In response to that, another Hill aide, e-mails:

1) This is, essentially, the same bill. Total deal is $700b, which Paulson or next Treasury Secretary can spend the first $250b even if he believes unnecessary. He/She can spend second $450b if thought necessary. A new bill isn’t passed with veto proof majorities to repeal it. This is substantively identical to the original Paulson plan. Congress always had the power to repeal some or all of the authority if it has veto proof majorities. 2) As for Acorn and bankruptcy, they were never in the bill. Dodd/Frank tried to push those in mid/week, they weren’t in the plan already rejected by conservatives on Monday. Even Obama conceded that those provisions would come out. They were simply a red herring, used for extra bargaining power by the left. 3) Lipstick has been put on the pig, and perhaps some Members will be fooled by it, but their constituents will not. I think some political careers will be ended over this.

When I ask this aide if there is anything to be happy about, this aide replies:

Unclear. Still confusion over whether the “insurance” is a fig leaf (secretary’s choice to use – in which case, he wouldn’t) or substantive (mandatory).