I'm sure you have heard enough, but some reaction to yesterday's bailout vote:
- Carney: "I could not vote for a measure that bails out years of unmitigated Wall Street failings at the expense of our hardworking taxpayers. This bailout bill does not provide any source of revenue to pay for its enormous costs, which is not fair to our middle class families that have played by the rules, but are struggling to keep up with the rising costs of their daily expenses. Where is their bailout? It allows the payment of regular inflated salaries to executives of bailed-out firms. Any executive that feels his bonus is too low can ask his firm for a multi-million dollar increase in base salary that is simply unacceptable to the taxpayers who are shouldering the burden of paying for Wall Street’s greed. This type of tough legislation requires genuine oversight in the process. As it stands now, the oversight board can make suggestions for improvements, but has no means to enforce them. We need tough regulations with real teeth. We need to assess the current situation and thoughtfully consider long-term solutions to stabilize our economy, not pass hurried legislation. It might calm the markets today, but the underlying problems remain. We cannot allow Wall Street to borrow its way out of the current fiscal mess. I could not support this legislation, nor could I support measures to allow Congress to adjourn when it is clear that more work needs to be done to ensure the stability of our nation’s economy."
- Peterson: "Having served in the United State Congress for six terms - 12 years - this was one of the toughest votes in my legislative career. My decision to cast a vote in favor of this economic rescue package was a decision that I wrestled with for days, and today reluctantly supported... The option to support or oppose this legislation in my eyes is the difference between possible success and driving further into a recession. While this legislation did not guarantee stabilization of the financial markets, it was the only solution on the table to address a looming crisis....Let me be clear, the legislation that was voted on today (Monday) was not the Bush Administration proposal, rather, it was a bipartisan compromise that protected the taxpayer by eliminating excessive executive pay and so called golden parachutes and was designed so that Wall Street, not Main Street, would be responsible for any potential losses."
- Kanjorski: "Today the House of Representatives voted down the economic recovery plan that the President, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and bipartisan leaders in both the House and Senate told us was necessary to avoid the collapse of the American economy. People must understand that we are not bailing out Wall Street; we are rescuing the middle class on Main Street. Congress must get this job done no matter how long it takes. It is my hope that over the next several days we can all work together to agree upon a plan which puts the interests of average Americans first, as their retirement savings, pensions, and investments continue to dwindle by the minute. Already I have spoken with local businesspeople who are having difficulty obtaining credit to cover their payrolls or borrow money to expand their operations. Unless we unfreeze our credit markets very quickly, these problems will only increase. I will work for as long as it takes until we are able to reach a majority to enact legislation which both protects American taxpayers and stabilizes the American economy."
The challengers:
- Barletta: "I like that the bailout bill included some punishment for failed CEOs. But the bailout bill doesn’t include a clear call for an independent investigation into why this happened, which is what I called for from the beginning."
- Hackett: "[While glad Carney voted against it] But let’s not be fooled; Chris Carney has voted for numerous corporate welfare handouts, including $25 billion for the auto industry just last week. I wish Carney would side with taxpayers when the public spotlight isn’t on him and an election is right around the corner."
[As a side note, The Hill had an interesting article yesterday--which specifically referred to the 10th District--on how challengers in competitive races (as well as open-seat candidates) were quick and early to offer up hard "no's" on the financial rescue measures while vulnerable incumbents were forced to ponder their vote, but eventually succumbed to the political pressure. ]
The financial rescue measure failed in the House this afternoon by a vote of 205-228.
Along the Pennsylvania delegation line, the vote was pretty split with the majority--ten members--voting against it. The only Republican who voted for it was John Peterson:
Brady (D-1st): Yes
Fattah (D-2nd): Yes
English (R-3rd): No
Altmire (D-4th): No
Peterson (R-5th): Yes
Gerlach (R-6th): No
Sestak (D-7th): Yes
Murphy (D-8th): Yes
Shuster (R-9th): No
Carney (D-10th): No
Kanjorski (D-11th): Yes
Murtha (D-12th): Yes
Schwartz (D-13th): Yes
Doyle (D-14th): Yes
Dent (R-15th): No
Pitts (R-16th): No
Holden (D-17th): No
Murphy (R-18th): No
Platts (R-19th): No
Rep. John Peterson seems to be taking a big step towards addressing the nation's energy problem.
Peterson has long favored increasing domestic supply by lifting the offshore drilling ban, so he was particularly pleased with Bush's recent decision to lift the moratorium.
On Tuesday, he wasted no time reacting to the news. He joined with Neil Abercromie (D-HI) to form the House's Energy Working Group. The group aims to establish a bipartisan compromise which would increase supply for the current crisis by drilling offshore while at the same time encouraging alternative energy sources as a background for future transitioning.
The group is shooting to have comprehensive legislation produced before the August recess, but preferably in the next week.
The Republicans will not include ANWAR in the proposal as it is seen as too much of a "lightening rod" likely to break apart any potential compromise.
Abercrombie said the group is "evolving" and couldn't announce the member list yet because it might cause some members a political headache, but hopefully it will include other members of the Pennsylvania delegation.
It's great to see Peterson take the lead on this issue. Furthermore, the approach he is using to address this problem is commendable and impressive. In an election year, it could be tempting to play politics with the topic and use it as a bludgeoning object against the opposition. Instead of subjecting this time-sensitive issue to unneeded political scrutiny, he's recognized the importance of working across the aisle to successfully get any offshore drilling program implemented.
