I feel I should elaborate, and I’m almost drunk enough to do so. I was using this particular bailout proposal only as an example to illustrate that:

1) bailouts are a poor litmus test for partisanship, and illustrate the insufficiency of the linear left-right spectrum, as both support for, and opposition to, cross partisan and spectrum boundaries. I doubt Glen will become a Kucinich supporter even though Denis generally sides in opposition.

2) bailouts, while always evil, may *sometimes* be a necessary evil. Is this one necessary? I haven’t decided. There is merit to the argument that chapter 11 may be preferable in this case. (However, try to pretend that chapter 11 bankruptcy is itself somehow a laissez faire institution and I’ll likely snort vodka out my nose)

and, 3) If bailouts are to happen, necessary or not, strings can be attached to at least minimize the evil, and, if we’re going to get partisan, of the two groups that ally in favor of these actions, one is clearly more likely than the other to architect the deal to favor the interests of the people over the interests of the corporate welfare recipients.

Also, from “try to pretend that chapter 11 bankruptcy is itself somehow a laissez faire institution and I’ll likely snort vodka out my nose”, I should have gone on to say that arguing for Chapter 11 as the better alternative is not an argument against bailouts, but merely an argument in favor of a different *type* of bailout.