This is a fairly long statement from Rush Holt, who earlier today voted in favor of the Wall Street bailout.
I voted in favor of the Financial Rescue Legislation because it was a significant improvement - by including taxpayer protections and strong oversight - over Secretary Paulson's original $700 billion proposal, and because inaction could have a devastating impact on our already unstable economy. However, the bill failed to gain a majority in the House. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, I still plan to lead an effort to fix the economy in the long term. Now, we still must act in the short term to stand behind our institutions, restore confidence, and protect millions of Americans who would be affected by a continuing meltdown.
As we work to rescue our economy, we must understand how we got to this point. The speculation and greed of Wall Street in recent years - coupled with years of failures, excesses, arrogance and irresponsibility of the Bush Administration and some in Congress - has resulted in the meltdown of our nation's financial markets. The subprime mortgage meltdown that started a few years ago affect the largest financial institutions in our nation, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG, which have fallen into or are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
In a statement released today along with his "No" vote on the bailout bill, Congressman Rothman about sums up my feelings:
I think there are better ways to fix the economic problems caused by this Administration than this trickle-down Wall Street bailout program. The bill hints at, but does not make the necessary regulatory changes, fails to require direct relief for local banks and homeowners, and totally ignores the need to invest in infrastructure, energy and other economic stimulus endeavors that are so urgently needed to lift up our economy and our people.
Now, I'm no economist. I just play one in the comfort of my home. And I do think there's a bill yet to be written that would not only help repair today's damaged economy, but prevent future recurrences of today's crisis.
But, the President's bill isn't it.
And how it came to be that so many in the Democratic leadership (and 4 of our NJ Democratic delegation!) were/are falling over themselves racing to back the unpopular President on this even more unpopular bill defies explanation in an election year.
In the time of crisis, one should cling more tightly to his fundamental values not abandon them. In the face of terrorist attacks, you don't surrender your civil liberties or those things that make us American. In a financial crisis, you don't just turn over billions of dollars in taxpayer money with little or no oversight -- lax oversight and abusive judgment helped fuel the problem to begin with.
Marc Ambinder is reporting that John McCain had an agenda in the bailout meeting, and tried to get the bailout plan changed to a large tax cut:
During the White House meeting, it appears that Sen. John McCain had an agenda. He brought up alternative proposals, surprising and angering Democrats. He did not, according to someone briefed on the meeting, provide specifics.
One the proposals -- favored by House Republicans -- would relax regulation and temporarily get rid of certain taxes in order to lure private industry into the market for these distressed assets.
That approach has already been rejected by Democrats and Bush, so it's not part of a sincere effort to get a bill passed. What Marc Ambinder is describing is the plan I wrote about yesterday that a conservative group of House Republicans favor, perhaps including Scott Garrett. Unfortunately, only Frank LoBiondo of all the New Jersey Republicans has put out a statement about the crisis on his official website, and it could be consistent with anything. He did say, though, "a compromise is far from being reached and even further from receiving my support."
Update: Ambinder now has an alternate version, in which the crazy ideas came from the House Republicans and McCain only seemed to endorse them out of incompetence. Not much better.
promoted to show how we like our elected officials to talk -- huntsu
Here is Senator Bob Menendez's statement:
"Since last weekend, the American people and we in Congress have sent a strong message to President Bush, rejecting a no-strings-attached, blank-check Wall Street bailout. It seems as if that message has at least partially been received, judging by the president's speech and our meeting with Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke earlier. While I am somewhat more optimistic that we can pass the right kind of legislation than I was after yesterday's Banking Committee hearing, it is clear that there are a few issues of great interest to taxpayers and homeowners that the president still is not addressing. Oversight to protect taxpayers and limitations on CEO compensation are steps forward, but I didn't hear any mention of helping homeowners or additionally protecting taxpayers by having equity in the companies we help. As I have said before, we cannot be stampeded into passing a $700 billion plan without first ensuring that it is the right plan for taxpayers and homeowners, and we are not there yet.
"I would also add that while there are some constructive ways in which the presidential candidates can be helpful, injecting presidential politics into the heat of these negotiations at this late hour would only serve to distract from the critical task at hand. Senator McCain simply cannot expect to swoop in at the last minute without any real knowledge of the negotiations and expect to take credit for any potential deal that may be struck."
On Monday, Huntsu had to praise Scott Garrett (NJ5) for opposing the Wall Street bailout. But a stopped clock is still right twice a day, and we haven't been able to find out what he has in mind instead. Garrett is a member of the Republican study Group, so now that it has released a plan we can assume Garrett is on board on with it. The alternative plan points to what conservatives think is wrong with the American finance system:
Two-Year Suspension of the Capital Gains: Immediately suspend the capital gains rate from 15% for individuals and 35% for corporations. By encouraging corporations to sell unwanted assets, this provision would unleash funds and materials with which to create jobs and grow the economy. After the two-year suspension, capital gains rates would return to present levels but assets would be indexed permanently for any inflationary gains.
It sounds like Wall Street can just put itself up for sale at E-Bay with the other unwanted assets. I don't know what else to say, but fortunately we have Hunter at Daily Kos.
What I'm worried about is that I see that people like Paul Krugman and Sebastian Mallaby are saying that, as proposed, the bailout is dangerous and that it should be rejected. So it's good to see Senator Menendez's statement:
Major action to help rescue our economy is certainly necessary, but what disappoints me about this proposal is that it's all Wall Street and no Main Street. We can't ignore the millions of Americans who may lose their homes, and there must be accountability to protect the taxpayers. It is both unfair and unwise to throw a lifeline to banks that were irresponsible without so much as offering a hand to homeowners and some real limits on risks for the taxpayers.
As we saw in House vote on offshore oil drilling, it doesn't seem like New Jersey liberals have any influence on the Democratic Leadership, but I think we need to see some accountability for this unprecedented government action, and an effort to help ordinary people.
Jon Corzine weighed in on the financial difficulties facing the Star Ledger and if there was anything the State could do to help, offering this comment earlier today:
"We can't bail them out. If you want a bail out you have to go to Washington these days. There's plenty of that going on there,"
The governor went on to say more, but the fact that comment can even be made reflects the magnitude of the difficulties the economy is facing.
.gif)
