Here is what I don’t like about Dems fighting the proposal: It gives Republicans an opening to blame Democrats if things go badly.

These likes and dislikes of mine are all based on assumptions that the bailout plan will work as it should without any horrible side effects, and the consequences if the government does nothing would be catastrophic.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/obama-no-blank-check-on-bailout/

First, the bailout shouldn’t address the root causes of our problems. We SHOULD address the root causes of our problems, but that is not the purpose of the bailout, as I understand it. The purpose of the bailout is to prevent economic catastrophe. If the politicians in Washington start adding measures to the bailout plan to address root causes, it will require lengthy, complex debate over regulation. This is where the partisan wrangling might stall things.

Second, I don’t understand why the bailout plan wouldn’t stop the financial crisis. I can understand why it wouldn’t acheive other goals — such as addressing the crisis’ root causes — but everything I’ve seen in the media tells me the people involved in this plan — Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, congressional leaders, etc — all believe it is crucially important that the plan work. So I have to ask: Is your concern that the plan won’t work based on a conspiracy theory about why the people behind this plan are putting it forward? Or are you saying that Paulson et al may be sincere in their efforts to stop the crisis but may just be going about it in the wrong way?

Thirdly, does this plan actually violate a law? Or does it simply violate our preference for a system of checks and balances? Because if the plan is illegal, it can be challenged on legal grounds — and it must be opposed on those grounds. If, on the other hand, the plan is technically legal, we shouldn’t “cry wolf” and say it defies the law when really it doesn’t.

Finally, I would say this: It would obviously be great if we could all get everything we want. But if we frame our position as “opposing” the plan that’s on the table, we’re being obstructionists and risking catastrophe. In other words, I think we need to be positive, rather than negative, about the plan, saying the plan SHOULD include X,Y and Z — rather than saying we oppose the plan because it doesn’t include X,Y or Z.

Because if we (and by “we” I mean Americans generally) oppose the plan and we manage to kill the plan and then catastrophe ensues as a result, it will be partly our fault.

It’s all well and good to say your skepticism is not directed at the concept of a bailout as such — but the reality of the situation is that legislation may need to be passed within the next two weeks, which doesn’t leave a lot of time for squabbling over details.

So here’s my question to Lee and anyone else who wants to chime in: If the plan doesn’t change between now and the end of this week, and it comes to a vote, would you urge your representatives in Congress to support it? Or would you urge them to vote against it, risking the possibility of economic disaster in exchange for the possibility that a better plan will arise?