Dear Representative Keller,
Thank you for taking the time to listen to your constituency. I’ve written previously about the “bailout” legislation for the financial markets. Specifically, I’ve been decidedly against any such legislation.
I want to reiterate that I remain so. I am a small investor, a postal worker who lives frugally and saves and invests about 20% of my gross income. I have a pretty fair exposure to the markets and have in the past year watched the value of my investments go down considerably.
The negative reaction, some would say temper tantrum, of the markets the past few days has in no way changed my take on the so-called “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.” I remain convinced that government intervention in the private markets is dangerous and ultimately will have negative repercussions in the US economy.
Because of the nature of politics, government cannot intervene without distorting the marketplace to try to gain some political advantage for one party or the other. It’s the nature of the beast.
The current legislation sent over from the Senate remains a piece of legislation that I think if approved will one day will be looked upon as the day the United States took a great leap into socializing the US financial markets and industry as a whole.
Still, I know that the art of politics is compromise. If there is anyway that this bill can be stripped of it’s socialist underpinnings while keeping the legislative changes insuring troubled assets (Sec 103 ), Mark to Market (Sec.132), FASB 157 (Sec.132), and increases in FDIC insurance to $250,000 (Sec.132) it has the makings of a decent bill that addresses the problems that created the stagnation in the financial markets.
I would also like to see repeal of some of the provision of the Community Reinvestment Act that have resulted in a situation where many who truly cannot afford the responsibilities of home ownership are now finding themselves strangled with unaffordable mortgages. The result of which is the sub-prime “meltdown” we are now seeing.
Sec. 124 addresses some changes in the HOPE program, but I have neither the resources nor the expertise in legislative language to cross-reference and discover the implication of these changes.
I am glad to see codified in the legislation that all proceeds from the sale of the purchased assets will be returned to the Treasury for the purpose of reducing the public debt. I can only hope that future administrations and Congresses will not find a loophole around this provision.
The inclusion of sunset provisions for the aforementioned legislative changes is distressing. If we recognize that the original adoption of these provisions was a precursor to the current situation, that we would even consider returning to them a some future time demonstrates an amazing lack of foresight and stewardship with the public trust.
The addition of “sweeteners” to this legislation makes it even more distasteful to me. Inclusion of important legislation on energy issues, a plethora of random tax provisions and Title V Subtitle B are acid to me. They should stand on their own without being thrust though on the coattails of H.R. 1424.
The provisions of Title V Subtitle B alone will most likely result in further increases in health insurance costs, for benefits many would not opt for, during a time when costs are escalating on their own at intolerable rates.
While I don’t support this bill in it’s current form, it’s preferable to the original legislation defeated on Monday. I am concerned that with a new administration coming, depending on their political leanings may migrate more towards the provisions of Sec. 101 rather than those of Sec. 102. That would be a tragedy for the American people and the long-term health of US economy.
Download H.R. 1424 as passed by the Senate October 1, 2008 from FoxNews
"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty." - G. K. Chesterson
No comments:
Post a Comment