PDA

View Full Version : Reply from my Congressman




Yooper Jo
09-30-2008, 04:15 PM
Haven't posted here in a long time, just check in once in awhile. Thought I'd post another reply. My congressman voted no.

Dear,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the bailout of Wall Street.

In mid-September, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson insisted the
government would not bail out American International Group (AIG),
which was heavily invested in the subprime mortgage market. Thirty six
hours later, the Secretary changed his mind and the Federal Reserve
provided an $85 billion line of credit to save AIG in the largest
government bailout of a private corporation in U.S. history.

It is alleged that Secretary Paulson changed his mind because his former
employer, Goldman Sachs, was AIG's largest trading partner and its
collapse threatened to leave Goldman Sachs with a $20 billion loss.

Just days earlier, the failure of global financial services firm Lehman
Brothers became the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, sending global
markets into turmoil. The Secretary refused to assist Lehman Brothers,
Bear Stearns and other distressed financial firms.

By the end of that same week, the Treasury Secretary came to Congress
with a two-and-a-half page, $700 billion bailout proposal for Wall Street,
insisting that the White House proposal must be implemented
immediately to avoid a severe financial crisis.

It was against this backdrop, that Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve
Chairman Ben Bernanke insisted Congress grant the administration
unprecedented authority and power, essentially asking elected officials to
handover the keys to the U.S. Treasury allowing political appointees, like
Secretary Paulson, to determine which Wall Street financial institutions
would receive hand outs. As greed ran amuck, there was now panic on
Wall Street.

It came as quite a shock that Paulson, Bernanke and President Bush - the
same men who have for the past year continued to insist our economy is
sound and that it would survive the subprime mortgage crisis - were now
asking Congress for government intervention unprecedented since the
Great Depression. Like many of my colleagues, I did not trust their
gloom and doom forecast and wanted time to review the proposal before
adding $700 billion to our national debt.

For 10 days, Democrats and Republicans worked with the Bush
Administration to craft H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008. I compliment members of both parties
involved in these negotiations for their hard work and willingness to
compromise to produce a much improved proposal.

I have heard from thousands of my constituents across northern
Michigan and have reviewed their messages, emails and letters. My staff
and I have reached out to banks, credit unions, small businesses,
economists and many constituents across northern Michigan. Most
people sensed the urgency of addressing the financial crisis but had many
more questions than answers.

While the debates raged over what Congress should do, a consensus on
four main principles emerged: there must be transparency on the
purchase of troubled assets by the secretary; no windfalls or golden
parachutes should be provided for executives; Congress must provide
strong oversight; and the taxpayers must be protected. H.R. 3997 falls
short in all of these areas.

The bottom line is Wall Street executives enjoyed lavish lifestyles and
exorbitant salaries while making risky real estate and mortgage
investments. Many of these financial transactions were unregulated and
no one exercised oversight of these markets or these individuals. Now
the American taxpayer is being asked to bail out Wall Street for such
things as NINJA mortgages. NINJA mortgages are those granted to
individuals with no income, no job and no assets.

You don't have to look very hard to find the excesses Wall Street
executives continue to enjoy. On September 25, Washington Mutual
became the largest bank to fail in U.S. history. Its CEO has been on the
job less than three weeks and stands to walk away with $18 million,
including a $7 million "signing bonus" just for taking the job. Last year,
the CEO of Merrill Lynch walked away with $161 million. The CEO of
AIG was offered a $22 million severance package on the heels of the
government bailout, but declined to accept it after considerable public
pressure. Treasury Secretary Paulson, himself a former chairman and
CEO of Goldman Sachs, received a $38 million compensation package
in his final year with the company and had a personal net worth of more
than $500 million when he became Treasury Secretary!

Although $700 billion is the number being attached to this bailout, even
the Treasury Secretary acknowledges the number is arbitrary and was
chosen to show the financial markets the U.S. government was serious.
No one can tell us the total cost of the bailout, what the taxpayers are
being asked to purchase or even if the infusion of $700 billion will solve
this financial crisis.

My review of H.R. 3997 shows that the limitations on Wall Street
executive pay and golden parachutes only apply if a financial entity
receives $300 million in government help; this $700 billion bailout raises
the national debt to $11.3 trillion; taxpayers will have no way to recoup
the interest on the $700 billion bailout; taxpayers will have to pay for the
administration of this bailout; and finally, no one can tell us where or
how the United States will come up with $700 billion.

I am concerned $700 billion is just the beginning and additional billions
of dollars will almost certainly be necessary. The bailout is likely to go
on for more than five years and over that time I fully expect corruption
and criminal activity will be found on Wall Street and, sadly, no one will
probably be held accountable to the American taxpayer.

I cannot ask American families - who work hard, play by the rules and
struggle to meet their own financial obligations - to bail out Wall Street
executives for their reckless, lavish lifestyles.

For that reason, I voted "no" on H.R. 3997, the Economic Stabilization
Act of 2008. This bailout does not represent our northern Michigan
values and it rewards excessive financial shenanigans without any
accountability for these irresponsible actions.

The $700 billion bailout failed in the U.S. House of Representatives by a
vote of 205-228 on September 29. I expect to be called back to
Washington in the coming days to consider an alternative package. I will
examine that alternative proposal closely to see that it addresses the
concerns I have raised. Congress will do what is necessary to stabilize
our economy and restore confidence in the financial markets, but will
ensure that protecting the taxpayers is priority number one.
Sincerely,

BART STUPAK
Member of Congress

me3
09-30-2008, 04:19 PM
Another BS form response. Why do people post propaganda?

Congressmen are getting thousands of emails. Don't think for a minute they are actually responding to each one with 2,000 word replies.

Besides, all of these form responses are sellout responses. They are all hedging their bets to vote for a bill at some point, when it has enough warfare, welfare and pork in it.

Fire all of these bastards!

muzzled dogg
09-30-2008, 04:28 PM
Without getting into the fine details, I thought I would let you know that I voted against the so-called Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (H.R. 3997) when it was brought to the House floor earlier today. There were compromises made in this version of the bill, ostensibly to gain bipartisan support. Unfortunately, such compromises were made at the expense of key priorities -- investment in helping homeowners, protections to ensure that the taxpayer will not have to absorb the full cost, and incentives to get the economy back on track.

This bill can be improved, and a different approach can be taken so that foregoing issues can be appropriately addressed.

As of this writing, it is expected that Congress will revisit this matter before the end of the week. I will keep you updated.

Thank you for weighing in.

Sincerely,

John F. Tierney
Member of Congress

Gertie
09-30-2008, 06:51 PM
I actually just got a reply from my rep, Inglis-R SC. He voted yes. :mad:
But, he did send an attachment outlining his reasons for it.


DECISION MEMO

H.R. 3997, THE EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT (THE "FINANCIAL STABILIZATION PACKAGE" OR “WALL STREET BAILOUT BILL”)

REJECTED BY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2008, BY A VOTE OF 205 TO 228

INGLIS VOTE: “AYE”


SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION
Authorizes the Treasury Secretary, advised and overseen by Congress and by new institutions created by the bill, to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions. The Secretary is required to establish a program guaranteeing these troubled assets, funded by risk-based premiums paid by the financial institutions.
- Source: CQ Daily, Sept. 29, 2008, pgs 4-5

MAIN QUESTION
Is the risk of doing nothing greater than the risk of buying $700 billion of illiquid securities?


PRO
WHEN YOU’RE FACING A DEPRESSION, YOU’VE GOT TO ACT.
The best argument for the Financial Stabilization Package is this: once the crisis comes and the economy breaks, it will take years and trillions of dollars to heal the wounds. In the meantime, the most vulnerable in our nation and around the world will suffer the most.

• Those illiquid securities may turn out to be an OK investment. Government doesn’t have a good track record of buying and selling, but if you buy securities at a fraction of their value, and if you’re big enough (the government is big) [LOL. I thought this was bleakly hilarious. the bolding is mine] to hold those securities until the market stabilizes, you can end up making some money.
• The package is somewhat improved from the first draft in that there are provisions that:
• Curtail golden parachutes and grotesque pay packages
• Add oversight and accountability
• Provide for expedited judicial review
• Establish the option of an insurance mechanism
• Include an equity stake so that the government profits from the improvement in firms’ portfolios
• The growing financial firestorm has already incinerated hundreds of billions of dollars since the beginning of this year. Not one of the five great investment banks still exists in the form they held at the beginning of the summer. Washington Mutual, with over 2,000 branches around the country, failed. Another commercial bank was purchased for $1/share. Wachovia was sold to Citibank.
• Many large employers borrow from banks to pay their payroll. If banks can no longer function, these employers will not be able to make payroll and the economy could grind into a Depression.
• As stated by a friend and Iraq War veteran whose patriotism and financial expertise I respect, “The stakes will probably never be higher than they are today. Even the votes that sent us off to war didn’t have the possibility of destroying the Republic. This one has that potential.”
• As the Great Depression loomed, President Hoover stressed the importance of ideological purity in free market capitalism. That inflexibility lengthened the suffering of our country and the world.


Advocates of this position:
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
The members of the South Carolina State Bankers’ Association
Newt Gingrich, who on ABC on the morning of 29 September said that if he were in Congress, he would reluctantly vote for the Economic Stabilization Act.
Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
US Chamber of Commerce


CON
DON’T “BAIL OUT” WALL STREET ON THE BACKS OF TAXPAYERS.
The best argument against the Financial Stabilization Package was this: Even with the changes, the plan is still a buy out by the government and that means that we are socializing losses after Wall Street has pocketed profits.

• The insurance program is optional, not mandatory, so the buy out is still the dominant feature.
• There is no guarantee that this buy out is going to work. We run the risk of investing $700 billion now only to find that we need to do more weeks or months from now.
• Wall Street high-fliers made risky investments based on bad mortgages. Many people are morally offended that American taxpayers would be asked to bear the punishment for Wall Street’s excesses.
• Economists and other free-market proponents point out that the government is not very good at making money on investments. In addition, this plan poses a dilemma: if the government purchases assets below inherent value, many more banks will run out of capital and fail. If the government purchases assets above inherent value, the government will not get taxpayer money back.
• The huge increase in government debt will likely make US treasury bonds less desirable, further depressing the value of the dollar and necessitating interest rate hikes to attract investors.

Advocates of this position:
The vast majority of constituents who have called in about the plan
196 University Economists who wrote a letter to Congress
Former Republican Leader Dick Armey
Senator Jim DeMint
National Taxpayer Union
Americans for Tax Reform


INGLIS POSITION
When knowledgeable people tell us that there is a substantial chance of a depression, it’s time to act. Our financial markets have overdosed on credit. Truth be known, we have all overdosed on credit—the federal government, businesses large and small, families wealthy and poor. Working that overdose out of our system is going to take time.
By buying up some securities that have fallen to a price below their value, the government might be able to stabilize the market and later sell some of those securities at a profit. Some will be found to be worthless because they are so far removed from the original, mortgaged collateral. Most, though, are tied to an actual asset—real estate. Wall Street types invented more and more ways to achieve higher and higher levels of leverage; not a one of them ever invented more real estate. It’s here; it’s got value; and when the market recovers, its value will recover.

Some high flying Wall Street pilots took us up in a faulty airplane. I can understand the desire to shoot the pilots, but I think it makes more sense to land the plane before we commence the shooting.

Many have called this a bail out, and they are concerned that we are giving the pilots a parachute. We’re strapping those pilots in through limits on golden parachutes and on executive compensation. But more than that, notice that the pilots are at the nose of this plane. By us buying the securities at below market prices, it’s the pilots who are the going to take the impact of this controlled, emergency landing. If we don’t act, the plane just runs out of gas. If we just shoot the pilots, we crash.


(the airplane metaphor is interesting because it's strangely similar to the Titanic/lifeboat metaphor I used in my email to him.)

gjvrieze
09-30-2008, 07:22 PM
..........

Vote Waterman 2028
09-30-2008, 07:27 PM
Another BS form response. Why do people post propaganda?

Congressmen are getting thousands of emails. Don't think for a minute they are actually responding to each one with 2,000 word replies.

Besides, all of these form responses are sellout responses. They are all hedging their bets to vote for a bill at some point, when it has enough warfare, welfare and pork in it.

Fire all of these bastards!

What? It is not difficult for the congressman/woman to write/type a letter to all of his constituents and then mass email the same response to everyone.