As most of you know by now, I opposed the $700 billion bailout bill that passed the House of Representatives last Friday by a vote of 263-171.There are many questions I believe we need to ask ourselves with each piece of legislation. I think two of the most basic questions we should ask are "What goal is this moving us towards?" and "Is this an appropriate goal for government?"
This unprecedented government intrusion into the marketplace carries no guarantees the taxpayers will be made whole. It is a gamble on the part of the Administration and Congressional leaders. It was a gamble I was not prepared to take on the part of the American taxpayer.
For the sake of employers stretched thin by lack of credit, I hope this gamble pays off. For the sake of seniors and others who rely on stock market investments to get by, I hope this gamble pays off as well. For the sake of millions of us who have responsibly built nest eggs and paid our mortgages on time, I hope the gamble reaps great rewards.
Here are additional comments from Tim Johnson in a separate address:
"This bill raises the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion, with no guarantees. It includes so-called fixes that are unrelated to increasing liquidity in the markets, such as raising the threshold on FDIC-insured accounts, a measure that will only cost consumers more in bank fees. Perhaps most offensive is the addition of some $180 billion in special-interest tax breaks that have nothing to do with the credit crunch.I'm not well enough informed to make bold commentary on this issue. I also don't feel I can adequately articulate the goal, the problem, or the solution. The only thing I think I can safely summarize is part of the plan as stated in the bill itself.
"I simply cannot support expenditures of this magnitude that are patched together in haste, that are laden with special-interest sweeteners to attract votes because the package cannot stand on its merits. As stewards of the people's resources, we are morally obligated to do better.
"I believe government does have a role in this process and shares responsibility for this crisis. I believe we must restore confidence and accountability. But the collapse of Wall Street doesn't have to mean the collapse of personal responsibility. We are in this mess because people in privileged positions made unwise, risky decisions. I will not be part of the same mistake."
The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or `TARP') to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary. (Div. A, Sec. 101)And the roadblock that I've now approached is whether or not this should be the responsibility of the Secretary of the Treasury? I don't know the arguments for and against granting this authority but I am of the opinion that the people should keep the responsibility of every issue they face unless there is a good reason to give that responsibility to someone else. I am looking for the reason we should give the responsibility of purchasing troubled assets to someone else.
