Initially, I understood the need for this bailout/stimulus/relief package that is primarily for the banking/investment industry. Hell, I still do understand the need, now more than initially based on articles I've read describing real stories of real people (small business and individuals alike) and how the ripple is overturning their boats.
But, as much as I understand the need, I am thankful for the failure of the initial bill to pass the House and, frankly, am hoping that the bill to be voted on by the Senate this evening also fails. What?! Yes, I want it to fail. Why, you ask, if I recognize the need and can already see the impact on ordinary citizens and small business?
I think the letter below, which you are free to use if you so desire, inserting your own Senators' names in place, best explains why I'm calling for a vote of Nay tonight.
Senator Klobuchar,
I realize there is little time right now to debate a decision, but I am writing to you to urge to you vote Nay tonight on the Economic Rescue Passage on the Senate Floor. There are several reasons I am of this opinion outlined below.
Firstly, I have read from beginning to end the bill that was voted down on the House floor Monday and am thankful it was. While I realize that there is imminent need of steps to resolve the crisis in the credit and money markets, there are significant problems with the original bill that the revised one that you will vote on this evening does not remedy.
To begin with, the issue of oversight for any package is significant. I noted in the original bill that Secretary of Treasury Paulson would be a member of one of the oversight boards, but at the same time is the one overall in charge of distribution of any funds available. This is completely unacceptable! That would be a significant conflict of interest and therefore should not be a part of this bill. Additionally, I'm concerned that significant talk regarding the Comptroller General exists in the bill, yet the interim Comptroller's appointment expired in March!
Secondly, there are no specifics regarding a ceiling that the Federal Government will pay (from the tax payers' coffers) for the assets from the institutions. If the mark-to-market law is struck, then this will create a significant increase in the value of the "bad assets", costing taxpayers more initially and placing a phantom band aid over the larger problem, that of horrible lending practices which were a significant factor in the creation of this quandry.
Lastly, the language describing how and when institutions shall return the funds loaned (which this seems far more to be than a life line) is not sufficient either. The language indicates that the Government will "propose" terms for sale back to the institutions in 5 years. Again, unacceptable for multiple reasons. Firstly, the requirement that institutions buy back these assets should not be a proposal, but rather a requirement. Period. My second objection is more of a theoretical one, in that this package seems more and more like a low or no interest loan to various institutions so they can loan money again, which worries me - giving another loan so that others may loan more seems a dangerous prospect.
Thus, I urge you, Senator, when the call is made that you vote Nay on this package until the above items are far better addressed. Having the $50 of mine in the bank insured up to $250k does nothing for me and the bulk of Main St, unless it is a business.
Thank you for your consideration. If there is anything I'm mistaken about in my information, I would gladly hear it.
Sincerely,
Jason A Dalrymple, Dem.
Minneapolis, MN
Oh, and you can replace my name with yours as well.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 2