said it's more important for voters to hear from the presidential candidates than for them to huddle with fellow senators in Washington.

For those that don't know or remember, Huckabee made a surprisingly strong entrance into the Republican primary race this past spring. I not only agree with his statement, but I also think it's important to show that not only bloggers who happen to be registered Democrats think the debate should go on. I find it important to get as much information as possible when forming an opinion. They used to call it being "informed" or "educated". I'm not a big fan of swallowing everything your chosen party leader tells you as though it's the gospel truth.

It's not just bloggers and politicians either:

"An Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll out Friday just before McCain's announcement showed the public overwhelmingly wanted the candidates to debate, 60 percent to 22 percent, with the rest undecided."

Both of the previous quotes came from this article. Sorry about any broken hyper-links in the quotes; I copied and pasted cause I'm lazy like that.

From a different article, found here:

"Anger among voters has made the political maneuvering particularly complicated. In addition to the presidential campaign, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate is up for re-election on November 4."

This is why all of our congressional leaders are itching to get home to their districts so soon. It's a big part of what I was writing about in my previous post concerning earning my vote by doing your job rather than coming back to the district to try and convince me to vote for you.

Another article offers a concise view of what this is all about:

"The legislation the administration is promoting would allow the government to buy bad mortgages and other rotten assets held by troubled banks and financial institutions. Getting those debts off their books should bolster those companies' balance sheets, making them more inclined to lend and easing one of the biggest choke points in the credit crisis. If the plan works, it should help lift a major weight off the national economy that is already sputtering. But a significant number of lawmakers, including many House conservatives, say they're against a publicly-financed bailout."

It's a huge problem that can't be fully explained in one paragraph, but this is the "best" short version I've come across today.

The article continues:

"What caught some by surprise, either at a fractious White House meeting Thursday afternoon or shortly before it, was the sudden momentum behind a dramatically different plan drafted by House conservatives with Boehner's blessing.

Instead of the government buying the distressed securities, the new plan would have banks, financial firms and other investors that hold such loans pay the Treasury to insure them. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., a chief sponsor, said it was clear that Bush's plan "was not going to pass the House.""

That's good. We're working on different approaches and different options. Progress, right? Read on:

"But Democrats said the same was true of the conservatives' plan. It calls for tax cuts and insurance provisions the majority party will not accept, they said."

So we've got all of our leaders stuck between a rock and a hard place now. They're trying to "rescue the economy" before it gets worse. They also have to tread lightly due to the upcoming election. Don't want to piss off your constituents in September of an election year, right?

So they're fighting for the economy, they're fighting for you and me, and they're fighting for their livelihoods. And I thought I had a rough day at work.

Let's not forget that we're talking about SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS here. Seriously. I think people don't realize how much money that is. There is a lot of weight in those four words, and they should be written in bold in every news story. Ponder those words for a minute.

SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS.

Oh, and could you try to have this taken care of by Monday?

As far as I'm concerned, they can have all the time they need to get it right. You don't buy a car without thinking about it first, weighing your options, checking the budget, calling your insurance company, etc.

Well, congress is about to buy 28 million cars. Seriously. I just did the math. SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS, divided by $25,000 is 28 million. That's 28 with six zeros. And that's an expensive car for most Americans.

"Oh, let's not do cars," you say, "they're but a drop in the bucket when considering the national budget."

Okay. I'll play along. Since these wonderful people that got us into this mess (no, not your senator, your BANKER) did so with mortgages and such, lets divide SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS by $150,000. That's a nicer house than I live in. Not too fancy, but realistic for most of us real Americans.

Do you have your calculator out? No? Okay, I'll tell you then. Cutting off the number at the decimal without rounding, your federal government is considering spending enough money to purchase 4,666,666 homes at 150 grand a pop.

So, assuming they ignore the opinions of some of their constituents and spend all SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS, don't you WANT them to take their time and do it right?

Or, if you're like me, you're still not sure if they should be spending it at all.

If you read this far, I owe you a beer.

let's be human for a few days

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Government Official,

I know it's an election year and you would like to get back to your district and start campaigning soon; for yourself and for those you have chosen to endorse. Let me assure you, the citizens in your district are rather well aware that the election is approaching.

You see, I'm writing this letter to remind you that as the citizens who elected you, we did so with the expectation that you would take your job seriously and do what we elected you to do.

Therefore, I would like to politely ask you to stay in Washington right now. I say "politely ask" because it's the politically correct way of doing things. Now that that's out of the way, I can tell you what I really mean.

There is a crisis in our nation at the moment. I don't care about your political affiliations or what "side of the aisle" you park yourself on when you're at work. What I care about are my friends, family and neighbors. There has been dispute for as long as I can remember over whether the economy is up or down and whose fault it is. I can say with absolute certainty that while your constituents and those of your co-workers may argue with you and each other over the finer points of that, right now none of us care.

We don't care if Republicans caused the crisis. We don't care if Democrats caused the crisis. Perhaps it was a bi-partisan snowball effect. We don't care.

What we care about is whether or not you and your co-workers are going to do the job you were hired to do. Yes, it is your job. Yes, the people in your district got together and had a meeting and chose you for the job. It is a job, and you were hired to do it.

The nation is in a bind at the moment. This is what you were hired for. For your constituents to see and hear on the news that congress is "considering" working through the weekend is a slap in the face. You see, we didn't hire you to a M-F, 9-5 position. We hired you to work whenever necessary. Your services are needed now. Your week doesn't end on Friday. Your week ends when your term ends.

You see, we don't need you to come home and tell us to vote for you and/or Joe Blow in November. We need you to stay at work and do the job you were hired to do. You may think coming back to your district and campaigning for yourself or others will affect my vote. Guess what? You're right.

It will not affect my vote in the way you think, however. If you want my vote to spend another term in Washington, you need to win it by proving that you're willing to do the work. Your name doesn't have to be on the bill to win my vote. I don't have to hear your opinion on CNN to vote for you. You just have to show up for work until the job is done.

After all, why would I hire you for another term if you're not willing to do the job?