The Truth about the Bailout

I listen to talk radio a lot and today I was listening to Glen Beck and what he said made me so angry.  I have now discovered why the Senate passed this bailout bill 74-25.  This passed it by this margin by adding as much port, earmarks and pet projects for each of the Senators in the Senate to get most of them on board to approve the bill.  Did you know that the bill was 435 pages long.  When President Bush gave it to Congress it was 4 pages!  Here is what I found has been added to the bailout bill:

• Section 325 provides essential tax breaks for the wool research fund. 
  
• Section 503 gives tax breaks for the manufacturer of wooden arrows used in toys for children. ($6 million)
  
• Puerto Rican and Virgin Island rum producers get money so they can make more booze! ($192 million)
  
• Section 309, tax credit for economic development in American Samoa
  
• Section 316, a tax break for railroad track maintenance.
  
• Section 317, a tax break for racetracks.
  
• Section 502, qualified television and film productions given an extension of favorable expensing rules. ($10 million)
  
• Section 111 provides for the expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credits. 
  
• Section 112, expansion and modification of the coal gasification project.
  
• Section 113, increased funding for black lung disability fund.
  

I'm sure this is not all but this is the most rediculous thing I have ever seen.  What is this government coming to when they have to bought off to sign off on this bill.  If you have to bought off then this bill should not pass.  

I hope pray something can be done and they will start listening to the people and I hope that congress again rejects this bill as they should!

Bi-Partisan: What does that mean?

According to my view, whatever that is worth, the term bi-partisan that is used by politicians is just a way for them to say, "I don't want to take a stand because I don't want to held responsible for the consequences of my actions."  The American people want someone who will take a stand on and issue and stick up for it and support it. They also want someone who will stand with the American people. I read a quote from someone once that said "It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular, I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it.” We need people in government who stand on principles, morals, and values.  This stand would resonate with the majority of Americans and we would once again restore the values setup from the founding fathers in the Constitution of the Unites States of America!

The majority of the current members in Congress do not reflect that.  I think the American people are starting to realize this and they are sick and tired of these people in Washington doing whatever they want and only looking at what they can do to benefit themselves and not the American people.  Hopefully this November we will be surprised how many of the American people will vote for someone other than the incumbent running for re-election.

Questions to ask Congress

I think it is important that we really understand what this $700 billion bailout is all about.  I receive an email from Laura Ingraham everyday that provides a lot of good information and today's email I would like to share with you...

---

Laura's E-Blast 
http://www.LauraIngraham.com 
October 1, 2008 

Eight Bailout Questions 

How many times over the last few days have we heard politicians, talking heads and other self-proclaimed "experts" tell us the reason the $700 billion bailout is so wildly unpopular is that we just don't understand it. The economy is complicated. Just trust Congress, President Bush and his royal highness, Hank Paulson. They'll fix it. Don't worry about that $700 billion number. It only sounds high.

Well. If that's the case - if we're really too dumb to understand what's happening - perhaps Congress can show us how much they know. To start, here are some questions I'd like answered.

1) Since the White House introduced the bailout last week, a number of alternative ideas have been proposed. For one, Michigan Republican Thaddeus McCotter wrote a 10-point plan that carries no cost to taxpayers. Others, like George Soros', are significantly less expensive and, in his estimation, likelier to be effective. Can you explain why this bill is the best option, despite being the most expensive?

2) We're told the bailout could actually turn a profit for taxpayers. Assuming that's true, how can we be sure the money actually ends up back in taxpayers' hands? For years the Social Security system took in more money than it paid out, yet instead of putting the surplus revenue toward future benefits, Congress snatched that extra cash for general expenditures. Likewise, Fannie and Freddie's "profits," were used for congressional pet projects. With this track record, how can we trust that this program will be any different?

3) The McCain campaign yesterday pointed out that the most recent housing bill gave the government nearly $1 trillion to purchase mortgages. If this is true, why exactly does Congress need to pass this monstrous legislation?

4) Does the latest version of this bill still "allow the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families"? Americans are having a hard enough time swallowing the idea of a bailout for irresponsible home, car, and student lending. The notion that we'll be on the hook for insolvent pension plans administered by awful, union-controlled lawmakers in cities like Detroit and New York is simply insane.

5) Does the bill's preamble still proclaim that the law "provides authority to the treasury secretary to ... ensure the economic well-being of Americans?" Does anyone know if there are limitations to this seemingly unbridled authority? Otherwise, what prevents the Treasury secretary from becoming a de-facto dictator? This strikes me as especially worth discussion.

6) Are there still no meaningful curtailments of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Does the bill contain anything even hinting at accountability?

7) What concrete assurances do taxpayers have that the turmoil's provenance - Carter and Clinton-era social-engineering dictums that upended safe-lending practices in favor of higher minority home ownership - will forever be outlawed? How do we know taxpayers won't be asked to finance another $700 billion bailout in 10 years? What has Congress learned from its past mistakes?

8) After Enron's collapse, former CEO Jeffrey Skilling, then-CEO Ken Lay, and then-CFO Andrew Fastow, were called to testify before Congress. According to the Business and Media Institute, Fannie's and Freddie's overstated earnings were 19 times larger than Enron's fake numbers. So when can we expect Congress to call Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the rest of Fannie's and Freddie's enablers to testify before Congress?

At the end of the day, we're not being asked to bailout Wall St. so much as we are the Democratic Party. For $700 billion, answers to the questions above are the least Congress can do in return.