House begins debate on Senate bailout package

For those of you in the 18th Congressional District, here’s the telephone number for Ray LaHood: (202) 225-6201. (If you live in a different district, you can find your representative’s phone number on the Clerk of the House of Representatives’ page.)

I would encourage you to do what I’ve done: call and urge Rep. LaHood to vote against the Senate’s bailout package. I know LaHood voted for the first one, and he believes a bailout package is needed. But this bill is even worse than the last one, including all kinds of indefensible pork that squanders more taxpayer money.

There are $6 million in tax breaks for the manufacturers of wooden arrows.

Another $33 million in tax relief for corporations operating in American Samoa territory.

And don’t forget the $192 million break for Puerto Rican and Virgin Islands rum producers.

U.S. senators on Wednesday tacked these incentives and nearly $150 billion in other unrelated tax breaks on to the $700 billion emergency rescue bill for the nation’s troubled financial institutions.

Besides the added pork, many economists have been saying that this bill simply won’t work to solve our credit crisis. You don’t hear these voices, unfortunately, because the media by and large hasn’t covered them, as this article from the Chicago Tribune points out:

If you’ve spent much time listening to cable news lately, you would think there is universal agreement among economists that an immediate, enormous government intervention in the markets is the only way to stave off a recession, and perhaps even a depression. This is simply false. Many economists reject the notion that something must be done immediately and have called for more careful consideration of a wider range of options. Some even reject the premise that any bailout action will make much of a difference.

This bill needs to be voted down and a serious deliberation needs to take place. Congress should stop this rush to do “something,” and focus on doing what is best.

4 thoughts on “House begins debate on Senate bailout package”

  1. The financiers are snookering us again. We, the taxpayers, will never see that money once Congress caves in to special interests, (as usual). If we try to get it back by taxing these businesses, then they will take the good parts of their portfolios and flee to other countries. Suckers!

    If we use that money to enhance social security, then all of the retirees that lost their retirement funds in the stock market will at least be guaranteed a reasonably comfortable retirement. (The only ones who will still be unhappy are the ones trying to retire to their mansions.)

    Finally! Congress has found the money to make social security work.

    Let Congress know that if they get fooled by this bailout, then the only thing for voters to do is punish congress the way it was punished for the gulf war.

    Bryant Arms

  2. Yes and besides I need one more big freakin drop, I have some extra cash coming in and a massive market calamity would be just what I need, keep it low I’m buying right now.

  3. LaHood may have aspirations to run for some other office after he retires from Congress. Tell him we will remember how
    he votes on this bill.

  4. Too many amendments. I already do my part in supporting Puerto Rican and Virgin Island rum manufacturers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.