Here's details of the bailout bill, including a summary of the unbelievable number of attachments. Newscasters mentioned the 'sweeteners; intended to entice the support of resistant Republicans, but there's a lot more than that involved! After reading it, I couldn't help marveling that any legislation ever gets passed. If Mr. Smith went to Washington today, he'd suffer culture shock.

How can any senator ever state definitively what he's voted for or against? It would take days to wade though the details of the attachments which rode to passage on the back of that bill last night. I'm willing to bet that not one senator who voted yea was in support of every attachment. Is that what they mean when they talk about compromise? I get it that compromise is a necessary evil when you are resolving issues among those with diverse goals/ideals - I am not entirely naive - but what happens to the integrity of people who are faced with such compromises year after year? Isn't it a very short step from compromise to corruption? If you've been tamping down your conscience for years in order to vote for legislation even though it contains attachments you believe are unnecessary or even repulsive, doesn't that somehow damage you? What kind of commitment does it take to be willing to subject yourself to that? You gotta wonder - and marvel.

Now, just because the Senate has passed their version of the bailout doesn't mean it can't or should not be stopped, and the House may do that. The House will vote on it tomorrow. They will undoubtedly make some changes to it. Perhaps they will take up the task of drafting legislation that both addresses the financial realities of Wall Street and protects taxpayers. I was encouraged today, listening to House members - all Republicans - who intend to vote no on the bill again. Gohmert of Texas talked about the folly of giving one man, Secretary Paulson, so much authority over so much of our money. I am in full agreement with him on that. Then, Bachus expressed concerns about our ability to meet other commitments if this we tie up $700bn. Although Pelosi (who has, incidentally, been given a bad rap for not sealing the deal Monday) says we have plenty of time to address the shortcoming of our financial regulations, the fact is, once Paulson has all that money, what we may regret is giving him so much leeway. It's almost like an invitation to crime, like leaving your car keys in the ignition is an invitation to car thieves.

The media is awash with messages warning of the dire consequences of the bill's failure. There's hardly room for dissenting voices to squeeze in, but I've heard a few. Allen Meltzer on NPR is one of them. And although Daniel Gross, business columnist for Newsweek, argues in reluctant favor of the bailout, I liked what he said:

"The Bush administration's desire to turn all Americans into participants in the capital markets through the privatization of Social Security never got off the ground. But in the last months of its second term, it has managed to pull off something of a coup. Soon enough, we'll all collectively own various securities issued by lots of big companies. Too bad the Ownership Society is happening only because we became a Bad Debt Society."

The media blitz on this issue reminds me of the way disserting voices were drowned out prior to the Iraq war. I smell the same hysteria in the air. I think we will have plenty of time to regret our hasty act if we allow ourselves to be swept up in it. I agree with, I think it is Bachus, who says how about giving Paulson $50bn for now and thinking about this over the recess, then taking it up again immediately on return? What's wrong with that? It certainly addresses the liquidity problem, if that's really what the problem is.