Congressmen Michael Capuano and Stephen Lynch, two Democrats who voted on opposite sides of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan on Monday, agreed Tuesday night that the financial rescue plan is resting in a precarious position.

[img_assist|nid=312|title=U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville)|desc=|link=none|align=right|width=128|height=180]In their appearance on WGBH's "Greater Boston," Capuano, who voted for the measure, said changing the legislation now so it will pass will be very difficult.

"If we change it to get Steve's vote, we will either lose votes in the Senate or lose the president's support. If they change it another way, they might lose my support," Capuano, of Somerville, said. "So this bill is teetering on the brink."

Lynch, of Boston, agreed and said that part of the reason he and some others opposed the bill is that is isn't guaranteed to solve the current financial crisis.

"This is a very risky proposition," Lynch said. "No one is saying that this bill, if it passes, is going to cure [the financial crisis]. This is a very, very risky piece of business."

[img_assist|nid=1373|title=U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Boston)|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=134|height=125]"I honestly don't believe that this is a long term solution," Lynch added. "I think we are going to have a long, tough road of it. This is not a silver bullet."

The proposal failed to pass on Monday by a vote of 205 to 228. Capuano was one of 140 Democrats to vote in favor of the measure, while Lynch joined 95 Democrats that voted against it.

Lynch said he opposed the legislation because it does not require a significant "buy in" from the financial services industry that will benefit from it. Instead, he said, the bill requires taxpayers to shoulder the financial burden.

Capuano agreed with Lynch on that point, and said he would love a new bill that would "nail them" a bit more than Monday's proposal did. But, Capuano said, if they make that change the bill would likely lose support from other members.

Capuano called his vote a "tough vote" but said that he supported the measure because he felt something needs to be done immediately.

"I didn't vote for it 100 percent and I don't think anybody voted against it 100 percent," Capuano said. "I can actually name more things in the bill that I didn't like than I liked. At the same time, the reason I voted for it boiled down to a very simple fact: I was more afraid of what might happen if I was wrong and I didn't vote for it if the economy went completely south, than I was afraid if voted for it and I was wrong then we'd lost tax dollars, which no one wants to do."

"In the balance," he went on, "I thought doing nothing was much more risky to my constituency, to America and actually to the world."

Both congressmen also agreed on the important role their colleague, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, played in the negotiating process. Frank, a Newton Democrat and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has been one of the leading negotiators of the legislation.

Lynch said when the Bush administration's plan was proposed it was a "nonstarter" in Congress. "The only reason it got consideration was because of Barney Frank," he said.

Capuano agreed. "I have the utmost respect for him-I like him as a person, I like him as a professional," he said, referring to Frank.