Rep. McHugh, me, and Mr. Oot (McHugh's challenger).
UPDATE UPDATES:
Mr. Oot seems to be reacting to what I've been posting about his stance. He now updates his update with this [
from is homepage].
Quote: "First, as I've written here previously, I would have hesitantly supported the initial bailout legislation as voted down by the House of Representatives. It was a phased approach, somewhat measured and it left us with the ability to not only ease aid into to the markets but to measure the success of that aid. Unlike the original proposal (demand) by the Bush Administration, it wasn't just a "shovel the cash into the market, any old way we please" approach. The Administration's approach left American taxpayers upset, thinking that this was just a last minute grab at their wallets on behalf of Wall Street Fat Cats as the Bush Administration exited the stage."
"The phased approach House bill was taken up by the Senate, but with a dramatic difference: The Senate Bill, which yesterday became law, in addition to the bailout provisions, contained over $150 Billion in tax cuts and pork.
Tax cuts.
While creating historic deficits.
"Here is my statement, released by the campaign yesterday, October 3, 2008:
"While I would have supported the first attempt at passage of the Bailout, I can't say the same about the legislation passed today. It is clear that the government needed action and leadership in a time of crisis and it is astounding that in order to achieve a result, it was necessary to tack $150 Billion Dollars of pork onto the bill. I think that Americans will be infuriated by this and justifiably so. Let's face it, there is no guarantee that comes with the so-called rescue plan. I would hate to think that the net result of all this effort is to add to the enormous deficits created over the past 8 years. This demonstrates both the necessity and urgency of change in Washington."
So, Mr. Oot was for the bailout before he's now against it? Oops...
Note: I've been against it all along and
my plan is pretty clear on what we should have tried - a loan/line of credit and NOT a $700 billion check that is / will grow.
ORIGINAL POST ON THIS SUBJECT:
This is long, but needs to be said - so please bear with me.
Subject: The bailout, rescue or stabilization bill, call it what you choose, is not the right bill at the right time.
Rep. McHugh voted for it, twice, saying he wanted to “protect the taxpayers and on balance the bill was a good start.”
UPDATED: Mr. Oot [September 30, 2008 homepage update] said he would have voted for it because of the “urging and pronouncements of the Administration and comments by economic experts, all as bolstered by those of our current legislative leaders.”
McHugh and Oot are both wrong, and neither one of them deserves to represent the people in the House.
I have been opposed to the bill all along for many reasons, which right now are before us – excessive spending and Christmas tree goodies.
I outlined a
solid 10-point plan, which in essence is a “... loan / line of credit plan for business and banks to borrow from as they slim down, get back to the basics, toss away their greedy boards, and as government provides new oversight and new accountability rules to protect the taxpayers from start to finish.”
Most importantly, however, there was a total lack of leadership from anyone on this bill, except maybe those who voted against the final package.
Let’s review quickly how we got from there to here:
* The original Bush-Paulson plan was 3 pages. But, no one bought it quite simply because all they asked for was a “$700 billion dollar blank check” that had few answers to the many questions being asked – all they wanted was the money – the reasons or the why would come later. The failed as it should have.
* Then the House took up the measure, crafted a bill, and then just as quickly voted it down. The “market” reacted and fell nearly 800 points.
* Then the Senate became involved and wrote their version, but they added $100 billion in new spending that basically had nothing to do with the intent of the “bailout, rescue or stabilization” overview, then they passed it (October 2, 2008), and sent it back to the House.
* The House then added a few more goodies of their own that also have nothing to do with the intent; it passed by a wide margin (October 3, 2008). President Bush a few minutes later signed it into law and now we have to wait for the details. Wall Street was still in the minus column.
* Now the chest beating and hand wringing has started about “woe is me.” It’s like when a drunk wakes up again and says, “I’ll never touch another drop in my life,” but he gets drunk that night again.
The lack of leadership question is simple to see in my view.
This bill to stabilize the markets and help stop the foreclosures and bankruptcies should have been debated on the floor in open session and not behind closed doors where midnight deals for millions in spending that has nothing to do with any rescue plan’s intent.
Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid should have stepped up and had total complete and around the clock debate on the bill – that way the public could have seen the pork coming and took action right along with their Rep. and Senators. But, more importantly, those in the House and Senate would have been exposed to the sunlight and their millions for pet projects would have been stopped cold before they were added to the tab.
The best solution right now is to kick out every incumbent in office – a “clean sweep” as it were – and it is something, by the way, that I have advocated for a very long time.
We need new people with new ideas and fresh eyes on the serious problems we face along with non-insider brains to solve them – people not connected to self-party, or lobbyists, PAC or other DC-infested ties.
This bill shows how bad the insider business of our government really works. I suspect, but have no way to prove it, but $700 billion will not be nearly enough before it’s over.
Why do I say that? Mr. Paulson will come back for the authorization of the money and guess what? More will be hung on that Christmas tree in October long before October is even over or the real Christmas season is upon us. Then, God, save our souls – the wild spending begins.
Clean Out Congress: a clean sweep to kick out every incumbent this cycle is the best solution for our future. Will it happen; probably not. In fact, if I were a betting man, I’d say most of the incumbents will be reelected – they always are.
It must be all the goodies they deliver for Christmas in October?