Posted on 09/29/2008 1:43:50 PM PDT by Darren McCarty
Washington, Sep 29 - U.S. Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI) today issued the following statement opposing the Financial Stabilization Package, the deal struck on the bailout of the financial services sector.
"Today our financial markets face serious challenges that could result in dire consequences, and while Congress can take action to avert further economic distress, Congress must not take action just to take action. While I applaud the efforts of House Republicans to improve this proposal, the bailout bill up for a vote today is nothing more than an expensive, taxpayer-funded band aid that will not solve our long-term economic problems.
"I am extremely disappointed in President Bush for refusing to consider other options and for thrusting this legislation on the American people in a way that only created more uncertainty. Secretary Paulson has failed the American people by refusing alternative plans, demanding unprecedented power for the Treasury Department and asking the American people for a blank check to cover speculative investments and mistakes made by investment bankers.
"I believe alternatives still exist to a taxpayer-funded bailout, such as reforming mark-to-market accounting to reflect true value, working with the FDIC to protect America’s hometown banks, approving net worth certificates and reducing tax and regulatory barriers that currently prevent new capital from entering our markets. Congress needs to lower the capital gains and corporate tax rates to enable American companies to compete, innovate, grow and expand. Additionally, we must increase transparency and accountability on Wall Street. I would like to see audit reports of failed companies to ensure that the financial standing of these troubled companies was accurately portrayed.
"These are common-sense reforms that could be put in place right away, if Congress would take time to debate alternative ideas to a taxpayer financed bailout. Instead, our President, the Treasury Secretary and a frenzied media climate have eliminated the possibility of further debate to work on a deal that would protect taxpayers."
I voted for Walberg over Schwarz and I’ll be voting Walberg again.
The following is the email I received this evening from Congressman Mike Rogers. Way to take a stand, Mr. Congressman!
I write today to update you on recent legislative activities in the United States Congress. I appreciate the opportunity to contact you.
Protecting Taxpayers Against a Risky Bailout of Wall Street
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act that failed today in the U.S. House of Representatives did not focus on our real problems -- a struggling economy, foreclosures and falling home values. I believe that good alternatives are available to us; from sensible tax relief to assistance for struggling homeowners there are many bi-partisan plans Congress could have chosen.
After a week of negotiations, I voted against this bill because it was still the same bailout bill, written by a Wall Street guy with a Wall Street solution to a problem created on Wall Street. This bill was still a blank check to Henry Paulson. It still provided no serious help for homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages. This bill still provided up to $700 billion dollars to financial executives while doing little to nothing to help American workers.
My priority has always been working for Michigan families and I will continue to work to create jobs in Michigan, lower energy prices and keep families in their homes. This bill would only take more Michigan tax dollars and Michigan families will see nothing for it. Now that the false choice of the Paulson Plan or nothing is gone, Congress should immediately get back to work on a solution to the serious problems facing our country. A solution that Congress and the American people can support.
MICHIGAN
Democrats -- Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Kilpatrick, N; Levin, Y; Stupak, N.
Republicans -- Camp, Y; Ehlers, Y; Hoekstra, N; Knollenberg, N; McCotter, N; Miller, N; Rogers, N; Upton, Y; Walberg, N.
Too wordy.
Dear Treasured Constituents -
I voted against this thieving pile of socialist dog crap because I don’t want to see communism advance any further in this great country. If you don’t get it, screw you - you wouldn’t have voted for me anyway.
Sincerely,
Tim
I never thought I'd see Walberg, McCotter, and Conyers to all agree.
LOL. If you take out the “Screw you part” and change the word crap - that sounds a lot like something Tim would say.
I contacted Vern Ehlers today to express my concern with him voting yes to use my money to bailout thieves (in congress and wall street) rather than putting them in jail. I indicated I would agressively help his defeat the next time he ran for congress.
Here is the email reply I received:
Today, the House of Representatives failed to pass important legislation to protect American families and businesses from a potential collapse of our financial system. I voted in favor of this legislation since our nation is facing a major financial crisis, and we must act.
This bill represents the first step, and Congress needs to look at other approaches to rescue our economy. I want to be very clear that this bill did not “bail out” Wall Street; it would have helped taxpayers, families and individuals in West Michigan who could be severely harmed by a breakdown in the financial system. We urgently need to restore solvency to our country’s financial system.
The consequences of inaction could rival the Great Depression of the 1930s: Credit cards not working, employers going out of business because they are unable to borrow money, and employees not receiving paychecks. I also fear that inaction will lead to suffering at smaller community banks. Congress must work in a bipartisan manner in renewed efforts to find a solution. Partisanship has no place in this debate; the stakes are far too high.
The problem we face today stems primarily from home mortgages, which lost value during the decline in the housing market. These mortgage-backed assets allow banks to lend money to businesses and consumers. The bill considered today would have authorized the federal government to acquire those troubled assets, to allow financial institutions to resume lending, and avoid a widespread breakdown in America’s financial system.
I thought this bill was a good start. I worked with fellow House Republicans to include several measures to protect taxpayers from the risks associated with the government purchasing troubled assets from financial institutions. The bill we voted on today would have established a guarantee program to insure the costs of purchasing these assets against potential losses. It also created oversight panels to be sure federal money was being spent in the most responsible manner possible, and it would have prevented financial executives from walking away from the disaster they helped create with large, unearned bonuses.
I understand many people in West Michigan are very concerned with this situation, especially considering our state’s struggling economy. Today’s vote was the first step in the process of restoring our financial system and protecting American families and businesses, and I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to create a solution.
Sincerely,
Vernon J. Ehlers
Member of Congress
Dear friends,
Today, I voted for the bipartisan Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. To me, it is clear that the risk of doing nothing was too great. We needed to act quickly before financial markets failed and credit seized up. In the hours following the vote, which failed to pass, the Dow dropped over 777 points - the largest single day net loss in the market’s history.
Was the bill perfect? Hardly. Was it better than the original proposal? Vastly—especially for taxpayers. To protect hardworking taxpayers, I and several House colleagues won major concessions (see below) from the Bush Administration and Democrat leaders. Those included oversight of how and how much money was spent; an insurance program that Wall Street, not taxpayers, paid for; a limit on executive compensation; and banking reforms. And, it was structured in a way that taxpayers are protected against loss and any profits generated would have paid down U.S. debt. Without those improvements, I would not have voted for this bill.
I have heard directly from over 1,000 of my constituents and I recognize many were not happy with the proposal; nor was I. However, I feared and continue to fear that further delay would simply lead to greater partisanship and the possibility of nothing being enacted. Should that happen, we stand to lose more jobs and create economic hardships this nation has not seen since the Great Depression. The impact on Michigan, which is already struggling, could be particularly devastating.
Sincerely,
DAVE CAMP
His district is split up and picks up part of Battle Creek. It will be a tough battle but he is a good guy. You go. Tell your friends. He is the guy, that just before Nancy ajourned the congress, Said the old Moses line “Let my people VOTE!”
When Walberg was a state legislator he was a founding member of “The NO caucus” meaning no new taxes and he held firm to that through his entire run in Lansing. He was also endorsed by the Minuteman PAC and has held firm to his anti amnesty stance as well.
I hate to think where we would be today id anti drilling, pro abort RINO Schwarz were still our rep.
We needed to act quickly before financial markets failed and credit seized up.
The market absolutely flooded with credit, and borrowers who should never have been considered an acceptable credit risk, led directly to what we have now.
And we're supposed to believe more credit is somehow going to fix things? I wonder if Camp can explain to me how that works, exactly.
I particularly enjoyed the morning news show dragging restaurant owners in front of the cameras with sob stories about not being able to get credit. Of course, they didn’t bother to explore the actual results to the restaurant owner for not being able to take the loan. That makes me think it was pure, unadulterated sensaliotinism. I’m not sure which station pulled this stunt, but it was either Local 4 news or Fox 2.
Perhaps the restaurant owner should take Financial Peace University, by Dave Ramsey.
“The problem we face today stems primarily from home mortgages, which lost value during the decline in the housing market. These mortgage-backed assets allow banks to lend money to businesses and consumers.”
OK, this seems to be the continual claim, however I am still not understanding the issue. I have a mortgage and my home value has dropped significantly. I am not planning on selling my house, so that paper loss is yet to be realized. How is this causing a “financial crisis” on Wall Street?
I am still waiting for someone to sum the problem up in a very succinct, understandable way.
This bill represents the first step, and Congress needs to look at other approaches to rescue our economy.
This bill represents the first $700 billion dollars that we're going to pillage from the taxpayer-filled coffers, and Congress needs to look at how that number can be increased to $700 trillion.
I don't have a lot of experience conversing in Rinoese, and Rosetta Stone doesn't have a course available for it, but hey--I tried!
Fearmongering is all that I hear out of these guys.
Frederic Bastiat talked about it here...(bold mine)
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism?
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
Thanks to all who abolished this bill before it became law.
Great thread. Thanks to every poster.
The above quotes from...
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
Thanks very much to Michigan FReeper raygun for the link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.