NYTimes:

House and Senate negotiators from both parties said Thursday that they had reached general agreement to move forward with the Bush administration’s proposed $700 billion rescue effort of the nation’s financial system.

One plan under consideration would release $250 billion immediately, with another $100 billion available at the discretion of the president. . . . They also said that there would be limits on pay packages for executives whose firms seek assistance from the government and a mechanism for the government to be given an equity stake in some firms so that taxpayers have a chance to profit if the companies prosper in the months and years ahead.

More...

According to this AP story, the deal about to be struck between the Bush Administration and Congress will essentially be the Dodd/Dem plan:

President Bush is bringing presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain into negotiations on a $700 billion rescue of Wall Street as Democrats and Republicans near agreement on a bailout plan with more protections for taxpayers and new help for distressed homeowners.

. . . They're still wrangling over major elements, including how to phase in the eye-popping cost — a measure demanded by Democrats and some Republicans who want stronger congressional control over the bailout — without spooking markets. A plan to let the government take an ownership stake in troubled companies as part of the rescue, rather than just buying bad debt, also was under intense negotiation . . . With the administration's original proposal considered dead in Congress, House leaders said they were making progress toward revised legislation that could be approved.

(Emphasis supplied.) Good stuff, but one sticking point that I think creates an opportunity:

This is a sink-or-swim moment for America. We cannot simply catch our breath. We've got to swim for the shores. We must address the conditions that set the stage for the turmoil unfolding on Wall Street, or we will find ourselves lurching from crisis to crisis. Just as Wall Street must once again look further than the quarterly report, our nation must as well.

- Senator Hillary Clinton

(Emphasis mine.) Looking past getting Wall Street through the next quarter, Senator Hillary Clinton presses her argument for a new HOLC:

I think there is absolutely no doubt that Congress will act in some way to address the credit/mortgage crisis Wall Street now faces. The question is HOW do they act. Matt Yglesias writes about the false presentation of the options that proponents of the Paulson proposal are trying to force upon the country:

1. [D]o absolutely nothing in response to the current situation . . . 2. [W]e do exactly what Hank Paulson proposed over the weekend. . . . [P]roponents of the Paulson Plan have an obligation to either make the case for (2), or else to canvass some alternative ways of doing (1) and explain in clear terms why the Paulson Plan is superior to other alternatives. Merely citing the urgent need for action is a transparent effort to foreclose debate.

That transparent effort failed. The Paulson plan is dead imo. In the NYTimes, David Leonhardt writes:

Now that everyone agrees that lobbyists are bad, shouldn't we do exactly what they are arguing against? dday points to this Hill article reporting that the bank lobbyists are in a panic over the Dodd bill:

Krugman:

The premise of the Paulson plan– though never stated bluntly — is that these assets are hugely underpriced, so that Uncle Sam can buy them at prices that help the financial industry a lot, without big losses for taxpayers. Are you prepared to bet $700 billion on that premise? But how can we help the financial situation without making that bet? By taking an equity stake. That way, if it turns out that the feds are pumping money in at above-fair prices, at least they get ownership, just as a private white knight would have.

There is no, repeat no justification for refusing to grant equity warrants that provide some taxpayer protection. This is, for me, an absolute deal or no-deal point.

(Emphasis mine.) Why is Paulson resistent on this point? It makes perfect sense.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

The Senate Banking Committee (Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Chairman) hearing on the proposed Wall Street Bailout begins around 9:30 am ET this morning. I believe all the cable news channels will be broadcasting the hearing. C-Span certainly will have them. You can find the C-Span Live stream here. Here is Fed Chair Bernanke's opening statement.

Below the fold, I will point out issues that catch my interest. Please provide your own thoughts in the comments.

This is an Open Thread.

So the NYTimes reports that President Bush, of the record low approval rating and horrific track record on well, everything, is "urg[ing] lawmakers to act quickly on the bailout legislation [and] resist the temptation to add provisions that, he said, “would undermine the effectiveness of the plan.”

As if Bush has a clue about the what would undermine the "effectiveness" of the plan, or even what the idea of the plan even is. Let's face it, Bush has no effing clue. This is Paulsen's plan. But I have a ready made response for Democrats to President Bush:

Dem Lawmakers Urge Bush and GOP To Pass Dem Bailout Plan

I think they should say that "Bush and the Republicans are jeopardizing the economy by trying to make changes that would undermine the effectiveness of the Democratic plan."

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Apparently, Senator Dodd was speaking softly on the Sunday shows while wielding a big legislative stick. Here is the proposed legislation.. Krugman likes the Dodd proposal.

In the end, Atrios gets to the crux of the issue:

[N]o proposal matters as long as the plan is to surrender when Mr. 24% stamps his feet.

Let's hope that is not the plan.

Speaking for me only

South Dakota, which already has a very strict law on abortion, has an even stricter one on the ballot in November, that would ban abortion in all cases except rape, incest and (narrow) instances of necessity to protect the life or health of the woman.

First, the current law:

The legislature passed a law requiring doctors to tell women that an abortion would "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being." Each woman must be told that abortion increases the risk of "suicide ideation and suicide," a medically disputed assertion, and must be offered the chance to view a sonogram. A 24-hour waiting period is required.

Paul Krugman says "No Deal" on the $700 billion bailout.

Not unless Treasury explains, very clearly, why this is supposed to work, other than through having taxpayers pay premium prices for lousy assets.

The Treasury Department's fact sheet on the bailout is here and as I mentioned in an earlier post, the text of the legislation is here. I'm an economically challenged type who has to struggle to understand complex financial things that don't involve crime. Marcy at Empty Wheel explains it in a way I can understand:

More...

Too busy to engage the issue, but Democrats must say no to the proposed bailout as announced today. It is simply unacceptable. Krugman explains:

[H]istorically, financial system rescues have involved seizing the troubled institutions and guaranteeing their debts; only after that did the government try to repackage and sell their assets. The feds took over S&Ls first, protecting their depositors, then transferred their bad assets to the RTC. . . . The Treasury plan, by contrast, looks like an attempt to restore confidence in the financial system — that is, convince creditors of troubled institutions that everything’s OK — simply by buying assets off these institutions.

More...