by Frank James
It's not hard to understand why House Republicans would be so resistant to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion bailout plan.
One reason House Republicans found themselves in the minority is because, in the lead up to the 2006 mid-term elections, they lost the small-government mantle that had helped them gain the majority in the first place back in 1994.
Instead, by accepting deficits and in fact contributing to them by repeatedly voting for large federal spending bills, Republicans outraged fiscal conservatives, an important part of their base.
The sense that House Republicans had become as bad as Democrats, at least in the eyes of many Republican voters, was exacerbated by the Jack Abramoff scandal and the Bridge to Nowhere earmarks outrages.
Ever since their defeat in 2006, House Republicans have talked about how they lost their brand and needed to regain it if they had any hope to retake the House majority. And they've taken numerous steps since 2006 to try and rebuild the trust of fiscal conservatives, calling constantly for reduced spending and extending President Bush's tax cuts.
Now they have the Bush Administration, as it's heading out the door, trying to thrust a $700 billion bailout package on them and they're not going to have it. It doesn't fit the narrative they believe will lead them back to the House majority.
The administration's problem is that House Republicans have little incentive to give in to the president who not only is soon to be the ex-president but is unpopular to boot.
House Majority Leader John Boehner and the rest of the Republican conference plan on being around for a while and they don't want to support a bailout package if it's going to severely damage their ability to re-establish their small-government, lower taxes and less-spending brand.
Also, House Republicans have cover because not only does a majority of the American public dislike the Paulson plan but a lot of economists do too. Even many Democrats, who Republicans usually see as free-spending libertines, disapprove of the plan. Not many House Republicans want to be to the left of Democrats.
So while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she's confident a deal can be reached within the next 24 hours, I wouldn't be so certain.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Just as i stated on Swamp turning out a big mess on both sides with the lobbist probable tunning in-
Posted by: George | September 26, 2008 10:07 AM
Dear House Republicans,
Please get the American people dollar for dollar equity for any investment of their money in bailing out Wall Street. This concept is overwhelming supported by the economics profession and the American people deserve to share in the recovery of any bailed-out institutions. We can't afford to cover their losses without this promise of a return on our investment.
Sincerely,
McCain Democrat
Posted by: McCain Democrat | September 26, 2008 10:27 AM
The borrow-and-spend House Republicans had no problem spending our money to fund their agenda. But, now that the country needs it, they balk. What happened to "Country First"?
Posted by: JimBob | September 26, 2008 10:40 AM
This is all GOP political theatrics. Mark my words...McBushs own party will all of a sudden reach a deal thanks to...wink...wink....McBush. This GOP has a history of using Americas emotions and fears and won't hesitate one minute to use it to further McBushs political gains. This is some low life politics at our expense.
Posted by: bill r. | September 26, 2008 10:45 AM
Frank,
*
You need a cup of joe. Boehner has been the House Minority leader since 2006.
Posted by: John W. | September 26, 2008 12:05 PM
Frank, besides your shaky grasp of facts, don't you think that before you write about what Republicans supposedly think, you ought like, talk, to a Republican or two, to see how they really think?
Is that so hard to figure out?
Posted by: Bruce | September 26, 2008 2:38 PM