Senators Respond To My Bailout Emails

Back in September, I emailed both of my Senators - Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer - and urged them to vote "no" on the economic bailout bill that was being debated in the Senate. It's not that I didn't think economic help was needed, it's just that I had no confidence in the Senate to deliver it in the right form. I also thought that there were other solutions that could have been taken without putting $700 billion of taxpayer money at risk. But it passed both the House and the Senate with flying colors. Then the stock market continued to tank for the next 3 weeks. So much for school of thought that we needed to pass the bill in order to keep the stock market from falling further.

I heard back from Senator Boxer first. It was a form letter of course. What did you expect? She's a busy Senator after all. Here is some of it.

The fundamentals of our economy have been shaken, and Americans are deeply concerned. When Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke placed an urgent phone call a few weeks ago to Congress to say we needed emergency action to prevent a major financial meltdown, I expected they would come forward with a plan that was targeted and reasonable, with appropriate oversight and taxpayer protections.

Unfortunately, what they brought us was a $700 billion blank check, which they asked us to sign with no questions asked. This plan contained no oversight, no taxpayer equity, and no control over CEO pay. I strongly opposed this proposal - and thanks to your phone calls, e-mails, and letters, Congress stopped it in its tracks.

The Senate made major improvements designed to strengthen our economy and protect our taxpayers. Instead of a blank check, the Senate plan included significant Congressional oversight, equity for taxpayers, curbs on executive compensation, an increase in FDIC insurance protection for bank depositors, middle-class tax relief, and job-creating tax incentives for renewable energy. The bill passed the Senate by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 74-25 and the House by a vote of 263-171.

So let me get this straight. They brought you a blank check for $700 billion and ask you to sign it with no questions asked. You found that unacceptable. I'm with you so far.

But then you turn around and pass an $850 billion bill laden with pork projects and say that you made major improvements to a bad bill and it protects the American taxpayer. Sorry, you've lost me on that one. You're up for re-election in 2010. I will remember and vote accordingly.

As for Senator Feinstein, this is from her letter, which arrived just yesterday.

It has been said that Senators have six-year terms for a reason. And that reason is to be able to take tough votes because it's right for the nation, and take tough votes when at times they may be adverse to the beliefs of your constituency.

This today is indeed a tough vote.

I want to thank the Banking Committee, particularly its chairman, Chris Dodd, and members on both sides of the aisle for their work on this.

So let me quickly begin.

This bill is not the bill that was put forward by Secretary Paulson on September 20th. His bill was essentially a non-starter - startling in its unbridled allocation of power to one man: the Secretary of Treasury whom we know now, and to a Secretary of Treasury after January whom we do not know.

It placed this man above the law, above administrative oversight and above Congressional action and essentially gave him $700 billion to do with what he thought best. This bill didn't fly with virtually anyone who looked at it, particularly constituents, who have called in the tens of thousands all across this land.

My office has received over 91,000 calls and emails with over 86,000 opposed. The bill before us is not Paulson's three-page proposal. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort that adds oversight, accountability, assistance to homeowners, executive compensation limits and other measures to protect taxpayers.

Why she thanks Senator Chris Dodd, who helped get us into this mess and took more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other member of Congress, is beyond me. It couldn't be partisanship, could it? It couldn't be that they're both from the same political party, the Democratic party, could it? Although, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's some arcane Senate rule where you must praise the chairman of the committee that wrote the bill. At any rate, the bigger issue is that she received 91,00 calls and emails and 86,000 of them were opposed to the bailout (perhaps some were duplicates or called more than once but she doesn't say). That's 94%. I'll give her credit for owning her vote by ignoring what 94% of her constituents wanted her to do.

But it means that I'll be watching her even closer from now on. Senator Feinstein, you're up for re-election in 2012. I'm sure it will be a tough vote for me as well, but I'm confident I'll make the right decision for the nation.