TehTpyoKing's weblog
Weeks after the bailout passed in congress on the second time, I finally received a reply from Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin (D) regarding my opposition to the bill. The response wasn't all that dissimilar from all the canned responses many of you probably got from your representatives during our phone and mail barrage in the days leading up to the vote.
For those of you who aren't familiar with Illinois politics. We're a blue state with a fair conservative base in the lower 75% of the state, unfortunately however the population of Chicago outnumbers the combined population of the rest of the state combined. As a result, Illinois is a shoe in for Obama in the presidential election, not only because he's a democrat but because this is also the state where he presides in the Senate.
Anyhow, here is a copy of my original message to Sen. Durbin on Sept 24th when the call to action was posted here on C4L.
"Hello Sen. Durbin. I am a 22 year old college student from Hartford (District 12). I've become increasingly interested in politics over the past several months and intend to become very active in politics well beyond this election season.
This particular message is in regard to the current economic crisis being presented to us. Particularly the $700 billion dollar bailout. I have both good and bad to say about your address to the Senate on the 22nd.
First, I would like to thank you for standing up to the administration and demanding more oversight and thought be put into the approval of this monstrous appropriation. The administration may see it fit to blame congress for the inevitable economic instability that is to come if this bailout is denied. However, I, and many of my constituents know quite well that congress is -not- to blame.
On that note I would however like to explain who I do think is to blame.
The problems on wall street have been mounting for a very long time. To assume that these concerns have only been precipitated during the Bush administration would be naive. If you believe in free market economics and capitalism as they were intended then you know that the system hasn't been operating correctly for a very long time.
I think to say that more regulation of the market is not a prescription of change, but of more of the same. While the markets may not have been directly regulated by an official government agency or oversight committee, the markets have been severely undermined by the intervention of the Fed, either directly or indirectly.
The concept that a company can be "too big to fail" has led to very poor decisions being made by these firms. After all, If I knew that the federal reserve would bail me out if my portfolio collapsed I would invest every penny I have into high-risk stocks. I win either way.
In general psychological terms, if you punish behavior, you get less of it, if you reward it, you get more of it. After the initial interest rate cuts these companies made very bad decisions and the bailouts rewarded this behavior. If we're to see any change in this pattern we must STOP REWARDING THIS BEHAVIOR.
As a young middle-class citizen with much of my future being sold to the lowest bidder I think it is absolutely necessary that this $700 billion dollar appropriation be denied outright.
The time of DC bully politics is nearing an end, as grassroots activism accelerates with the advent of the internet and sites like GovTrack I would expect a lot more accountability to your residents being necessary if one intends to be of relevance in the years to come.
Thank you for your time.
Adam S---"
Over 3 weeks later, after being a major proponent of the bill in the senate, this is the response I received from Sen. Durbin today:
"Dear Mr. S----:
Thank you for
writing to me about the Congressional response to the crisis in our nation's
financial markets. I understand your
concerns and appreciate hearing from you.
The seeds of the financial crisis were
sown when the mortgage industry began offering large numbers of subprime
mortgages that were very profitable in the short run but unsustainable in the
long run. The failure of the
Administration to properly regulate the mortgage markets allowed these subprime
mortgages to flourish. When the house of
cards began to fall, the devastation was swift and far-reaching.
As major financial firms began to
totter, the head of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury told
the leadership of the House and Senate that if we did not act quickly, the
American economy could melt down and the global economy as well. It was sobering news.
The initial plan the President
proposed in response to this crisis was deeply flawed. It asked Congress to authorize the Secretary
of the Treasury to spend $700 billion to stabilize the financial markets with
no strings attached, no accountability, and almost no transparency. I did not support that proposal.
Congress rewrote the plan. We added some protections for taxpayers,
including an oversight board to ensure that the money is used properly and the
actions of the government are open for all to see. We mandated that if the costs of this plan are
not recovered within five years, the President must develop a proposal for the
financial services industry to reimburse taxpayers for the costs of the rescue. We placed restrictions on excessive compensation
paid to the top executives of financial institutions that must be rescued, including
a ban on "golden parachutes."
We also included provisions to help
homeowners facing foreclosure by encouraging loan modifications to help them
stay in their homes.
I supported the final stabilization
package because we made substantial improvements and the alternative - doing
nothing - would have been an abdication of responsibility in the face of our
nation's worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Without action, the credit markets would tighten
further, devastating many families and businesses. The problem is not just the declining value
of people's retirement savings, although that genuine concern is already
affecting people's retirement decisions.
The deeper problem is that without adequate access to credit, small
businesses are unable to make payroll and must begin laying off workers; students
cannot obtain needed student loans; auto loans and mortgages dry up; and businesses
begin to fail because they can no longer finance day-to-day operations.
When the House voted down an
earlier version of the bill, we added the so-called "tax extenders" bill to the
measure. That measure provided $64
billion of tax relief to the middle class, protecting 26 million taxpayers
making between $45,000 and $70,000 in 2008 from the alternative minimum tax;
$20 billion in tax incentives for renewable energy and energy conservation,
which will boost the economy as well as reducing our dependence on foreign oil;
and an extension of the tax deduction for property taxes.
Congress is beginning to hold
hearings to investigate the practices that led to the demise of companies such
as AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, and to identify further reforms to restore
the integrity of our financial markets.
Our financial system requires a fundamental overhaul, so that the needs
of American families stand above the interests of Wall Street. We must do more to address the needs of the
homeowners who were caught up in the tricks and traps of the subprime mortgages
Wall Street companies peddled so profitably.
I continue to work for further reforms to reduce the foreclosure rate.
I also have introduced legislation
for consideration next year that would create a Consumer Credit Safety
Commission, a single government agency charged with ensuring that the offering
of financial credit to consumers is responsible, accountable, and
transparent. This new agency would look
out for consumers first, acting quickly to protect consumers from predatory
practices and holding companies accountable when they abuse, deceive, or take
advantage of the consumers they claim to be helping.
I will keep your views in mind as
Congress considers legislation to make our financial system more transparent,
safe, and accountable.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States
Senator
RJD/ms"
I promptly responded to Senator Durbin with my perturbed interpretation of his response:
"Dear Senator Durbin,
Your reply to my inquiry regarding the financial bailout is disheartening, not only because of your support of the bill, but because you seem to either have completely disregarded or ignored the intent of my original letter.
Despite whatever illusions the party leadership or the executive administration may have cast over congress, the public is far more aware of the circumstances of this bailout than anyone in the federal government would like to admit. The people of this country overwhelmingly opposed this bailout, not because of poor oversight or regulation, although those circumstances surely didn't help. We oppose it because of the fundamental lunacy of the idea that taxpayer money should be forced to pay for the poor business practices of Wall Street and Washington.
As a fiscal conservative from central Illinois I can't help but feel overwhelmingly disenfranchised by our poor representation in Congress as evidenced by these decisions. While I was pleased to see my local congressman vote against this atrocity on both occasions, I was quite disappointed to see both you and Senator Obama not only vote for this bill, but to be such outspoken proponents of it.
It's a sad day indeed when a bill of this magnitude can be passed through congress despite an overwhelming outcry against it on Main Street, even amidst the administrations fear mongering tactics.
While Main Street may not have been swayed by Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke's rhetoric, it appears that congress once again has folded under the pressure from above rather than pressure from below, a direct contradiction to the ideals of a functional democracy.
I'm very disappointed in your vote, and in your quite untimely, scripted reply to my concerns which are shared by millions across this state and the country.
In closing, I would like to ask that in the future when legislation like this comes up, you pay more attention to your constituents all across the state, and a bit less attention to your constituents in Washington."
I look forward to another canned reply from his office in about a month's time.
My representative's make me nauseous.
Categories: Democratic Party, Federal Legislation, Current Events, Economy, Monetary Policy
Tags: bailout, Economy, senator, Senate, durbin, yea, yes
Showing comments 1—3 of 3
Posted 10/18/08
Heather D
Port Byron, IL | I received the exact same letter from Senator Durbin about 3 days ago. I have yet to respond to it, however I did call his office before and after the vote. Your reply was very well written. Thanks for your dedication! |
Posted 10/21/08
GraySeal
Edwardsville, IL | I had a similar letter from Durbin after emailing Durbin. I just skimmed it as it was non responsive to the problem of the swindle.
Letter, emails, phone calls to Durbin are just tally points on a sheet. He does not read what we say. We get the lame letters back.
I just tally Durbin up on my swindler sheet. I have 75 of them in the Senate. |
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
| |
RSS feed
