“Please sir, I want some more.”

Benjamin Kantack
UNL Political Science and Spanish Major


As banks, insurance providers, and automakers continue to petition the government for funding to defibrillate their catatonic companies, the average American is becoming disenfranchised with the handling of the financial crisis. Recent Gallup polls show that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (the man tasked with the bailout, stimulus, and other spending projects) has a mediocre 42% approval rating, while the percentage of Americans with a positive impression of Obama’s budget proposal has dropped to 39%.

According to CNBC on February 26th, the President included a request for $250 billion in additional bailout funds in the budget he submitted to Congress. The request “would support asset purchases of $750 billion via government stabilization programs,” according to the administration, which affirmed that “Additional action is likely to be necessary to stabilize the financial system and thereby facilitate economic growth.”

What is surprising about this $250 billion request, however, is the fact that no one – not even the President himself – knows what it will be used for. Instead of specifically allocating funds to troubled companies or organizations, the request was a “placeholder,” as yet not assigned to any particular recipients, according to Reuters on March 26. As both a fiscal conservative and a guy whose mom gets suspicious when he asks for $20 and doesn’t say what for, I find it more than a little disconcerting that the president expects to have to shell out more cash, but doesn’t know specifically why or to whom.

The Republicans, the party of penny-pinchers, stood up (as expected) to the inclusion of such an arbitrary, haphazard ballpark figure in the proposed 2010 budget. But the opposition to the $250 billion placeholder includes several influential Democratic congressmen. Each congressional chamber has a Budget Committee to review the President’s suggestions.

In the Senate, the chairmanship of said committee falls to Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who told NPR that he eliminated the $250 billion because “[T]here is no plan as to how to use the money and no assertion by the administration that they’re even certain it would be needed.” Conrad added, “[W]e simply can’t budget money for things that are theoretical.”

Conrad’s counterpart in the House, Democratic Congressman John Spratt of South Carolina, called on the President to justify the request. On March 29, Rep. Spratt told CNN’s John King on State of the Union that “If it’s needed, we will be there to support it. But let’s not create a presumption it is needed and see if we can’t make the most of what’s in circulation already.”

Two other Democrats – Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada – spoke out against the prodigality, according to a March 24 article by David Lightman. Nelson stated “I don’t think there’s enough support for any additional rescue plans at this point.” Reid argued that further funding could be provided when the need arises, saying “If it’s an emergency we can do it.”

Some might consider the refusal of these Democrats to back the president’s wanton allocation of funds nothing more than bending to the will of their constituents. However, there is a glimmer of hope that these congressmen may have begun to recognize how inefficient and unsuccessful the federal government has proven itself at administering bailout monies in this time of crisis. Perhaps the Obama administration will be less eager to pour out more taxpayer dollars whenever a failed company approaches with an empty bowl and a pitiable, Twist-esque expression, pleading “Please sir, I want some more.”