The Bush administration has done this before. Many times. It’s always worked till now, so of course they’re going to try to do it again, what can simply be called the rape of America by emergency legislation.

The recipe is simple enough:
Take a crisis, real or imagined. Create a whole lot of fear around it. Propose an emergency legislative solution. Persuade Democrats — who don’t seem to take much persuading when it comes to such claptrap — that, despite its evident flaws, opposing said solution will be political suicide. Ram through the thoroughly flawed emergency legislation with zero discussion or debate. Try not to smirk when Democrats slowly realize in retrospect exactly what they have allowed themselves to be manipulated into supporting. Try not to remind Democrats how many times they’ve fallen for the exact same trick.

The Bush administration on Saturday formally proposed a vast bailout of financial institutions in the United States, requesting unfettered authority for the Treasury Department to buy up to $700 billion in distressed mortgage-related assets from the private firms.

The proposal, not quite three pages long, was stunning for its stark simplicity. It would raise the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion. And it would place no restrictions on the administration other than requiring semiannual reports to Congress, granting the Treasury secretary unprecedented power to buy and resell mortgage debt.

That’s how stark and simple it really is. Unprecedented power with no restrictions whatsoever, no accountability. That’s the Bush administration wet dream, isn’t it?

And why exactly is this proposal such a terribly terrible idea? That again is so simple that even Sarah Palin can hope to understand it (if she were ever to become so inclined).

One:

Sec. 8. Review: Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

How can that even be legal? And if it is, we are seriously willing to even consider giving absolute power to these people? We really want to find out what absolute power can do to those who were already absolutely corrupted to start with?

Two:
Buying distressed mortgage-related assets from private firms is the centerpiece of the bailout plan, but Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has not even hinted at how the assets will be priced for purposes of the bailout. Is this just going to be one big handout, with taxpayers paying more than fair market value? (If not, then why is the intervention even necessary? Why can’t these firms just sell the assets in the vaunted, glorious free-market at fair market value?)

Three:
It actually doesn’t matter a tinker’s damn what Paulson says at this point about pricing, anyway. The beauty of this plan is that Paulson can cheerfully promise now that all purchases will be made at fair market value, and then turn around later and find all kinds of specious reasons why fair market value is besides the point. And there’s no recourse at all. Since, in the wisdom of things, decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Brilliant, isn’t it? Simply bloody brilliant.

The point, of course, is that once you grant the kind of absolute immunity that Bush and Paulson are asking for, all discussion or debate is actually moot. Especially when you’re dealing with people who have displayed no particular compunction in the past about telling the truth. They can say whatever it takes right now to get the plan passed, and turn around later and do whatever they planned all along. So you can’t trust anything they say now.

In a logical world, the upshot of that would be: therefore, you can’t grant them the absolute immunity they’re asking for. There have to be checks and balances. All the usual ones, and then some. Because these people have proved over and over again that they are simply not to be trusted. Not to tell the truth. Not to do the right thing.

But Democrats are going to fall for this garbage again, aren’t they?

… the delivery of the administration’s plan set the stage for a four-day brawl in Congress. Democratic leaders have pledged to approve a bill but say it must also include tangible help for ordinary Americans in the form of an economic stimulus package.
[...]
With Congressional Republicans warning that the bailout could be slowed by efforts to tack on additional provisions, Democratic leaders said they would insist on a requirement that the administration use its new role, as the owner of large amounts of mortgage debt, to help hundreds of thousands of troubled borrowers at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure.

“It’s clear that the administration has requested that Congress authorize, in very short order, sweeping and unprecedented powers for the Treasury secretary,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, said in a statement. “Democrats will work with the administration to ensure that our response to events in the financial markets is swift, but we must insulate Main Street from Wall Street and keep people in their homes.”

Sounds very much like everyone expects Democrats to climb on board as long as the Bush administration throws them the bone they want. As long as some protection is added for “troubled borrowers at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure”, Democrats sound ready to give the Treasury Department carte blanche to do whatever it wants. With no questions being asked. Ever. By anyone.

Brilliant. Simply bloody brilliant.

Barack Obama has described the proposal as “a concept with a staggering price tag, not a plan”. He also said:

No blank check. If we grant the Treasury broad authority to address the immediate crisis, we must insist on independent accountability and oversight. Given the breach of trust we have seen and the magnitude of the taxpayer money involved, there can be no blank check.

But is he actually going to show any real leadership on the issue? Will he put his full weight behind opposing the plan? There is no doubt that he can spell out to America, in terms that make the plan politically untenable for Republicans in its present form, exactly why it’s such a crappy idea. But will he?