It became clear Monday afternoon that U.S. Rep. Phil English, who represents a big portion of Butler County, misread the mood of the majority in the House of Representatives in regard to the proposed $700 billion emergency rescue plan for the nation's financial system.

Shortly before 3 p.m., a news release arrived in the Butler Eagle newsroom, the first paragraph of which read as follows:

"Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted and passed the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, legislation aimed to restore confidence in the American financial markets."

Normally, lawmakers know the eventual fate of a bill before they begin voting, but the congressman's initial interpretation regarding the bailout vote shows how up in the air the situation was until the voting concluded.

English, R-3rd, and his Butler County congressional colleague, U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire, D-4th, voted against the bailout plan.

English, a member of the Joint Economic Committee, corrected the result of the vote in a sentence at the end of his news release. More importantly, the release contained five paragraphs of explanation why English felt the measure would be bad for the country.

His reasons for casting his "no" vote provide plenty of fodder for his constituents to weigh Monday's action as they await further voting.

So does a post-vote news release from Altmire.

Altmire said his vote against the economic stabilization measure was because the "bill does little to protect taxpayers and ultimately fails to address the underlying problems that have led us to this point."

Altmire said that during the week preceding the vote, he talked with and heard from hundreds of his constituents who expressed strong opposition to the bailout plan.

"They wonder why Washington is so quick to act to help those on Wall Street, yet nothing is done to help them," he said.

Altmire added, "The times ahead are going to require tough decisions — but we should not start by asking American families and small businesses to pay for the mistakes of Wall Street."

Unfortunately, many already have.

Altmire was right in his observation that "multiple government bailouts are not an acceptable economic policy," but unfortunately the past couple of weeks provided strong evidence that the nation was headed too aggressively in such a direction.

Financial gurus who oftentimes seem disconnected from the travails of the nation's average consumers and small investors have no shame in expecting those same people to rescue them — by way of the taxes they pay — when those Wall Street wizards make big mistakes.

To his credit, English stressed that there should be no coddling of the financial crowd whose decisions and flawed actions paved the way for the crisis to evolve. However, he should have gone a step further by demanding that he and his colleagues look in the mirror and acknowledge government's role in the problem — for instance, in regard to questionable financial policies resulting from the influence of lobbyist money.

"From the outset, it has been my strong belief that any rescue proposal necessarily include real consequences for bad actors, strong taxpayer protections and accountability and transparency of any tax dollars used," English said. "Despite my belief that the right action by Congress could have a positive effect, this bill's flaws and unchecked risk to the taxpayer, in my view, outweighed any potential benefits."

People across the land have been victimized by this financial crisis. Monday's rejection by the House has, at least temporarily, served notice that times could become more challenging for those financial leaders whose greed and manipulation were instrumental in thrusting the nation's financial structure to the brink.

English and Altmire have the opportunity to be important players in the process of properly addressing the current crisis. Neither should be coerced into voting for a bad bill, no matter how much arm-twisting is directed their way.