TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Hernando Today

Why The Second Bailout Bill Was Worse Than The First

ADVERTISEMENT

Hernando Today

Published: October 14, 2008

Given the uncertainty in the economy, I thought I would share with you my concern about Congress' recent efforts to address the faltering credit markets. As you know, America hated the first bailout bill at $700 billion. They now despise it at $850 billion. A majority of the House agreed on the first vote, and we rejected it on a bipartisan basis.

I was very proud of the efforts Rep. Spencer Baucus, R-Ala., made at the Rules Committee to improve the bill the second time around. He fought for legislation that citizens could accept, one without special tax exemptions for favored local projects, and one that would also help the economy. What did the Senate send us? Well, the Senate sent us the exact same bill the House rejected, but they added another $150 billion on top, still bails out the foreign banks and raises the debt limit another trillion dollars. That is not leadership. That's the business as usual that has enraged Americans. This bill does not address the two issues confronting our banking system today - fear and diminished lending capacity.

I would have thought that senators had learned the lesson that speaking just for political gain can have real life consequences, with jobs lost and investments ruined. In the middle of this crisis, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid caused a 15 percent drop in the stock of many insurance companies when on the Senate floor, without any facts, he claimed that, "a major insurance company - one with a name that everyone knows - that's on the verge of going bankrupt."

Instead of showing leadership and promoting a bill that everyone could get behind, Sen. Reid threw out market crashing statements without thinking. A staffer later said that Sen. Reid basically made his remarks. I wonder if the SEC will investigate the senator for spreading false statements? I'm going to tell my constituents to direct their calls to the reckless and embarrassing senator from Nevada when they wonder why their retirement account is significantly lower next month.

Speaking of the Senate, Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson, from my home state of Florida, voted against this bill. Like Sen. Nelson, I wanted to see the sales tax deductibility extended and the AMT patched, but it should have been a separate bill. But both of us saw through this legislation and voted against a bad bill.

Unfortunately, while a few good provisions were added, dozens of sweeteners were snuck in to ensure certain representatives would vote in favor of the bill. Provisions like special expensing rules for Hollywood film crews and rum excise taxes to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. One provision in particular caught me though: the American Samoa Development Credit. Historically, this credit has benefited a corporation whose main product is tuna and has operations in American Samoa. Figuring out who benefits from some of these provisions is a bit like playing Guess Who, but in this case, it's easy: Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Two years ago, ethical questions were raised when information came to light that the main beneficiary was based in Speaker Pelosi's district. Evidently, some politicians never learn.

I said before that a vote for this bill is a vote to ratify business as usual in Washington. Added sweeteners and earmarks were only added to get more votes. If you didn't take my word on that, now you have the proof.

U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite

R-Brooksville

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT