(Community Matters) Congressman Doggett’s response to a letter I sent earlier this week and to a note in a posting accusing him of grandstanding instead of participating in the solution.
Eugene, Last week on Monday, you wrote me stating: “Lloyd, I couldn’t be prouder of you guys finally pushing back on the administration and requiring oversight, taxpayer protections and equity kickers in the bailout package. Please don’t shy from this. Many thanks.”
I wrote you back on Tuesday, noting my strong concerns with the bill and my work to find a more responsible solution. I specifically noted that it’s the responsibility of the “bailout supporters to outline the revenue measures to pay for it,” among other concerns.
I heard nothing from you further until Sunday evening, at a time when many, many constituents were also writing me; you asked a specific question about the then-pending bill. The next day, on Monday, you were already complaining on your blog that you hadn’t heard back from me. Tuesday – less than 48 hours from your original inquiry — you ask on your blog: “Where’s Lloyd Doggett during all this? Grandstanding instead of offering a better solution?” You may call my opposition the President’s $700 billion bailout “grandstanding,” but I call it standing up for taxpayers.
Yesterday, you asked why I voted against it. To begin with, there is considerable question about whether this approach represents an effective way to recapitalize our financial system. As usual with President Bush, this was presented as a “my way or no way” approach with no consideration of alternatives. Negotiations centered exclusively on how to make an unsatisfactory proposal slightly better. My speech during the floor debate in the House attached below reflects additional reasons.
As for your specific question regarding 20% profits being used for mortgage assistance, assuming there are any profits, this provision was not included in the bill. Your speculation about that impacting my vote is unwarranted, though there could have been other ways to approach the current problems that would have done more for both homeowners and the banking system. I continue working with my colleagues to address the challenges to our financial system and welcome any constructive advice that you or any of our neighbors may have to offer.
Sincerely,
Lloyd
I appreciate the response. I acknowledge that no one knows whether or not the offered solution will work. We know as it comes back from the Senate it now includes the high-tech R&D tax credit, increased FDIC insurance ($100k to $250k) and a freeze on the AMT – all measures I support but realize all others might not. When another reader recently asked me if I could offer any empirical evidence that the bailout bill would work, I admitted the only empirical evidence we have is that taking the approach of not injecting liquidity & confidence into the system DID NOT work in 1930. I’ve thought about the market’s response since Monday’s failure and have noticed Wall Street’s assessment of who has the upside in this deal. It appears the equity kickers are not favorable enough for taxpayers. It should be costly and most probably profitable to taxpayers (if anyone) for organizations to take advantage of the Treasury’s purse.
Community Matters 