For most members of Congress facing tough reelection campaigns, Monday’s bailout vote did not appear to be such a tough decision.
The vast majority of politically vulnerable members from both parties voted against the $700 billion package, fearing serious flak from their constituents back home. Of the 205 members who supported the bill, only seven — four Democrats and three Republicans — are facing highly competitive races.
The vote breakdown is in sync with skeptical public sentiment toward the plan. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll, for instance, showed 56 percent of those surveyed favoring something different than the proposed bailout package. Only 22 percent supported it.
Indeed, it was almost impossible to find a politically vulnerable Republican who supported the deal. The only three Republicans in tough races who supported it were Reps. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Jon C. Porter of Nevada.
Most of the politically vulnerable Democrats bucked their party’s leaders and voted against the package as well. While 15 of the 33 Democrats on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s incumbent-retention Frontline program supported the bailout, the majority aren’t at serious risk of losing their seats.
Indeed, only four Democrats facing highly competitive reelection bids — Reps. Jerry McNerney of California, Tim Mahoney of Florida, Paul E. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania and Jim Marshall of Georgia — voted for the bailout.
Cook Political Report House analyst David Wasserman pointed to those members — and Porter on the Republican side — as having the most to lose from their votes. He said that public sentiment in Shays’ and Kirk’s districts is more supportive of the plan. Shays represents a suburban district with many Wall Street employees, and Kirk represents an affluent suburban Chicago district.
“If this bailout vote remains as unpopular across districts as it is today, the five incumbents with the most explaining to do are Jerry McNerney, Tim Mahoney, Jim Marshall, Paul Kanjorski and Jon Porter,” Wasserman said.
Already one of the most vulnerable House Democrats, Kanjorski could see his vote used against him. His Republican opponent, Lou Barletta, opposes the proposal and has attacked Kanjorski for receiving campaign contributions from Freddie Mac’s and Fannie Mae’s political action committees.
In Florida, Mahoney has been attacked by his Republican challenger, Tom Rooney, for not doing enough to crack down on the two quasi-governmental mortgage giants.
Another striking development was the number of retiring members of both parties who ended up supporting the legislation. By Wasserman’s count, 26 of the 31 members of both parties leaving next year supported it. And 21 House Republicans who aren’t returning next term voted for the bill, making up nearly a third of the 65 GOP votes supporting the legislation.
“The telling statistic on the political side is the votes of those who were retiring versus the votes of those who are in tough races,” Wasserman said. “Retiring members feel strongly that this bill is necessary to stabilize markets, and they know they will not be receiving any political repercussion for voting their conscience.”
5 comments:
Unfortunately, as this article proves, the majority of politicians in Washington are more concerned with their political status than "the good of the people."
To me, that so many Republicans in the House would vote against the bill in order to maintain popularity depletes the fundamental idea of democracy. I personally wasn't for or against the bailout bill, and currently don't favor a political party, so my disappointment really lies in the decisions based on political role and not on the American community.
How can we lift the economy from the crisis it's in when Washington is full of power plays and adults behaving as children by blaming others and not taking responisibilty?
Although the bailout package is in some respects crucial to stabilizing the market, but public sentiments and the % of people against the bailout package or for an alternative plan should be taken into account.
Moreover, although the opinions of retiring members would not have a major impact on the decision about the bailout, but nevertheless, the necessity of the bailout or just a set of plans out of this crisis is necessary.
It's pretty sad to see that many of the politicians who voted were more concerned with what people would think of them instead of what's best for this country. Although I wasn't too confident in the bailout I believe its better to do something about our financial crisis rather than just worry about what others think. It's disappointing to see that politicians are so selfish and mainly care about their social and political status. I hope that they will see their error-which is highly unlikely-and reset their priorities.
$7 billion is a lot of money. And lots of people are affected by decisions that involve a sum like this. We didn't elect representatives to Congress so that they could lolly around and make their choice based on what would win them the vote. They need to have their own valid reason for not supporting the bailout or whatever issue, and that reason should be that their particular choice is the best thing for the country. Because if they don't choose whats best for everyone, they'll be kicked out off their office anyway. Sure, people might not like whats going on right now and might not like the initial consequences of the bailout, but if we see that we're better off in the long run because of it, then we'll deal with it. I understand that it might mean a representative not being reelected, but really, only a few reps are in tight races anyway so it shouldnt matter too much for the others. The legislators who dont make their choices wisely are nullifying what people have fought for throughout American history-- the people's right to affect decisions that affect them. People have lost their lives for this country before because they felt it was their duty to defend our rights. Are today's people really that selfish to put their office above the country who put them there? They need to think about the real issues at hand, not their own personal problems. What you do with a sum like that leaves quite an impression on the American people.
At least, an agreement was made rapidly due to a time crunch although not very methodically I think. I think the government has its head in the right place, but there's just a bunch of legislators who flip flop around before they realize what's the right thing to do. But they really need to reevaluate their job and what they wre elected to do, so that they can keep their positions and all the Americans affected by the housing and economic crisis can keep their jobs as well. They need to know that all of our jobs are on the line and that they are the lucky ones who get to decide what will happen to us.
I think it's pathetic that our politicians, most of which we have chosen ourselves, are succumbed to the greater public light. They are more concerned with how they look than with upholding the very thing that we people have elected them to represent. I find it hard to believe that this country is going to improve when there are politicians who have no idea what they're doing.
Post a Comment