Hunter over at the Daily Kos has a very good rundown of what's going on in D.C. with the negotiations on the bailout plan.

From watching the news and reading the blogs over the last couple of days, I am struck mainly with the impression I get anytime I see more than one economist talking: there is no such thing as a "solution."

The math and science behind the economy (a soft science, I must add) is complex and fluid.  Civilized societies are so vast and varied that even the soundest theories have serious flaws, shortcomings that are present only because no one can come up with a better explanation.

I'm no expert in economic theory, and I do understand why negotiating this action in congress is so difficult.  I can't blindly accept the $700 billion - $1 trillion figure they've cited, and like Hunter and DevilsTower I'm annoyed that nobody can seem to come up with a plan that has more details, justification and (gasp!) agreeability.

Several prominent democrats have been on television since yesterday deploring attempts by members of the house and senate (mainly a group of uber-conservative republicans) to introduce a completely new bill.  While the one that's currently on the table does have deeply concerning flaws, introducing entire new pieces of legislation is not exactly an ideal solution -- the whole negotiating process would have to begin anew.

Many of these republicans also object strongly to the bailouts.  They can object until the cows come home, but that doesn't change the fact that it would be suicide not to do it.

The subprime mortgages aren't the problem. And the overleveraged firms shouldn't be a problem. The problem is keeping the rest of the economy afloat no matter what happens to the firms in trouble."

The bill these republicans are proposing also includes a lot of proposals democrats will never accept, including massive deregulation of the market and release of private companies from government stewardship.  Anybody who has been reading about this should recall that the general belief is that deregulation of the mortgage industry is largely to blame for people obtaining loans they really shouldn't have, causing the bubble, the collapse and now bankruptcies left and right on wall street.

Economic historians also place at least some blame for every major market collapse/"adjustment" on a lack of regulation.  To make an analogy, this also seems to be what has happened with the Executive Branch in this country in the last 8 (ok, 12) years: signing statements, executive privilege, partisan judiciaries and a hog-tied congress.  And while Economics is not an exact science, this is a pretty strong correlation.

Without substantive inquiry into the practices of wall street while it's recovering from this crisis, things could go very quickly downhill again.  I imagine the cost of this oversight is at least some of the missing $550 billion Hunter can't account for.  And despite the indignation of bloggers and the press, I don't think the $700 is completely unsubstantiated.  There's probably a very complex equation behind it...I just would like Bernake and Paulson to come out and explain it.

I imagine the fighting will continue throughout the day today, and spill into the presidential debate tonight.  I'm looking forward to hearing from Obama and McCain about foreign policy and the economy.  More later tonight with my take on the debates.