John Shadegg Wobbles On The Bailout Bill

One of most prominent no votes against the Paulson-Bernake bailout bill on Monday came from John Shadegg of Arizona, who is number 5 in the House Republican leadership.

Now, it appears that Shadegg has caved and will vote yes on the bill later today:

Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) signaled Wednesday that changes being discussed for the Wall Street bailout could prompt him to change his vote and support it.

Shadegg, interviewed on Arizona radio station KTAR, said raising the FDIC insurance cap from $100,000 to $250,000 and suspending the SEC’s mark-to-market accounting rules would likely win his vote. “If they make both of those changes, I’d be inclined to vote for the bill, assuming there have not been any bad things added to it,” he said.

The switch would be a major boost for Republican leaders — Shadegg is a former chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the conservative wing of the conference that helped sink the bill on Monday when 81 of its 106 members voted against it.

In the interview, Shadegg said he is “highly optimistic” the package will pass on its second try this week.

To say the least, this is disappointing.

Shadegg is a member of the Board of Advisors of the Republican Liberty Caucus, which has come out against the bill, and has, until now, been one of the few members of the House Republican leadership to sound a clear and consistent voice for the free market and individual liberty.

If there’s any chance that Shadegg can be persuaded to stick to his original vote, now is the time to tell him to do it. If you live in his district, or even if you don’t, call his office at (202) 225-3361 and tell him to vote “No” for the Crap Sandwich with Pork bailout.

  • somebody

    Is there a conspiracy going on? I’d be disappointed enough even if they passed a bill that was substantially scaled down from the first one, but they’re actually going to pass one worse than the first one?

  • thomasblair


    You thought that the bill would only get smaller? Welcome to Earth.

  • Pingback: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » The Crap Sandwich Bailout Faces Round Two In The House()

  • Jeff Molby

    Indeed, thomas. With two socialist parties, you can rest assured that any compromises between them will result in “more”, not “less”.

  • TerryP

    Didn’t the SEC already make the change to the mark-to-market rules on Tuesday. This was done without any taxpayer money being pledged towards a bailout. If he is chaning his vote because of the mark-to-market rules maybe someone should tell him it was already done. At least that is what I read from a Heritage Foundation article.

    I certainly think you could pass a bill raising the FDIC limits without having to attach it to a $700 billion bailout bill that now includes over a $100 million in pork and other non-related special interest items.

  • Jeff Molby

    The SEC move on Tuesday was an “advisement”. They wanted it written in law.

    But yeah, it’s mostly just a cover for the pork.

  • TerryP


    You are correct that the SEC just changed their guidelines, but did you really need a $800+ billion dollar bill to get the change in the mark-to-market rules into law. Secondly, these days anything that an agency does or says is considered law even if it is not passed by the legislature. If they in fact needed it written into law before it was viable then why did the SEC even bother changing their guidelines in the first place.

    While I believe that they should have changed the mark-to-market rules long ago and we might have even avoided some of this mess, since the SEC could just make the change without legislation from Congress, this change to vote for the bill had absolutely nothing to do with the mark-to-market rules. Beyond other corruption there is only one thing that their change of heart could of been about and that is the pork.

    It is a sad day when pork alone will move 50+ votes on a $800 billion bill that will be a noose around taxpayers neck for a long, long time.

  • Steve Gagne

    What’s even more pathetic, is that this bailout only covers losses from 02/2007 thru this past 06/2008, leaving the remaining 1/3 of the “maturing” dead weight from then thru 02/2009 uncovered. This is going to cause another wave of financial collapses not even addressed by the financial models.