Monday, September 29, 2008

Why Kenny Voted No

In Statement From Washington, Congressman and Candidate Kenny Hulshof Explains His Opposition to the $700 Billion Dollar Bailout Plan That Went Down in Defeat in the U.S. House Monday
His gripes with the bill include: Lack of regulatory corrections, "complete discretion" for Treasury Secretary and the price tag
(Scroll Down, To Watch Rep. Roy Blunt's Reaction)

"Economic uncertainty is being felt in every corner of the country. Americans are understandably anxious about the value of their homes, investments and retirement accounts. Businesses--small and large--are looking to the federal government for stability and guidance.

"Last week, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson insisted that Congress immediately authorize a $700 billion bailout plan to shore up our ailing markets. While I agree that time is of the essence, there is a potential downside for Congress to act too hastily and without adequate deliberations. For instance, over the preceding five days, House Republicans have insisted upon taxpayer protections and have scuttled many onerous provisions that would have benefited special interests. These changes have substantially improved the initial plan between the Administration and Congressional Democrats.

"Unfortunately, in my view, the final bill is still flawed in several respects:

"First, the bill is silent on changing 'mark to market' rules, which were a factor in exacerbating the current crisis.

"The bill also contains no regulatory corrections to naked short selling. A short-term ban has been in effect since September 19, aimed at curtailing this practice. However, that ban expires on October 2, and this bill does nothing to address any of the long-term ramifications of this practice.

"Additionally, Congress should be required to proactively authorize additional loan authority for the Treasury Secretary. The current bill only allows Congress to retroactively ‘veto’ actions by the Administration.

"The price tag of this bill is excessive.

"Finally, the current bill gives the Treasury Secretary complete discretion whether to utilize the market-based option of insuring the assets of troubled institutions. Given the Secretary’s outspoken opposition to this proposal, I fear this innovative solution, which truly protects America’s taxpayers, will be disregarded outright.

"For all of the foregoing reasons, I voted ‘no’ on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act."


No comments: