PORK, DID THEY actually make any changes to the substance of the bailout?
I’m reading a lot about how the main differences between the earlier House version of the bailout and the Senate version that finally prevailed is all the billions in pork and other irrelevancies that were ladled on in — I assume — an attempt to garner Senators’ support for the monster. But I haven’t noticed (as distinct from there hasn’t been) any mention of changes to the — you know — the bailout.
So, if it was such an abortion on Monday, what made it so great on Friday?
Aw, c’mon, Alger. You know they changed it. Stuff like they called ’em “taxpayer protections,” (tho’ what those are, I dunno — we’re still gonna get stuck with the tab), and limits on executive severance packages.
Fair enough. Do either of those actually address the problem?
‘Ll No. Does legislation ever address the problem? Especially when the problem was created by the legislature? Or, I guess I sh’d say, corrupt legislators.
Upsie-date: Heh: Scalzi. (H/T Insty)
“I’m opposed to calling bribes to recalcitrant legislators ‘sweeteners.’ High fructose corn syrup is a ‘sweetener.’ The Senate lardering up a novel’s worth of incentives to get the House to change its mind on a bill it bounced just days before is a goddamn bribe.”