My Senators response to my Email on Bailout. PLEASE READ!!!

Dear Ms. Dw**r:



Thank you for contacting my office regarding the financial rescue legislation. I appreciate your views on this matter.



I reluctantly supported this package because the failure of Congress to act would run the risk of dire consequences, including an economic downturn which could cause more foreclosures, jeopardize retirement accounts, and further restrict credit which is necessary for small businesses to operate. I am philosophically opposed to bailouts. I think that when you have Wall Street entrepreneurs who take big risks to make big profits and they go sour, they ought to sustain the loss themselves and not look to the government for a bailout which ends up in the laps of the taxpayers. However, I supported the plan to avoid economic disaster that would extend well beyond Wall Street.



From the outset, I cautioned against Congress's rushing to judgment. When the initial proposal was made in mid-September, I wrote to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell by letter dated September 21, 2008 urging we take the time necessary to get the legislation right. By letter dated September 23, 2008, I wrote to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asking a series of questions which have not yet been answered. Then by letter dated September 27, 2008, accompanied by a Senate floor statement, I made a series of suggestions to the executive and legislative negotiators. Again, there has been insufficient time for a reply. Copies of these letters are available on my website: specter.senate.gov....



Whenever we deviate from regular order which has been developed during more than 200 years of serving our country very well, we are on thin ice. On regular order, the legislative process customarily begins with a bill which members of Congress can study and analyze. After the legislation is in hand, there are hearings with proponents and opponents of the bill and an opportunity for members to examine, really cross examine, to get to the heart of the issues and alternatives. Regular order calls for a markup in the committee of jurisdiction going over the language line by line with an opportunity to make changes with votes on those proposed modifications. Then the committee files a report which is reviewed by members in advance of floor action where amendments can be offered and debate occurs. The action by each house is then subjected to further refinement by a conference committee which makes the presentment to the President for yet another line of review. The process used to finalize this legislation drastically shortcut regular order.



The legislation passed by the Senate is enormously improved over the first Paulson proposal. The $700 billion is not to be authorized immediately, but instead there are installments of $250 billion, $100 billion at the request of the president and $350 billion more subject to congressional objection, although the latter phase may be unconstitutional under INS v. Chadha, which requires following regular legislative process with passage by both houses and Presidential approval to overrule Presidential action and perhaps inferentially legislative conditions. For protection of the taxpayers, the proposal contains a provision that if the government does not regain its money after five years, the President would be required to submit a plan for compensating the Treasury "from entities benefiting from the programs." While that provision is a far way from a guarantee or even assurances that such recovery legislation would be enacted, it gives some important comfort to the taxpayers' position.



There are provisions for multiple layers of oversight including a Financial Stability Oversight Board that will meet monthly to oversee the program. The Treasury Secretary will be required to report to Congress on a regular basis on the actions taken, along with a detailed financial statement. These reports will include information on each of the agreements made, insurance contracts entered into, and the nature of the asset purchased and projected costs and liabilities. Additional oversight will be provided by the Comptroller General (reports to Congress), a new Inspector General (audits and quarterly reports), a congressionally-appointed oversight panel (market and regulatory review, and reports to Congress on the program and the effectiveness of foreclosure mitigation efforts), and by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (cost estimates). A report will be required from the Secretary of the Treasury with an analysis of the current financial regulatory framework and recommendations for improvements.



There are substantial limitations on having benefits for entities which created the problem and limitations on executive pay. In cases where financial institutions sell troubled assets directly to the government with no competitive bidding and where the government receives a meaningful equity position, the legislation states that, until that equity stake is sold, executives would not get incentives "to take unnecessary and excessive risks" and would have to give up or repay bonuses or other incentives based on financial statements that "are later proven to be materially inaccurate." The bill also would prohibit "any golden parachute payment to senior executives."





The legislation is less stringent in provisions for financial institutions that sell their assets to the government through an auction. Such provisions would apply only to companies that sell more than $300 million in assets and would subject companies and employees to extra taxes. Corporations would not be able to deduct any salary or deferred compensation of more than $500,000, and top executives would face a 20% excise tax on golden parachute payments if they left for any reason other than retirement. In evaluating limitations on executive salaries, it is relevant to note that the Institute for Public Studies found that chief executives of large U.S. companies made an average of $10.5 million last year. That is more than 300 times the pay of the average worker.



The final proposal does provide for debt insurance, as advocated for by House Republicans, but leaves it to the Secretary of the Treasury to utilize that approach so it seems unlikely that it will be implemented in light of the fact that Secretary Paulson has bluntly stated his disagreeme

Thanks for sharing this. My phone calls and emails have not enlisted any response.....

Originally posted by KaginD
Secretary Paulson

Man ... I just don't trust this guy. When he thought he was getting his hands on a $700 billion check, without oversight, he was grinning from ear to ear. When it got yanked out from under him, he was one cranky dude.

That grin ... something about that grin .... when he thought he was getting the check....

I just don't trust him at all.

Continued: Had there been floor amendments, Congress could have structured standards for utilization of debt insurance.



Had we followed regular order with an opportunity to propose amendments, consideration could have been given to my proposal, S.2133, which would have authorized the bankruptcy courts to restructure interest and scheduling of payments. The so-called variable rate mortgages have confronted many homeowners with the surprise that original payments, illustratively, of $1200 a month were soon raised to $2000 which resulted in defaults. Individualized examination by the bankruptcy courts might show misrepresentation or even fraud to justify revising the interest payments and rearranging the payment schedule. Or consideration could have been given to Senator Durbin's proposed legislation, S.2136, which would have authorized the bankruptcy courts to reset the principal balance depending on the value of the home. I opposed that bill because I thought it would discourage future lending, and in the long run raise the cost to homebuyers. But at least, following regular order, there would have been an opportunity to consider Senator Durbin's proposal as well as my suggested legislation.



The legislation contains authority for the Treasury Secretary to compensate foreign central banks under some conditions. It provides that troubled assets held by foreign financial authorities and banks are eligible for the Toxic Assets Recover Program (TARP) if the banks hold such assets as a result of having extended financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted. Had there been an opportunity for floor debate, that provision might have been sufficiently unpopular to be rejected or at least sharply circumscribed with conditions.



As a step to help keep borrowers in their homes, I proposed language found in Section 119 (b) of the bill to address the concern that some loan servicers have been reluctant to modify home mortgage loan terms because they fear litigation from investors who hold securities or other vehicles backed by the mortgage in question. The loan servicers have a legal duty to the investors to maximize the return on their investments. In testimony on December 6, 2007, before the House Committee on Financial Services, Mark Pearce, speaking on behalf of the conference of State Bank supervisors, discussed a meeting with the top 20 subprime servicers. He explained that "many of them brought up fear of investor lawsuits" as a hurdle to voluntary loan modification efforts. Because the rescue legislation encourages the government to seek voluntary loan modifications, it is important to remove any impediments to such modifications. To that end, the language provides a legal safe harbor for mortgage servicers making loan modifications, if the loan modifiers take reasonable mitigation steps, including accepting partial payments from homeowners.



On reforms to prevent a recurrence of this crisis, we need to question whether the rating agencies adequately analyzed mortgage-backed securities before issuing investment-grade ratings. These agencies appear to have failed. In July of 2007, when it became apparent that ratings issued by the big three rating agencies-Moody's, S&P and Fitch- could not be relied upon, I urged the relevant committees to look into the ratings that those agencies issued in recent years regarding mortgage-backed securities. Financial institutions that issue asset-backed securities obtain ratings for such securities. The failure to issue reliable ratings misrepresented the facts and fed the ability of financial institutions to tout the value of securities even though their value was declining. Congress and the regulators need to take up the rating agencies issue, and consider whether ratings agencies that have utterly failed to detect and reflect the risks associated with the securities they were rating should be accorded any reliance or role in our financial system. Some have suggested they should be regulated and we may need to consider that.



In addition, Congress and the regulators should review "off-balance sheet" transactions and leveraging. There should be a close examination on whether banks are sufficiently transparent and providing accurate accounting that truly reflects risk and leverage. Similarly there should be a review on Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are privately traded derivatives contracts that have ballooned to make up what is a $2 trillion dollar market according to the Bank of International Settlements. They are a fast-growing major type of financial derivative. Many experts assert that they have played a critical role in this financial crisis as various financial players believed that they were safe because they thought CDS fully insured or protected them, but the CDS market is unregulated and no one really knows what exposure everyone else has from the CDS contracts. Consideration should be given to subjecting all over-the-counter derivatives onto a regulated exchange similar to that used by listed options in the equity markets.



Overleveraging has been a contributing factor in the turmoil that now threatens our financial institutions. We have seen a massive expansion of the practice of leveraged financial institutions (banks, investment banks, and hedge funds) making investments with borrowed money. In turn, they borrow more money by using the assets they just purchased as collateral. This sequence is continued again and again. The financial system, in its efforts to deleverage, is contracting credit. They must guard against future losses by holding more capital. Deleveraging is leading to difficulty on Main Street for individuals seeking to get a mortgage or buy a car. If a financial institution is able to unload its toxic assets onto the government, it will again be able to resume its lending activities that are crucial for economic growth in the United States. Unfortunately, much of the financial crisis has arisen from miscalculations of the risks involved with purchasing large amounts of securities backed by subprime mortgages and other toxic assets. We now see a situation where we are not just talking about a handful of firms. This is a widespread problem that should be addressed by this package and in future reforms of our financial regulatory structure.



In addition, the package crafted by Senate leaders includes two notable changes from the version that was rejected by the House on Monday. It includes a tax package that was previously passed in the Senate by a vote of 93-2 on September 23, 2008, but has since been rejected by the House in a dispute over revenue offsets. It includes tax incentives for wind, solar, biomass, and other alternative energy technologies. It also includes critically important relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, which threatens to raise the tax liability of over 22 million unintended filers in 2008 if no action is taken. Finally, the package includes a host of provisions that either expired in 2007 or are set to expire in 2008, including the research and development tax credit, rail line improvement incentives, and quicker restaurant and retail depreciation schedules. I supported the Senate-passed tax extenders bill because it struck a responsible balance on the issue of revenue raising offsets.



The package also includes a provision to temporarily increase the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance limit to $250,000. Currently, the FDIC provides deposit insurance which guarantees the safety of checking and savings deposits in member banks, up to $100,000 per depositor per bank. Member banks pay a fee to participate. The current $100,000 limit has been unchanged since 1980 despite inflation. This approach is supported by both Senator McCain and Senator Obama, by House Republicans, and by the FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. Raising the cap could stem a potential run on deposits by bank customers, particularly businesses, who fear losing their money. Such fears contributed to the collapse of Washington Mutual and Wachovia Bank.



Congress has been called upon to make the best of a very bad situation. Careful oversight of the authority given to the Treasury Department will need to be undertaken, and a review of our regulatory structure will be necessary as we move forward.



Again, thank you for writing. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. If you require assistance with a federal agency, please contact my state office in your area. The contact information can be found on my website at specter.senate.gov.





Sincerely,



Arlen Specter

Howdy, neighbor!!

Looks like Arlen sent out a form letter; I got the exact same one.
I love how he went ahead and voted YES for the thing even though in this email he appears to disagree with the whole steaming pile and takes a few potshots at Paulson while he's at it!

I was really surprised to get a response. I figured I'd share with you guys. Sorry about the length and 2 separate posts.. I didn't realize that it was that long lol. I hope it don't make you guys not want to read it.

Originally posted by anachryon
Howdy, neighbor!!

Looks like Arlen sent out a form letter; I got the exact same one.
I love how he went ahead and voted YES for the thing even though in this email he appears to disagree with the whole steaming pile and takes a few potshots at Paulson while he's at it!

Well, so much for being excited about getting a response I should have known that he wouldn't personally send ME an email. Good to know I wasn't the only one that sent the complaint in PA.

I wonder if any of the pork was for Arlen...

I am ILL this night over the travesty we have in the Senate. Clearly the House is far closer to the will of the People than the Senate.

And I thought things didn't go to the Senate until they were PASSED in the House... That is what I was taught, I'm pretty sure...

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by KaginD
Secretary Paulson

Man ... I just don't trust this guy. When he thought he was getting his hands on a $700 billion check, without oversight, he was grinning from ear to ear. When it got yanked out from under him, he was one cranky dude.

That grin ... something about that grin .... when he thought he was getting the check....

I just don't trust him at all.

i'm glad someone else saw that....looked like u ran over his dog when it was not going to be handed over....

Heres Mine,

September 30, 2008





(Deleted For Security Reasons)
(Deleted For Security Reasons)
(Deleted For Security Reasons)





Thank you . . .



. . for contacting me about the current crisis in our economy. I wanted to share with you the statement I released on Monday:



After eight years of deregulation and lack of accountability, this Administration has created the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression - a crisis that will hurt hardworking American families across the country because credit markets are drying up and pension assets are at risk.



I am currently reviewing various proposals to address this emergency and will work with my colleagues to act prudently and responsibly. I believe any proposal must put American families first by ensuring the American taxpayer is protected, strengthening oversight and accountability, limiting executive compensation, and most importantly, helping families stay in their homes.



As Michigan faces an unemployment rate of 8.9 percent, record foreclosures and skyrocketing household costs, we must also work together to ensure that we are providing relief to struggling families and creating good-paying jobs across the country. I urge President Bush to support our efforts to extend unemployment insurance benefits to help hardworking families and support our retooling program to create jobs here at home.



Now is the time to come together and do what is right for the American people.



Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed about issues of concern to you and your family.



Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow

United States Senator

Let me translate this for you all; you, no matter what you and most people think I am voting for this bill.

So I wrote back...

Debbie Stabenow,

Thank you for your prompt response on this matter, I appreciate your decision to ignore your constituency and look forward to voting for your opponent in your next bid for re election.

(Deleted for Security Reasons)

HAHAHA Thats a GREAT response to the email!! I might not even bother writing back. Now that I know its a reproduced email I might want to save myself from all the fear mongering

Well good thing you mentioned the happy smile turned upside down,I've noticed that the Decider himself looks like his icecream fell out of the cone
Maybe they aren't getting what they wanted either ,if that's true that makes me happy

Yep neighbors - I got the same letter here from Mr. Specter.

Also received this one from Mr. Casey -


On Wednesday, October 1, the Senate passed H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, a bill that will stabilize our credit markets, protect retirement and pension savings, modify troubled loans and protect taxpayers from paying for Wall Street's mistakes. After careful consideration, I decided to vote for this legislation.

This is a time of great economic uncertainty in our Nation's history. For many families in Pennsylvania and throughout the country, the recession has been part of their lives for many months now. Just this week we learned that the unemployment rate in Pennsylvania went from 5.4% to 5.8% in the month of August and for some parts of the state it went up far more than half a percentage point. We also learned that in the month of August the foreclosure rate in Pennsylvania went up by more than 60% from the previous year. The job loss and foreclosure rates are indicators of the economic trauma that many families have felt in Pennsylvania and across America.

Like you, I am not happy with the current crisis, and I'm angry about the climate of deregulation and deference to Wall Street over the last eight years that got us into this mess. However, failing to act will not simply punish those who brought us to this situation; it will punish everyone.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) provides up to $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy mortgages and other assets that are clogging the balance sheets of financial institutions and making it difficult for working families, small businesses and other companies to access credit. After purchasing these assets, the Department of Treasury will hold them until markets for them recover. Treasury would then plan to sell these assets for a profit, recouping most or all of the $700 billion for the benefit of taxpayers.

You should know that Congress has significantly improved the original proposal presented by the Bush administration. In the version passed by the Senate, executives will be held accountable for their past decisions through limitations on compensation, prohibitions against golden parachutes or excessive retirement packages, and requirements that unearned bonuses be returned. As improved by the Senate, the legislation also requires participating companies to provide warrants and other forms of equity so that taxpayers will share in the profits if the stock of these companies goes up as a result of Treasury Department intervention.

The EESA also contains several provisions directed at stemming the tide of mortgage foreclosures thereby keeping families in their homes and addressing the root cause which has led to a loss of investor confidence and the freezing of credit markets. It would require the Treasury Department, where possible, to modify troubled loans to help American families keep their homes. It would also expand the HOPE for Homeowners program and require other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control.

To ensure that Treasury isn't just getting a blank check, the legislation makes $250 billion available immediately, then requires the President to certify that additional funds are needed. The Treasury must report on the use of the funds and on progress in addressing the crisis. The bill establishes an Oversight Board so that the Treasury cannot act in an arbitrary manner and establishes a special inspector general to protect against waste, fraud and abuse.

The United States is in a financial crisis that could become worse than anything in a generation. In addition, our Nation's problems are already spreading into the global economy. If the federal government fails to take action right now, there is a real threat to small businesses and jobs, as well as mortgages, pensions and savings.

For all these reasons, I concluded that Congress must act now, and I

reply to post by maudeeb


Cont -

For all these reasons, I concluded that Congress must act now, and I decided to vote in favor of H.R. 1424. In the last two weeks, I have worked hard to be sure that this bill includes provisions to help families who are struggling. I've closely questioned and sent two detailed letters to Treasury Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and also spoke to leading economists about this legislation.

Enactment of this legislation is only the first in a series of steps we must take to bring about economic recovery. We need to institute rigorous and aggressive regulation of players in the market place in order to prevent the abuses which caused our economic problems.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, casey.senate.gov.... I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.



Sincerely,
Bob Casey



- I'd love to hear any feedback on the specifics of their claims from theose more in the know than myself. I plan on reading through them carefully and asking some questions in return.

I got an e-mail too, guess which words were in my e-mail too?

dire consequences

Who else got that response?

\

[edit on 2-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Here is the response i got from Senator Patty Murry in Washington State

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue. The U.S. Senate voted to pass this bill by a margin of 74-25 on Wednesday, October 1, 2008. H.R. 1424 is now being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives.



As you know, in communities across America today, people are finding it increasingly difficult to fill up their tanks, pay for health care, and afford college tuition. Now, all Americans, even those who have paid their bills on time and have excellent credit, are at risk of being severely affected by the current credit freeze on Wall Street.



People want to know if this crisis is real. I have asked the same question of Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke. I have spoken with economic experts and Washington state business leaders. Companies like Weyerhaeuser and Microsoft have made it clear that something must be done. Power utilities such as Avista and the farm groups such as the Farm Bureau have told me that the government's proposal to stabilize our financial markets is critically needed. Throughout various sectors of our economy, there is deep and genuine concern about market collapse and the potential impact on jobs, credit and pensions.



We have already experienced a slowdown in home sales and construction. Our home state bank, Washington Mutual, was unable to withstand the crisis and was acquired by another institution. Millions of Americans have tried to obtain a loan or refinance their mortgage, but have found it increasingly difficult to find a willing line of credit and in many cases have been unable to do so at all. If this crisis worsens, credit could freeze completely for consumers and companies who use credit to pay their employees or run their business operations. The bottom line is that without a steady stream of credit, American businesses will not be able to pay their workers and Americans will lose their jobs. Because of the impact the financial crisis could have on all Americans, from layoffs to access to credit, I supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.



I understand the frustration of people who want those on Wall Street to be held accountable for their actions and shoulder the consequences of their own misdeeds. Americans are being confronted with two undesirable options. Either do nothing and let the crisis worsen, or take action and use taxpayer dollars to solve a problem they did not create. Americans are rightfully angry. However, those who created the problem will not be those who are hurt most if the government does not act. My top priority is to do what is best for the people of Washington State and the nation, and that is why I believe government action is urgently needed in this situation.



The original plan presented to Congress by President Bush and Secretary Paulson was a non-starter. Congress rightly refused to give Secretary Paulson a blank check to spend hundreds of billions of dollars without oversight. Congress refused to allow executives of failing companies to walk away with millions of dollars in severance packages while taxpayers paid for their mistakes. This legislation is a more prudent agreement to anchor taxpayer dollars to strict Congressional oversight and scrutiny by independent economic experts. We added assistance for responsible borrowers hit by the foreclosure crisis and plans to recoup money from any institutions which use government money and then see a profit. In the future, it is possible that most, if not all, of the taxpayer money invested will be returned once this crisis comes to a close.

Originally posted by whatukno
Debbie Stabenow,

Thank you for your prompt response on this matter, I appreciate your decision to ignore your constituency and look forward to voting for your opponent in your next bid for re election.

(Deleted for Security Reasons)

I just checked, and Debbie was one of the few with balls. She voted "Nay."

continued....


Congress has to be vigilant in our oversight of how this law is implemented. I fought to ensure that every transaction that takes place regarding this funding will be on the Internet for all Americans to see. In addition, I strongly support the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) and other state and federal agencies' investigation into the wrongdoing related to the current crisis on Wall Street. If fraud and criminal activity are uncovered, the individuals responsible must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.



Congress must take a hard look at the factors that brought us to this point and seriously address them. Congress will be holding ongoing hearings into the causes of this crisis and the regulation reform that is desperately needed and has been missing throughout the duration of the Bush Administration. The next administration has to work with Congress to pass and implement new regulatory measures so that taxpayers are never put in this position again.



It will take both investment and honesty to get our economy back on track. The next administration will inherit this economic crisis along with many other serious challenges. I hope our new President is honest with the American people about where we stand and what it will take to move America forward.



I believe that to move America forward, we need to invest in the infrastructure and education that create economic growth and jobs. We have to invest in our workforce and find a way to make health care affordable and accessible. We have to increase funding for research and development and reward innovation. We have to implement a smart, forward-looking energy policy that ends our addiction to foreign oil. It is time to put America's families first and restore their faith that government works for, not against them.



I grew up with a country at my back - one that when my own father got sick and could no longer work was there with Pell Grants and student loans and even food stamps when my family needed them. I will always remember that. I supported this legislation because the American dream of owning a home or going to college is simply too important to take a back seat to politics or to be put at risk by the misdeeds of Wall Street.



As Congress continues to work to restore our economy, I will continue to stand up for our state and listen to your concerns. Thank you for contacting me, and please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.



I hope all is well in Vancouver.

reply to post by whatukno


Great response! Ida loved to be a fly on the wall to see the expression on her face. I mighta even given a penny or 80 (u kno, inflation) for her thoughts after getting pwned by that.

They can make all the excuses they want, but their failure to do the right thing when the going gets tough is only outdone by their own greed.

This is the porkiest barrel bill in the butchery. You guys hear what all they included? I mean this stupid thing was passed as an AMENDMENT to another unrelated bill, and some of the things included are just mind boggling.

With everything else going on, legislation this important should have had time to marinate extra good, cook real slow in a smoker, and be eaten a very small portion at a time. Instead they threw it raw on a high heat grill, seared it once or twice, and force fed it down our throats. That never tastes good, ya know?

Let's hope the House revolts.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by TrueAmerican]

I wrote a flame letter back stating that the majority of our elected officals are only worried about there own pocket books and could give a rats @$$ about the common citizen and instead of voting for swindlers they should vote for new infrastructure that would create new jobs and etc... also guaranteed come election time i know of at least 200 -250 people that will not be voting for her.