Perspectives on the bailout bill

Inter Lake editorial

To be sure, the financial meltdown is hard for the average person to understand, and it is equally difficult to be sure of what degree government needed to be involved in the remedy.

But Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., brought some informed perspective on the matter this week in separate meetings with the Inter Lake editorial board.

As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus was a leader in developing the $700 billion package aimed at shoring up shaky financial institutions. And Rehberg voted against it.

But Rehberg didn't vote "no" on the bill for the political expediency of avoiding the wrath of angered constituents - he bluntly told us this week that Congress "needed to do something" and that he "can't criticize those who voted for" the bailout package.

He believes that Congress and the federal government did need to intervene in some fashion, and he simply did not approve of the legislation that was ultimately developed, largely because it was not reviewed or amended by the appropriations committee that he sits on.

Rehberg and Baucus make convincing cases about the need for intervention, but interestingly, Rehberg described the bailout legislation as being "universally despised" by constituents who were "upset, angry."

Baucus, in defense of his work, said the rescue package was not intended to bail out Wall Street, but to save Main Street businesses and the country's broader economy.

The record losses and gains in stock markets over the last two weeks are certainly evidence of an investor confidence crisis that has profound implications. As a result, credit markets have tightened, making it harder for businesses and individuals to get loans.

And the cascading economic damage will continue until investors see that the country is back to business as usual.

Baucus summed it up, saying "it all comes down to confidence," and the underlying intent of government intervention is about shoring up confidence. Baucus believes that the government's action will be effective in restoring stability to the economy, with potential for taxpayers to come out ahead if financial institutions that get federal assistance regain value.

We hope he's right.