I got a reply from my congressman

Last week I had sent an email off to my local congressman (Joe Barton - 6th District of Texas) regarding the Economic Bailout act that was then undecided. He voted AGAINST it the first time and I dropped him a line to thank him for doing so.

This is the reply I got today...

Dear Mr. XXXX:



Thank you for contacting me about the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which was brought up for a vote in the House of Representatives for the second time on Friday, October 3, 2008. I have received thousands of calls and letters on this subject and I appreciate the opportunity to share my views with you.



I voted against the first Economic Stabilization Act that came to the House because I believed it violated my conservative principles, and the principles of those who elected me to represent the 6th District of Texas. Like the first bill, the bailout bill that came from the Senate was not paid for. This bill raises the national debt $1.5 trillion, and if you throw in the tax extender package added by the Senate, you end up with a price tag of close to $2 trillion.



The decision to vote against the bill a second time was not easy. When a government turns to taxpayers to bail out businesses from the consequences of bad decisions, it only encourages other businesses to make new bad decisions. I voted against the bill because it tries to cure the symptoms of our economic woes without treating the disease. America is becoming fundamentally less competitive in international markets. We need to solve that problem, but we need to do it with targeted legislation instead of a fear-driven rush to bail out financiers.



If we want the value of the dollar to go back up, I believe there are conservative, free-market ways to go about it. I embraced proposals that would cut spending, lower the federal deficit, and allow struggling financial entities to work their way out, rather than being bailed out, of their hardships. Unfortunately, my and my conservative colleagues' concerns and suggestions were largely ignored, and these small government solutions played no part in the bill which passed the House of Representatives on Friday, October 3, 2008.



The Senate bill was the same bill I voted against on September 29, with $150 billion in sweeteners to buy enough votes for the legislation to pass. While I understand that Congress must act quickly to restore confidence in our financial markets, I do not believe the Senate bill was the appropriate solution. I regret that this legislation will leave Americans paying the tab for generations to come.



Thank you again for keeping me informed of your concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton
Member of Congress


I thought it was a nice reply and wanted to share.

Way to go.

My congressman Michael Bugess (26th District) also voted no--he was the one in that Martial Law video.

Looks like there's some good folks here that still care about the people.

people make sure to voice both your fury at your reps who voted for it and your thanks for those who voted against it.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by CapsFan8]

I've been trying to get to Mr. Burgess...(having trouble with his site) I really don't like him as a politician but I do want to thank him for this!

I received a letter from my congressman, Todd Akin - 2nd District MO today, too. He also voted "No" both times.

Dear Mrs. XXXXX



Thank you for contacting me regarding the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. It was good to hear from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.



As you may know, the first bailout bill, H.R. 3997, failed on a vote of 228 to 205 on September 29, 2008. On October 3rd, the House passed H.R. 1424 - a second and even more expensive bill - on a vote of 263 to 171 and the President signed it into law. I voted against both of these measures because I did not believe they were the correct response to the crisis we were facing.



Treasury Secretary Paulson, some economists, the White House and leaders in both parties claimed that we would face an "economic Armageddon" if the bailout did not pass. We were told that our only option was this bailout package.



I joined a bi-partisan majority of my colleagues in opposing this legislation because of concerns that it would obligate taxpayers to up to $700 billion in new debt without any certainty that the markets would be stabilized. Less than a week later, the Dow was still down more than 700 points and some economists were already saying that the bailout was not large enough and more taxpayer dollars would be necessary.



I believe we have better choices. For that reason, I co-sponsored H.R. 7223, which represents a responsible and reasoned response to our economic challenges. H.R. 7223 would have reformed the financial market regulatory system and empowered private investors to fund the financial market's recovery. I believe this plan represented a 'work-out' rather than a bailout - leveraging limited tax dollars to encourage private investment and stabilize our markets.



Going forward, I believe our discussion should include a re-evaluation of current federal mandates on banks - including those which may have encouraged risky loans. I believe recent changes in mark-to-market accounting rules were necessary and helpful. We should re-examine Federal Reserve policies and rules that allow corporate banks to shield their investments from public scrutiny. We must also look at what new regulations are necessary to ensure accountability and transparency in the financial markets.



Over the past few months, we were presented with multiple "necessary bailouts." Congress bailed out Freddie and Fannie, we intervened in Bear Stearns, then in AIG, and then, last week, we approved $25 billion for the auto industry.



I share my colleagues concern about the potential impact of Wall Street failures on our entire economy. I believe federal action can help re-establish confidence in our markets without exposing taxpayers to unnecessary risk. But this bill was the wrong answer for America. I could not support spending nearly a trillion dollars without a committee hearing or without making sure that the response was commensurate with the problem. In short, doing something quickly was no substitute for doing what was right.



Again, thank you for taking the time to contact my office. It is a privilege to represent you and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me regarding any matter where I might be of assistance. If you would like more information on issues, or would like to share further thoughts with me via e-mail, you may visit my website.



Sincerely,

W. Todd Akin
Member of Congress


My senators both voted "Yes" and I will be surprised if they will respond to my emails.

I live in Michigan. Stabenow, a Dem, voted no on this....and i actually got a reply in my email on why she did not support this bill...which actually i'm suprised as the house reps gave no reply.

Levin, also a Dem, voted yes. He will not get my vote when he is up for re-election. I'm going to post the email sent to me from Stabenow:


"Thank you . . .



. . for contacting me about the financial crisis package recently considered in Congress. I share your anger and frustration about this situation. Although I think we need to act to fix our American economy, I do not feel this bill is the right way to do it, and I voted against this package when it came before me in the Senate.



What is most outrageous to me is that this is not an accident. We are in this crisis because of a failed philosophy and a failed set of priorities that have rewarded greed. We have seen policies of massive deregulation and willful neglect of what is going on in these markets.



We know there is a crisis on Wall Street, but there's a much bigger crisis in Michigan and across America. Hard-working families, who play by the rules, are the ones in crisis every single day, and this bill does little for them. People are losing their health care, their pensions, their jobs, and their homes.



This legislation is fundamentally the wrong approach to fixing our economy. We need to start from the root of the problem and help families stay in their homes and keep their jobs.

Just last week, the Senate was unable to get bipartisan support for a jobs bill that would have helped families in Michigan who are suffering the worst in this economy. Our bill would have created desperately needed jobs in Michigan. That bill represented the right priorities!



Although I'm glad the final bill included some alternative energy tax provisions that I have championed in the Senate, the underlying legislation did not do enough to address the real problems of jobs, health care, energy independence, and home foreclosures.



In the coming months, I will continue fighting to stop the policies that got us to this crisis and hold the people accountable who failed to protect our country. Most importantly, I will continue to focus on creating new jobs in Michigan.




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"