I recently wrote an e-mail to my Congress-critter, John Shadegg, (Reptile) AZ, regarding the bank bailout. I was absolutely livid that Congress was even considering such a grand scale theft. It amounts to $2100 for every man woman and child in the USA. When the first vote came, and the original bank bail out failed, I was ecstatic. At last, Congress had developed a spine! And MY Congressman, John Shadegg, was one of the House Republicans who helped defeat the bill. Then came Wednesday, when the Senate considered its version of the bill, passed it, and submitted it to the House. On Friday, the House voted, and this time, the "new and improved" larded up version of the bail out bill passed. Guess who voted FOR the new bill? The Honorable John Shadegg! Furious, I fired off another e-mail, and this is the response I got. I print it here for your edification.
Years ago, when I took several courses in newspaper writing in college, I learned to edit using a blue pencil. Following that tradition, my editorial comments are in blue.
Dear Mr. Farah:
Thank you for contacting me about the Wall Street rescue package proposed by the White House and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. I am grateful you took the time to contact me and I appreciate your concerns and your passion on the subject. I hope you'll take a moment and consider my reply.
As you know, I strongly opposed the legislation when it was first proposed and severely criticized Secretary Paulson for not giving Congress more notice and for using fear as a lobbying strategy. I hope you also know that, based on Secretary Paulson's handling of the matter, eight days after he sprung this crisis on the American people I called for his resignation. Fat lot of good that did! And, you may be aware that I led the fight against the original bill. The Arizona Republic acknowledged, "Shadegg led the resistance, as he so often does, against cutting a blank check to bail out Wall Street." I was proud of you too, you duplicitous jackal.
You may be surprised to know and may not agree, but had it not been for the intervention of Senator John McCain who stood up to (1) the White House, (2) Senate Republicans, (3) Senate Democrats, (4) House Democrats, and (5) Senator Obama, the first bill would have been dramatically worse. No, it wouldn't have because it was the SECOND bill that got passed. When Senator McCain sided with House Republicans, the bailout bill supported by Senate Democrats and the White House included funding for ACORN, the community activist group which has fraudulently registered thousands of voters, and would have allowed judges to rewrite legally binding contracts. If Senator McCain had agreed with all other parties in the White House Cabinet Room that day, it would have been over. House Republicans would have been rolled and a disastrous bill would have passed. Are you saying House Reptillians have no moral fiber except when being led by a post traumatic stress fighting, whiskey slurping adulterer? It took courage to say no to the President and the Democrats with the economy in the balance. The bill I voted against, and that failed on the House floor on Monday, was a terrible bill and I am convinced that was the right vote. So am I.
In the week leading up to the first vote, not a single Arizona businessman called me to urge support for the bill. I reached out to bankers, investment bankers, mortgage lenders, and others in Arizona. But, no bankers called me to say the rescue was necessary. You think maybe they had been blind-sided, like rest of us?
Following the first vote, I wrote an op-ed in USA Today, which is attached, or you may find at http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/09/opposing-view-t.html#more. In it, I expressed my strong objections to the bill and insisted that two changes were essential. Only two changes? Two little changes to the biggest theft in the history of the planet? And pray, tell, what were those changes? Investigation of the shennanigans of the corporate officers of these companies? Guarantees that the companies that would be bailed out would pay back every dime of the bail out plus interest? Vetting the bill to see if it passed Constitutional muster? NO! The first was a modification of the mark to market rule, which as they were applying it, required that mortgage backed securities be marked down by financial institutions to the value at the moment, usually a firesale value, even if the owners of the property were making payments. The mark to market rule requires assets to be listed at their fair market value. What other standard would you use John? Magic Bean Counting? Pull it outta your ass accounting? This rule was forcing institutions to undervalue these assets, according to the experts with whom I spoke. "Experts" who helped create the mess, and also, now have a vested interest in Congress bailing them out. Forty minutes prior to the vote I was approached by a Republican leadership aide who said they would promise to alter the mark to market rule if I voted for the bill. 40 whole minutes? To decide the fate of the free world? I said, I don't deal in future promises; make the change in writing and I will be able to vote for the bill. Way to show principled leadership, John! The second change I pushed for was an increase in the FDIC insurance limit for bank accounts, a critical step toward calming the fears millions of Americans have for their retirement savings and small businesspeople have for their operating accounts. Calming fears is important? Those fears, John, happen to be based upon facts. The fact is that due to heavy mismanagement of the economy, primarily by the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury and the Congress of the United States, our banking system is a house of cards, and now those cards are collapsing. In other words, John, those fears you are trying to calm are fully justified! You shouldn't be trying to calm them; you should be addressing the underlying cause of the fears.
As you know, both of these changes were made. And thereby, in John Shadegg's small mind, the theft of over $700 billion dollars was suddenly justified! Shortly after the first vote failed, I spoke with Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Chris Cox. He agreed to put into place a process by which mark to market would be reformed, and the SEC issued what is called "guidance" to correct the interpretation of the rule. And, the Senate bill, which passed the House, increased the FDIC limit to $250,000. I honestly argue that I didn't change my vote; they changed their bill. HA AH HA HA HA! OH MY GOD THAT'S FUNNY! HA HA HA HA!
But there was more than these two reforms. Between the defeat on Monday and the vote on Friday, numerous Arizona business people did call me to express their support for the rescue package and their concern about the economy. One businessman said that he would not be able to make payroll the next Friday if credit remained frozen. A farmer told me that he could no longer get chemicals for the herbicide applicator he uses to spray his crops unless he paid in cash, in full, in advance. National automobile sales fell by 27% in September; in Arizona they were down 32%--salesmen and mechanics are going to lose their jobs. Losing jobs and economic contraction is part of a free economy, John. It is a necessary part of economic freedom. It is painful, yes, but it weeds out the bad performers from the good ones.
The mainstream media blamed Wall Street greed for the entire mess. And, it's true that Wall Street greed played a role, but make no mistake, Congress laid the foundation for this debacle. Congress, working with Democrat administrations, enacted policies pushing easy money and "liar" and "subprime" loans on the market, forcing banks to make loans to people who could not afford them. As the hit on the economy became clearer, and because I believed the government was largely responsible for this mess, I did not feel it was defensible to do nothing and allow an Arizona auto mechanic, innocent of any wrongdoing, to lose his entire livelihood. Congress should have stayed and worked out a better bill, but that was not going to happen. The Senate was already gone and would not be returning for at least 45 days. The choice was between action and inaction: voting for a flawed bill we can hopefully fix in the future with a different Congress, or doing nothing and watching innocent people lose their jobs. Three things, John: First, you are leaving out the resposibility of the Federal Reserve whose loose money policies and artificially low interest rates were the fuel that fed this conflagration. Second, stop playing partisan politics. The Reptillians controlled the house for the vast majority of the timespan to which you are referring. They could have stopped this dog and pony show any time they wanted to. Third, I am glad that Congress's vacation is far more important than the largest theft/bail out in the history of planet Earth.
I hate the structure of the bill Paulson proposed. But you voted for it anyway. House Republicans wanted systemic reforms like a cut in the capital gains tax or the corporate rate income tax, both of which would stimulate our economy and create jobs for American workers. How about reigning in the Federal Reserve? How about reducing spending (by ending wars and corporate welfare)? How about balancing the budget and paying off the national debt? However, we were told these ideas weren't acceptable to the other parties. I believe the Paulson idea of having the government buy "troubled assets" and stock in banks move us toward socialism. I am not happy about it. Wrong. It is not socialism. It is Communism. One of the planks of the Communist Manifesto is centralization of credit in the hands of the State. Congratulations, John, you've voted for a major step towards Communism in this country.
House Republicans did force Paulson to accept our proposal for an insurance fund paid for by the Wall Street banks themselves. Forced Paulson? How is it that a mere cabinet member has any say at all in the laws of this land? Where did he get all the power? And why the fuck is Congress cow-towing to him? I voted for the final version, holding my nose, with the knowledge that I will fight for the changes, particularly the changes in Congress, which are necessary to protect our economy and ensure that the government limits its involvement in the market as much as possible and gets out as quickly as possible. HA HA HA HA! When has any government anywhere EVER limited itself?
You may not agree, but I hope now you have a better understanding of why I cast this vote and that it was my intention to do the best that I could for America and for the people here in Arizona. What I cannot understand is why you are lying to your constituents in your radio ads on KTAR that claim that you opposed the bank bailout. But I can understand why you backed the bailout. It's because you are a duplicitous jackal.
I appreciate your willingness to consider my response. Please do not hesitate to continue this dialogue and let me know your thoughts. You really do not want to know my thoughts, Mr. Shadegg. They are not very pleasant.
Sincerely, (!!)
John Shadegg
Congressman
Arizona 3rd District
U.S. House of Representatives
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment