Among the smartest comments today, from Megan McArdle:

My basic reasoning is this: given just how badly the Great Depression sucked, I’m willing to gamble on stopping it, even if that gamble fails, even if it is not necessary (a question that, if we actually go through with it, will be much argued and never answered). I’m not willing to gamble for the bankers; the worst thing that will happen to them is that they retire on a pittance, or take a boring job somewhere. I’m worried about the 40 million or so people who might end up out of work, and with nowhere to go. I’m willing to do quite a bit to stop that from happening, even let the bankers off scott free. I don’t think it’s actually necessary to do that, but if I have to choose between helping the 40 million, or expressing my moral outrage–well, there’s always skywriting.

And at some level I think even Congressmen and Senators understand this. There is no upside for anyone who prevented a deal if economic chaos ensues. Will House Republicans extract some “cover”? Maybe. But this is one deal that’s too big to fail.