posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:50 PM
I emailed my state senator Kay Bailey Hutchison voicing my displeasure about her voting yes for the "Bailout". I finally received a response
detailing why she voted for it.
The original point of my email was to ask how could the senate pass a bill with sooo much obvious "pork". As you can see, she did not address this
concern at all. In my opinion, she is just making excuses for voting yes on something so unpopular and is trying to cover her rear for reelection.
I just wanted to let others see her response as to why she voted yes. Did any others receive similar responses???
FYI I am voting against her without a doubt.
Dear Mr. xxxxxx:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.
On September 19, 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced a plan by the Bush Administration to stabilize the financial services sector of the
economy. This plan included broad authority for the Treasury Secretary to purchase troubled financial instruments with very limited oversight and few
protections for taxpayers.
In July, I voted against a similar proposed bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because it did not provide taxpayer protection and limits on
executive compensation for a government owned entity. For the same reasons, I was not willing to support the Administration’s initial proposal, and
I encouraged my colleagues to continue work on a plan that would protect taxpayers, provide strict oversight, and place limits on the benefits to
executives who accept taxpayer assistance.
In the days following the Treasury Secretary’s announcement, concerns about the danger to the broader economy deepened. The high-profile failure of
numerous financial institutions caused the commercial lending market to accumulate and hold cash. The credit markets effectively froze, making it
difficult for consumers to obtain loans for purchases such as homes and automobiles. The lack of lending in these areas began to place further
pressure on the troubled housing market and threatened to spread deeper into the economy. Similarly, many small and mid-sized businesses were finding
it difficult to obtain financing to meet their payroll obligations and purchase inventory. Many cities were entering the bond market and getting no
bids, even with AAA ratings. The current liquidity crisis still poses a real potential for significant job losses. After consulting with numerous
financial experts, small businesses, and bankers in Texas, it became clear to me that normal commercial lending activity would not resume without
action by Congress.
Despite this realization, I was still not inclined to support the Paulson plan. After weeks of negotiation, however, a bi-partisan compromise was
reached. While there are provisions in the bill that I do not favor and would not have drafted, overall the need for action to stabilize the market
and to protect the retirement savings of millions of Americans weighed heavily on my mind. Ultimately, I supported the Senate bill along with 73 of my
colleagues. The bill we passed was a major improvement over the initial plan announced by Secretary Paulson.