A Letter From Senator Mel Martinez Explaining Why He Voted No On The Latest Bail Out/Stimulus

Thank you for contacting me regarding the American Recovery and Investment Act. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

As you know, our economy is facing a number of serious challenges, and I agree with President Obama that action must be taken. However, I also believe that elected representatives have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used wisely as we work to address our economic challenges. Since the beginning of this debate, I have reached out to members of both parties and worked hard to promote a responsible mixture of infrastructure spending and targeted tax relief that would strengthen our economy and encourage job creation. Additionally, I believe that the stimulus package must address the root of our economic woes in Florida—the housing market. Unfortunately, my efforts to improve this package in the Senate achieved only limited success with the addition of a loan modification program to reduce the number of foreclosures and a tax credit aimed at reducing the excessive inventory of houses on the market.

Despite these additions, the bill that came before the Senate contained far too much wasteful spending, far too little investment in critical infrastructure, and tax cuts that were neither timely nor targeted in a way that would spur economic growth. I would have preferred more investments in highways, bridges, roads, and military construction. Additionally, I supported a 50% cut in FICA taxes paid by every American who receives a paycheck and a cut in corporate tax rates to encourage business investment. These tax cuts could have been easily implemented and would have immediately stimulated our economy. However, the Democratic majority was unwilling to accept these common-sense proposals, and on February 10, 2009, I voted against H.R.1 the American Recovery and Investment Act.

After the Senate passed H.R. 1, the legislation was considered by a Conference Committee composed of Members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. During the Committee’s negotiations, the beneficial housing measures I worked to add to the bill were removed. I had hoped that these provisions would be retained and that actual improvements would be made to the legislation by the Conference Committee. Unfortunately, improvements were not made, needed provisions addressing housing were removed, and the bill produced by the Conference Committee was, in my estimation, even less acceptable than the original bill that the Senate passed on February 10, 2009. Although I would have preferred to support our new President on this bill, I voted against the conference report on Friday, February 13, 2009. I simply could not in good conscience support a flawed bill that spends this much money in such a wasteful and untargeted manner.

Florida faces very serious economic problems, and a lot of Florida families are hurting. Unemployment is nearly double digit, and every corner of the state is suffering from the foreclosure crisis. For this reason I worked with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to improve this bill. As a former County Mayor, I understand the budget strain and hardships that local governments are facing, but this legislation simply does not give us what we need - a focused bill with targeted tax cuts and infrastructure spending that would be timely and actually create jobs to unleash the private sector.

We in Florida need what the President promised: targeted, timely, and temporary spending. However, the agreement reached by Congress and the spending it authorizes cannot be sustained. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has already forecast two trillion dollars in additional spending to help stabilize and recapitalize our financial institutions. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to get it right and put special interests and pork barrel spending aside. Rest assured, I will continue to work with my colleagues to find ways to use the resources of the federal government in a reasonable and responsible manner to encourage job creation, mitigate future losses, and put our housing and financial markets on the pathway to recovery.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. If you have additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. In addition, for more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at martinez.senate.gov....

Sincerely,

Mel Martinez
United States Senator


MOD EDIT: All caps title removed.


[edit on 20-2-2009 by TheBorg]

As you can see I write my representatives to the Congress and Senate to share my input.

Sometimes they even right back. The letter was personally addressed but it was not a personal reply. It is the canned reply he no doubt is sending identically to all the constituents on his mailing list.

I am assuming such, since my original letter to him contained concerns about American Foreign policy as well.

While partisan politics are always at play Senator Martinez who similar Barrack Obama is a first term Senator has already announced he does not plan to run for reelection. Having also lived in Washington D.C. and Miami I could have saved him the trouble had he asked! The only thing colder than the weather in Washington D.C. are the bureaucratic personalities that work for the government!

Some though speculate in light of such a hostile legislating environment that some key Republicans like Martinez wish to call it quits and not be regulated to being nominal in their effect and impact.

If that is true what a shame. Clearly though in my humbler opinion this most recent bailout is far more shameful.

This reminds me of last year, just before the $700 billion was passed..i wrote to 2 of my state senators, state of CT, DODD and Shays or Liebberman one of the 2, asking them not to do it..i think it was was shays who wrote me back, appologizing, but thier hands were tied up in this mess, and they had no choice but to do it, and that it wa necessary for this bailout to happen. Later i remember reading, how congress threatened martial law upon the masses, fearinf civil unrest, if the bill hadnt passed. i at least had hoped, my local state senators would have told me WHY, not just ramble on about how necessary it was. Bunch of sellouts

reply to post by ziggy1706

i think it was was shays who wrote me back, appologizing, but thier hands were tied up in this mess, and they had no choice but to do it, and that it wa necessary for this bailout to happen. Later i remember reading, how congress threatened martial law upon the masses, fearinf civil unrest, if the bill hadnt passed. i at least had hoped, my local state senators would have told me WHY, not just ramble on about how necessary it was. Bunch of sellouts

Ever since the days of the Roman Republic, Senators have been aware of a very thin line that seperates the unwashed masses from the political elites and elites. They know that during good times the threat posed by a modest yet relatively thin layer of security in police and military protects them from the isolated crackpot or person with a real axe to grind.

Their worst fear is mob violence and mob rule. The banksters play on that fear everytime they go to Capitol Hill. There will be rioting, starving angry people will want blood and food if we have to shut down these banks. Give us money, give it to us now.

The banksters have learned a new trick. It's called extorsion.

A few brave politicians mostly Republicans though I will give Kudos to Dennis Kyssinich have spoken up about the fear mongering and intimidation of the banksters but most frightened Americans simply don't care. They want their 401Ks to be alright, they want their ATMS to spit out cash. They want to hurry home and watch American Idol.

It's a crazy world!

Despite these additions, the bill that came before the Senate contained far too much wasteful spending, far too little investment in critical infrastructure, and tax cuts that were neither timely nor targeted in a way that would spur economic growth. I would have preferred more investments in highways, bridges, roads, and military construction. Additionally, I supported a 50% cut in FICA taxes paid by every American who receives a paycheck and a cut in corporate tax rates to encourage business investment.

So where does it state "CUTS TO SPENDING"?

IT doesn't......that's the problem!

So where does it state "CUTS TO SPENDING"?

And that sure is the problem. My letter to the good Senator was no to the bailout period. I think the banksters have other and deeper pockets they can go too if they really want to prop up and restore the financial system they themselves created and have so profited on.

I remember when Banks couldn't cross state lines, and then the Mississippi.

Now they will sell you everything from life insurance, to credit monitoring and protection, investment services, and a flat screen TV along with a manicure and pedicure before giving you that free lolipop!

We need to decrease our debt and let toxic assetts that depreciate be the risk to investors big and small that they were when they knowingly took on a risky investment.

This is nuts!