CNN is estimating it at $1.2 trillion. Which is $500 million billion more than the outlay for the bailout. Yes, I know they are not directly comparable. But still.

Americans for Tax Reform, the conservative group run by Grover Norquist, is suggesting that House leaders sweeten the package with (mostly unrelated) goodies. I doubt this will get very far, but someone has to find a way to get those 12 votes. Here is the release:

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist today offered a path forward for negotiators on the financial bailout package. By adding targeted and timely tax relief to the bill, the belief is that many more Republicans would vote for it. Americans for Tax Reform opposed the bill because it believed, along with most other conservatives, that there was nothing in it of value to conservatives. “In prior ‘emergency' bills, there was some acceptable ratio of tax cuts to new spending,” said Norquist. “There were virtually no tax cuts in this bill, and a staggering $700 billion price tag.”

The best and most timely tax relief would include:

--allowing companies to repatriate foreign earnings to the U.S. tax-free if the money were used to purchase distressed assets in 2008 and 2009
--creating a capital gains tax holiday for 2008 and 2009; short of this, the capital gains tax rate for corporations could be temporarily cut to the individual rate of 15 percent (down from 35 percent today) in order to encourage corporations to sell assets and purchase distressed assets
--providing that current income and capital gains resulting from the purchase of distressed assets would be permanently free of taxation
--lowering the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent in 2008 and 2009 for companies that agree to purchase some significant amount of distressed assets

Nate Silver took a look, and while this isn't surprising, it tells you a lot:

Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.

Remember, telephone calls to congressional offices were running about 100 to 1 against this bill.

And he updates his own post:

UPDATE: A helpful reader named Matt Glassman passed along the fact that, among 26 congressmen NOT running for re-election (almost all of whom are Republicans), 23 voted in favor of the bill, as opposed to 2 against and one abstaining.

H/T to commenter Trifecta for calling this to our attention.

UPDATE: Ben Smith notes that John McCain's entire home-state delegation voted against the bill. Half of Obama's did, too.

I don't blame John McCain for not rounding up enough Republican votes to get this bailout bill through the House of Representatives--he's not a member of the House, he's never held a leadership position and therefore doesn't know how to whip votes and finally--well, uh--there is one tried and true method for getting members of Congress to vote aye and McCain opposes it: a sweetener, like say, funding for a bridge in their districts. That is one reason why we have earmarks. McCain is opposed to giving away baubles for the greater good.

I do blame McCain for his puerile histrionics and for dragging this issue--which should have been above partisanship--into presidential politics. Let's make no mistake about it: his various gimmicks had absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the issue. He doesn't know all that much about the substance of the issue. The gimmicks were a failed attempt to make it seem as if he had powers, and knowledge, he didn't have. Clearly, he was in a more difficult position than Obama--the populist conservative wing of House Republicans was unwilling to take responsibility for the fruits of the deregulation that they promoted--and that might have required a more aggressive effort to move votes on his part, but the flailing about only confused Republicans (was he for, was he against?) and made matters worse.

As for Barack Obama, his visceral aversion to showboating did him a service. He laid out four requirements for his support of the bill--requests he had, clearly, coordinated with the Democratic Leadership (and which McCain supported). He made the necessary calls to keep up with the negotiations (as McCain did). He made it clear, without ostentation or fuss, that he supported the compromise. Even today, after the bill failed, Obama warned against panic and advised the Congress to get back to work and, "Get it done."

This was, I believe, eminently rational behavior in a moment of crisis. Obama didn't pretend that he could, or should, do something that he couldn't do. He didn't lead, but then, he wasn't in a position to lead. (McCain's games were the opposite of leadership--they were an unnecessary distraction.) There may be times in the future--in the next few weeks, in fact--when events will call for Obama to be a far more forceful presence. We'll see whether he has it in him. But this wasn't the time for that. It was the time for a cool head, something McCain has yet to demonstrate.

Update: Richard Holbrooke makes many of the same points about the candidates' temperament in the context of Friday's debate.

So House members scuttled the bailout bill out of pique over the tone of the speaker's speech?

Does that remind you of something?

Madame Speaker's incredibly offensive floor speech. NSFW!!!

I've been keeping a list of silver linings to come out of this credit crisis mess. So far, it's a short list:

• Increased use of the dirty-sounding word "tranche"

• Barney Frank

The first point obviously speaks for itself. And while he's still on a roll today (as MS shows), I'll let point number two do the same in this clip, from Late Edition yesterday:

I think this edit misses some of the gratuitous eye-rolling that characterized much of Barney's responses but the way he examines his nails while Cantor's spewing crap (we can say that now, right?) is also priceless. (Substantive point: He also slaps down whole "blame liberals for wanting poor people to get houses" meme with great aplomb.)

There was a lack of trust, a loss of confidence, a popular revolt.

Nearly every major political leader in America supported the bailout bill. The President of the United States. The Vice President. The Treasury Secretary. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Democratic and Republican nominees for president. The Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and the Senate. All of them said the same thing. Vote yes.

But the leaders anointed by the U.S. Constitution to most reflect the will of the people voted no. This is a remarkable event, the culmination of a historic sense of betrayal that the American people have long felt for their representatives in Washington D.C. Roughly 28 percent of the Americans approve of President Bush. Roughly 18 percent of Americans approve of Congress. These numbers have been like that for years.

Now those bad feelings have manifested themselves in the starkest of terms. Not enough of the American people believed their leaders. And so the politicians that were most exposed ran for cover. With an election on the horizon, 95 House Democrats and 133 House Republicans opposed the bill. Now, there is significant potential for grave effects on the nation.

As I write, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 724 points--one of the largest drops in percentage terms in history, and perhaps the biggest single-day point loss. The credit markets may soon seize. The campaigns and parties are pointing fingers. And the nation lacks a leader with the credibility to take control of the situation.

This is no longer just a credit crisis. It is a credibility crisis.

When asked about Republican contention that Pelosi's statement scuttled the bill, the Democratic head of the Banking Committe went after the heart of their argument:

"Think of this: Somebody hurt my feelings so I am going to punish the country," he said.

He offered to make personal visits to the 12 "deeply offended republicans who put feeling over country" and speak to them "uncharacteristically nicely," in the hopes that their spirits improve and they change their vote.

According to the McCain campaign's preferred narrative of last week's unusual events, the GOP nominee swooped into Washington to rescue the rescue plan. And he did that, supposedly, by bringing rebellious House conservatives to the table and getting their concerns addressed. As Bill Kristol wrote this morning, "Assuming the legislation passes soon, and assuming it reassures financial markets, McCain will be able to take some credit."

Since the legislation failed and the markets are anything but reassured, should we assume the opposite -- that McCain will be assigned some of the blame for not bringing along those House Republicans?

Ambinder asks the same question here.

What this episode has taught us is that the fissures in the GOP are far too deep to have been repaired, lastingly, by the selection of a running mate or even the possibility that the Republicans could hold onto the White House. A McCain loss in November, if it happens, will hasten the reckoning. But the reckoning seems certain to come regardless.