I was pleasantly surprised yesterday when the House failed to pass the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.  (Be patient. That site is getting hit pretty hard right now.  You might be better off visiting your favorite news site for the full text.)  From news reports over the weekend and yesterday, I was pretty sure that it was going to pass.  It’s interesting to note that approximately 40% of Democrats and about two-thirds of Republicans voted against the bill.

What would be much more interesting to me is why the bill didn’t pass.  News reports contain nothing but a bunch of partisan sniping.  Some say that Speaker Pelosi’s comments before the vote angered Republicans.  If true, that doesn’t say much for those representatives whose feelings were hurt, or for Rep. Roy Blunt, who was dumb enough to put forward the suggestion.

I wonder how many voted against the bill because it was unnecessary, or because it was bad legislation.  I also wonder how many members’ votes were cast in response to constituents’ support or opposition.  According to an Associated Press analysis, 13 of the 19 most vulnerable (in the upcoming election) Republicans and Democrats voted against the bill.

And that brings me to the real point I’ve been struggling with:  where should a Congressman’s loyalty lie?  Should he be more concerned with the good of the country, or should he be more concerned with satisfying the whim of his constituents so he can get re-elected?  On the same note, do we elect our Congressmen because we trust them to do what’s best for the country while keeping our interests in mind, or do we elect them to bring home the bacon?

I need to think more about that one.

In all the hype surrounding this mess, I’ve heard a lot of alarmism, but very little hard fact.  Paulson and Bernanke warn us of “dire consequences” if we don’t provide some assistance.  I’d like to trust them, but I trusted President Bush and his advisers when they told us that we needed to invade Iraq.  I trusted that they had credible evidence of nuclear or biological weapons development and that they actually had a plan to transition Iraq into a stable, functioning democracy.  It turns out that they had no credible evidence and their “plan” amounted to “kill the bad guys and everybody else will join hands singing Kumbaya.”

So excuse me if I’m skeptical when the administration all of sudden decides that the economy is in grave danger and the only way out is to spend 700 billion dollars.  This is the same administration (and largely the same Congress) that has been ignoring the problem for the last few years, insisting that there is no cause for concern.  Bernanke and Paulson may very well be smart guys.  But their association with the current administration makes them suspect in my eyes.  They’ll have to provide me with a whole lot more evidence than their vague warnings of “dire consequences” before I’ll believe what they have to say.