The New York Times reports this morning that there are plans to institute a $500,000 salary cap for executives whose companies will receive large amounts in the proposed bailout. From that article:

The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during the Bush administration, and they could force executives to accept deep reductions in their current pay. They come amid rising public fury about huge pay packages for executives at financial companies being propped up by federal tax dollars.

Executives at companies that have already received money from the Treasury Department would not have to make any changes. But analysts and administration officials are bracing for a huge wave of new losses, largely because of the deepening recession, and many companies that have already received federal money may well be coming back.

What are your thoughts?

Some area auto dealers feel pretty strongly about the inevitability and justness of a Washington bailout of the nation's auto industry, according to the Daily News. John Pazamickas, sales manager for Orleans Ford-Mercury had this to say to Virginia Kropf:

"We believe the auto industry is the most important single manufacturing industry in the country, and for the government not to take seriously the livelihood of millions who derive income from that industry is shameful."

Shameful! That's emphatic. What do you think? Is Pazamickas in the right? He says that "for every job the auto industry creates, eight other jobs are affected." Is the auto industry so entwined with the fabric of the national economy that a bailout is "inevitable"?

In other news, the family whose apartment burned earlier this month—in the same fire that destroyed the post office in Pavilion—have found a new home. For now at least, they will be renting out a home on St. Mary's Street.

Youth sports are in the news again. This time, the Batavia Town Board got the pitch: a proposal to rent "15 acres of land at Batavia Turf Farms to give area youths and adult sports leagues a place to play." Folks who are interested are already entertaining visios of sports tournaments and a boost to tourism "by attracting teams and spectators from outside the local area."

The Batavia Town Board approved the $5.9 million budget for next year. That means the property tax rate in the town will remain at zero.

We encourage you to pick up a copy of the Daily News at your local newsstand. Or, better yet, subscribe at BataviaNews.com.

Last night, CBS News reported (watch the video above) that contrary to promises from Congress, that $700 billion bailout for the nation's biggest banks, the bailout intended to help banks get toxic loans off their books and to kick-start new borrowing and stimulate the economy -- well, nobody really knows how the banks are using the money.

Congress, in its rush to ram this legislation through, didn't require a stitch of regulatory oversight.  And the banks obstinately told CBS: "We don't have to tell you what we're doing with that money."

Meanwhile, it's been reported elsewhere -- as CBS refers to the reports -- that some of the banks are using taxpayer money to go on buying sprees, acquiring smaller banks and making themselves bigger.

That isn't what Congress promised us would happen with our money.

Meanwhile, one of our own businesses -- Pontillo's Pizzeria -- is clearly having its own financial struggles.  The venerable Main Street eatery is more than $112,000 behind in taxes. The family is involved in a messy lawsuit. It's currently shut down, reportedly for renovations, but the signs are clearly troubling.

We don't see Henry Paulson rushing to Batavia to help out John, Paul and Sam, but his fat-cat buddies on Wall Street are doing just fine.

The situation with Pontillo's is important, and as much as some people might like to see the news of the restaurant's struggles swept under the rug, it isn't going to help Pontillo's or the community to hide from these issues.

What's going on with Pontillo's has a ripple effect throughout Genesee County -- the restaurant employed local people who spent some portion of their revenue locally, and paid rent to local landlords, and the restaurant did business in some degree with local suppliers, and all of those people are affected, too.

Clearly, the situation is heartbreaking for all the people who grew up with Pontillo's, either as former employees or loyal customers.

Some people do what to know what's going on not merely for curiosity's sake, but because they care. This situation effects more than just one family. It effects the entire community.

Which brings us back to the bailout. 

Where is the bailout for Pontillo's?  Congress talked a lot about how what happens on Wall Street effects Main Street. So far, we're not seeing the connection.

Some of these banks that received cash from Congress have branches in Genesee County. Wouldn't it be appropriate for one of those branch managers to step forward and ask the Pontillos how they can help?

We're not holding our breath, but we are wishing the Pontillos well. We do want to see them pull out of this. When Pontillo's reopens, it should be a big community event.

Let me begin by saying that I'm far from being a genius. All this talk about this large bailout has me concerned and confused.

Big corporations and lending institutions have made a grave misjudgement in how they handle their finances. The apparent answer is for the American people to pay the government this money that they gave to these institutions to keep operating.

Why do we have to foot the bill for other peoples mistakes? If I mishandle my finances, I'm sure not going to ask my neighbors to pay for it.

I understand the country is in trouble, but I feel that the ones responsible for this situation should be the ones to correct it.

Lame duck Rep. Tom Reynolds has not yet posted any news release to his web site explaining his vote yesterday in favor of the Bush-requested, Democratic-sponsored $700 billion bailout for Wall Street banks.

The following passage from the Buffalo News contains a brief quote from Reynolds explaining his position:

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said the bill would have put the nation “on the slippery slope to socialism. If you lose your ability to fail, soon you will lose your ability to succeed.”

Some Democrats indicated that the consequences of refusing to act had been exaggerated. “Like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, this bill is fueled on fear and hinges on haste,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas.

Reynolds and Higgins disagreed.

“This is one of the last votes I will cast on behalf of the people of Western New York, and it may be the most important one,” Reynolds said.

Acknowledging that he wished he could support a more cost-effective alternative, Reynolds said: “But if there’s one thing I’ve learned in my over three decades in public service, it’s that you cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Too many jobs, too many homes, too many 401(k)s, too many college educations, too many community banks are on the line to risk further inaction.”

In contrast, Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-29), issued a statement immediately after the vote.  He's also posted an alternate plan. Blogger Rottenchester says the plan is hardly serious.

As for the positions of the two candidates for the 26th district on what to do in regard to current economic conditions, still no word from Republican Chris Lee. Several days prior to yesterday's vote, Alice Kryzan issued this statement.

UPDATE: Via the 26th District blog, we get an updated statement from Kryzan.  Kryzan talks about the importance of consumer protection and oversight, but the plan rejected yesterday was weak in both those areas. Also, the blog contains this quote:

“Chris Lee has made deregulating our economy a centerpiece of his campaign,” said spokesperson Anne Wadsworth. “Now that we’ve seen the disastrous result of continuing Bush’s failed policies, he has nothing to say. The people of this district need answers, not knee-jerk deregulation rhetoric.”

The problem with the statement is there is already no lack of regulation in place -- such as the job-killing Sarbanes-Oxley Act -- and none of it  prevented the current situation. The housing bubble has a lot more to do with Clinton-era policies, which Bush neglected to address, and with the Fed manipulating interest rates (which Bush doesn't control at all).  I'm not defending Bush here by any stretch, just trying to keep the record straight.  If you want to blame Bush for anything, blame him for trying to shove this "rush to bailout" down the throats of Americans, which House Democrats (except for 95 brave souls) seemed quite willing buy into hook, line and sinker.

Congress is set today to vote on a plan to commit $700 billion of U.S. taxpayer money on a Wall Street bailout plan that editorialists (such as the D&C), politicians and pundits across the country cry as one, "painful, but necessary."

But is it?

Some economist and other observers disagree.

From the McClatchy News Service:

"It's more hype than real risk," said James K. Galbraith, a University of Texas economist and son of the late economic historian John Kenneth Galbraith. "A nasty recession is possible, but the bailout will not cure that. So it's mainly relevant to the financial industry."

This Washington Post story questions not so much the necessity of the bailout, but the wisdom of the rush to get it passed.

David Sirota offers up five reasons why the bailout is insane, and concludes, "If this bill passes, it will be a profound referendum on the dominance of money over democracy in America."

Caroline Baum offers up a variety of view points, including:

Paulson has said repeatedly that the "root cause'' of the problem is "the housing correction, which has resulted in illiquid mortgage-related assets that are choking off the flow of credit."

"The root cause of the problem is that we don't have any homebuyers," Edward Leamer, an economist at the University of California, Los Angeles, told the Associated Press.

The "root cause of this crisis" is "the lack of capital in the banking system," said Paul Ashworth of London's Capital Economics. "The only way the Treasury's plan would have any meaningful impact on banks' capital ratio is if it vastly overpaid for the securities it is buying."

...

If you don't diagnose the problem correctly, the odds are you won't prescribe the right medicine. The troubled assets are the result, not the cause, of loose lending practices, a housing bubble that burst, a glut of unsold homes and home prices that are still too high relative to incomes and rental costs, according to many economists.

...

"If you need money, sell assets,'' Rosner said. "Excess inventory is liquidated at 99-Cent Stores every day, and it doesn't require the government to get involved.''

The Wall Street Journal, in an article that speculates that the bailout further erodes Bush's so-called "conservative legacy," notes:

Meanwhile, conservative legal scholars question whether the rescue plan is constitutional, and predict court battles in the years to come, similar to those set off by President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs.

Grover Norquist, a leading conservative organizer and president of Americans for Tax Reform, says the financial crisis stems from Mr. Bush's abandonment of conservative principles. He cites the president's failure to undo policies of the past that led banks to make unwise loans, as well as expanding the roles of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Dean Baker say there is no way a no-bailout leads to another Great Depression.

While their argument is wrong, these are powerful voices in national debates. If the bailout proves to be an obstacle to effective stimulus in future months and years, then the bailout could lead to exactly the sort of prolonged economic downturn that its proponents claim it is intended to prevent.

Pulitzer Prize winner and Rochester-area resident David Cay Johnston points to an IMF study that suggests bank bailouts rarely work as intended and transfer wealth from taxpayers to bankers.