Statements from Oklahoma House Members on the Bail-Out Vote
Here are the statements released today by the Oklahoma U.S. House members after the vote on the $700 billion bail-out package:
Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Oklahoma City, who voted against it:
“Like all Americans, I am extremely concerned with the present state of the economy. I believe government action is needed to stabilize the financial sector and to protect the economic security of our families and businesses. Today’s bill, however, puts the interests of Wall Street above that of Main Street and rewards bad behavior at taxpayer expense. While I remain optimistic about achieving a legislative agreement in the future, I cannot support the legislation before us today for three fundamental reasons.
“First, it represents a violation of a basic American principle to expect taxpayers – who are not at fault in this crisis – to underwrite the rescue of those who are. A combination of bad lending policies at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, poor oversight of those agencies, equally bad practices on Wall Street and in the financial markets and, in some cases, simple irresponsible greed, caused this mess. It is simply wrong to expect the hard working American taxpayer to pay for it.
“Second, I was elected to work and speak and vote for the people of the Fifth District of Oklahoma. I cannot tell my constituents in good conscience that the plan we saw today, a massively funded and lightly regulated government intrusion into private finance, is going to benefit the people who put me in office and who I am proud to represent.
“Third, this does not need to be the end of the process. We can shore up our financial markets and protect the investments of our citizens while providing a much greater degree of accountability and transparency. I have been working with my colleagues in the House to develop such alternative solutions, and I remain optimistic that a final legislative agreement will be much stronger than the one we saw today. “I am ready to do what it takes to pass a workable economic recovery plan that protects the savings, retirement and economic security of American taxpayers. I cannot, however, support a ‘bailout’ that takes $700 billion away from Main Street in a bid to protect Wall Street from the consequences of reckless decisions and a culture of greed. Nor will I write a blank check and simply hope that throwing money at our current problems will make them go away.”
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore, who voted for the package:
“I am disappointed Congress couldn’t come together and pass this bipartisan compromise given the serious economic challenges we face. The fact that the current President and both our major party presidential nominees were in favor of this legislation indicates the gravity of the situation ahead of us. In my opinion gridlock and inaction were not legitimate options.”
“Our nation is facing the most challenging economic times since the Great Depression. In recent days we have seen some of America’s largest and most storied financial institutions fail. And while the problems may have originated on Wall Street, the devastating impacts of these problems are beginning to be felt on Main Street.”
“Personally, this is the toughest vote that I have ever cast, but I am convinced that it was the right thing to do for America and for the people I’m privileged to represent. I did not live through the Great Depression, but my parents and grandparents did. And, having lived through the tough times of the 1980s, sparked by bank failures and a real estate bust, I want to do all I can to see that our own children are spared such trials and hardships. I believe history will show that support for this bipartisan compromise was a tough vote, but the right vote.”
Rep. John Sullivan, R-Tulsa, who voted against it:
“As I said from day one, given the seriousness of the situation we currently face, I am willing to support government intervention so long as the interests of the taxpayers are completely protected. Voting no was the only way for me to register the concerns of First District residents that this plan is not the right deal for American taxpayers. Congress rightfully voted down this bill indicating that we will go back to the drawing board to develop the right solution for our economy and American taxpayers.” “While I voted against this bill, our efforts over the past week resulted in significant improvements from the original Paulson plan – which I found unacceptable. I am encouraged that my colleagues and I can work in a bipartisan fashion to explore alternative ideas, gather more information and ultimately provide the best deal possible for taxpayers.”
Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Cheyenne, who voted against it:
“I am concerned about the current state of our financial system. However, the constituents of the Third Congressional District spoke loud and clear over the last week in opposition to the proposed rescue plan, and I am here to represent their voice in Congress. I await the development of other proposasl to address the crisis our financial markets are facing.”
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Thank you to those of you who voted against this bail-out plan. I pray that you will stay strong and vote against it again. Please let everyone you talk to on this subject how I feel. There are too many other options that need to be explored before committing this 700B. We need to get the pain over with and not push it on to our children and grandchildren. This bill will do much more harm than good to our economy. Keep profits and losses private. VOTE NO ON THE BAIL-OUT!
Kevin, I never got a statement from Boren that day. I talked to him on the phone and his comments appeared in the paper and in the blog item just below this one. Here is an op-ed column his office released on Friday:
Column by Congressman Dan Boren
Why Should I Support the Financial Rescue Plan?
The recent federal discussion about America’s current credit crisis and troubled banking system is a contentious topic. At my Washington and Oklahoma offices, thousands of Oklahomans have called in and voiced their opinions on what role the federal government should play in these uncertain economic times.
Despite the fact the vast majority of Oklahoma’s banks made responsible business decisions and remain strong, many of America’s major lending institutions are on the brink of failure. In the past few weeks, we have seen the fourth largest bank in the United States, home to 400 billion dollars in bank deposits, sold for a dollar a share. We have watched three of America’s five major investment banks collapse, and the country’s largest insurer nearly collapse.
After weighing the cost of federal action against the consequences of inaction, I have decided to support need for a financial rescue package. My primary reason for supporting the plan is a belief that the American banking system is currently at risk of total collapse. The slow and rolling failure of America’s largest financial entities should cause great concern among all Oklahomans. Many of our citizen’s count on banks and financial institutions to protect their life-savings, expand their businesses, finance major family purchases, and send their children to college. A failure of our lending institutions could destroy our nation’s economy and cause many of our citizens to lose their jobs and homes.
I realize that spending hard-earned tax dollars to stabilize the banking industry is not popular. However, I believe the alternative, which is to do nothing, could lead to years of economic despair for our state and nation.
As we move forward toward a resolution of this crisis, my concerns lie not with Wall Street executives trying to save their reputations, but with the retirement account of the family-of-four in Claremore, with, the firefighter’s pension in Muskogee, and the life-savings of the senior citizen in McAlester.
In the weeks to come, I will continue to monitor any proposal put forward that responsibly deals with the current financial emergency. As the debate in Congress continues, I feel it is important for the people of Oklahoma to have answers to some common questions about the plan:
Q: Does the plan write a check to the Treasury Secretary for $700 billion of taxpayer money?
A: No. The plan would make $250 billion available to the Treasury Department, with strict requirements set by Congress for how the money can be used. The President could then seek more funds for the rescue program as needed. However, any such request would have required additional review and approval of Congress.
Q: Is the plan transparent and include oversight to prevent future corruption and bad decision-making?
A: Yes. The package creates a strong independent oversight board that could veto the Treasury Secretary’s decisions. Members of the board would be appointed by both Democrats and Republicans.
Included in the package is a requirement for a non-partisan watchdog agency to conduct regular audits of the program to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Also included is a newly appointed independent Inspector General that would closely scrutinize the purchase and management of what the government buys.
Q: Does the rescue plan provide CEOs with “golden parachutes”?
A: Absolutely Not. One of the cornerstones of the plan is strict limitations on compensation for executives whose firms receive federal money.
Q: Does the plan include protections for the American people, provide insurance for taxpayers, and allow them to share in any financial gains from the program?
A: Yes. If the American people incurred losses, Wall Street would be responsible for repaying every dime. It also gives taxpayers a share of any profits, and put taxpayers first-in-line to recover money if a company fails. It requires the President five years from now to submit a plan to ensure taxpayers had been repaid in full – with Wall Street making up the difference. These measures guarantee security and financial reimbursement to the American people.
Q: How would this program benefit everyday Oklahomans?
A: The major reason for the financial rescue plan is to insure that our banking system remains intact. If the American banking system were to collapse, car loans, student loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, and business expansion would come to a halt. If business transactions were to be hindered, payroll and benefit payments would be impossible to make. Private sector job growth would disappear and Oklahoma families would be put in serious financial risk.
Q: How does this plan prevent additional home foreclosures and protect home owners?
A: Under the plan, the federal government would have been allowed to work with lenders of the mortgages that are purchased to restructure financial terms. These changes include lengthening repayment times and reducing principal or interest rates. By taking these measures, we could work to prevent the continued downturn in home values we see across the nation.
Q: What is in the second version of the plan that was not in the first?
A: The newest version of the bill includes a temporary increase in the insurance limit on bank deposits to $250,000 from the current $100,000.
The second version also provides another one-year “patch” designed to prevent 22 million taxpayers from being subject to the AMT on their 2008 returns. If the AMT patch does not pass, approximately 263,000 tax returns in the Second Congressional District will create just over $6 million in new tax liability. Of the 249,000 returns claiming between $0 and $100,000 income, there will be a total of over $738,000 in new tax liability. These numbers highlight the need to prevent the AMT from affecting hard-working Oklahomans.
Finally, the second version also includes tax provisions such as small business tax incentives, research and development tax incentives for all businesses, incentives for the development and production of energy, the deduction of education expenses, as well as many other critical tax provisions that have been on the books for several years and must be renewed.
Q: Will this plan solve every problem currently facing our nation’s economy?
A. Unfortunately No. From job loss to the rising costs of energy, health care, and education, there are many other issues that we must also address. However, with this decisive action, we could prevent this crisis from becoming the type of economic catastrophe that occurred in the 1930s. Once this disaster is averted, we could then continue to tackle the other economic issues facing hard-working Oklahomans.
90% of the foreclosures are in four states, namely California, with 1/3 of the total, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. The penny pinching misers currently in control of the Oklahoma delegation will probably come around eventually if the pot is sweetened in favor of the Sooner state. We’ll need some of that money bigtime if you want Oklahoma’s support. Mary Fallin’s principle is absurd when you consider why Oklahoma is named the Sooner State. Having assigned the territory to the native americans at the conclusion of a forced march from the southern states, Oklahoma’s leadership decided that the territory was much too valuable to be left in the stewardship of mere native americans. Hence, it became necessary, in a white man’s world, to strip that land from them and give it to those who could make good capital gain from its use. Ripping property away from people to serve the interests of business IS the principle Oklahoma was founded upon, and the law breaking criminals who “beat the gun” merely put the period to the statement. America, don’t look to Oklahoma for your salvation; we are too busy feathering our Republican nests to bother with mere people.