My letter back from Bayh...Finally.

[SavageEagle]

Here's my email I got back from Evan Bayh about the bailout. A little late but better than never. What a crock.

Dear Mr. Savage :

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 , the legislation recently enacted to stabilize our financial system. I share many of your concerns about this legislation. It was among the hardest votes I have ever cast.

Hoosiers who have behaved responsibly, who did not take inordinate risks, who saved their money, and who did not get in over their heads are angry. They have every right to be. I am angry, too.

We should not be in this mess, but we are. The question is: What are we going to do about what experts call the greatest economic crisis to face America in more than a half-century? In the end, Senator Lugar and I both concluded that, as imperfect as the bill is, the risks of doing nothing were too great for the American economy.

Regrettably, those who would pay most if Congress failed to act would be ordinary people who have done nothing wrong. This conclusion was reached by countless groups representing ordinary people across Indiana and the nation: AARP (representing seniors); the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (representing employers); the Farm Bureau Federation of America (representing farmers); the National Federation of Independent Business (representing small businesses); the National Education Association (representing teachers); and many others.

The president of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce stated, "Now, more than ever, partisanship and politics must be put aside for the benefit of our state and country. The Indiana Chamber and its members are typically not in the position of advocating for government intervention in the free market system. Today's unique circumstances, however, make it essential for our legislative and executive leaders in Washington to act now to restore our financial markets and consumer confidence."

Many of our state's leading newspapers also concluded that an immediate federal response was an unfortunate, but necessary step for Indiana . The Indianapolis Star wrote, " The cost of further inaction is likely to be devastating to the American public, both now and in the years ahead." The Louisville Courier-Journal stated it "is critical to pass the best available bill now to avoid panic." The Evansville Courier-Press warned of "preventing financial Armageddon [and] the potential loss of millions of jobs, a scenario not contemplated since 1929." The Times of Northwest Indiana wrote, "For the sake of local investors, savers, employees and their families, Congress must not delay. A bailout might be distasteful, but bitter medicine is sometimes necessary." Finally, the Lafayette Journal and Courier concluded, "The bailout isn't fair, and it isn't free enterprise at its best. But it's the right thing to do to shore up the nation's economy."

There were no good options. However, the final plan is far better than the Administration's original proposal. Executives seeking public help after ruining their companies will be prevented from profiting. There will be no golden parachutes or outrageous executive pay packages. There will be independent oversight to prevent conflicts of interest and outright corruption. The taxpayer will be protected by receiving an ownership interest in companies that receive government assistance. If after five years, the taxpayers have lost money, the financial industry can be required to pay it back.

This intervention is no cure-all. More difficult decisions lie ahead. But it is better than doing nothing, and that was the alternative. It is, however, not all that must be done.

Once we have stabilized our system, we must channel our anger into making sure this never, ever happens again. I'm not a cynic, but I am a skeptic about the way Washington can work in times like these. Congress will act in a moment of crisis, but once it has subsided, the sense of urgency will pass. The forces of reform will not have the energy that they do today. All the special interests will circle the Capitol like hungry birds looking for prey in order to prevent us from taking the steps that are necessary. We must not let that happen. I will do everything I can to see that it does not.

The troubled state of public finance highlights the importance of restoring fiscal responsibility to the federal budget. As Governor of Indiana, I balanced the budget without once raising taxes, and I left behind a $1 billion budget surplus, the largest in state history. I vetoed an entire state budget because I didn't think it was fiscally sustainable.

I have continued to push for a more conservative fiscal approach during my time in the U.S. Senate. This year, I was the only member of my party to vote against a bloated budget that would have added $2 trillion to our national debt. I was one of a handful of Senators who voted for a one-year moratorium on wasteful earmark spending. I was one of only seven Democrats to support a commission to recommend cuts in wasteful government programs. I was one of only 15 Senators to vote against the now-infamous Bridge to Nowhere.

In September, the Senate passed my legislation requiring Iraq - not the U.S. taxpayers - to pay more to help themselves. Iraq has a $79 billion surplus. It's not fair to ask American taxpayers to borrow billions from China to hand over to a country that is not spending its own money to help itself.

We must treat every taxpayer dollar like the precious commodity it is. Hoosiers work their fingers to the bone, and money sent to Washington must be spent on critical national priorities, such as preventing a collapse of our economy.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I value your input and hope you will continue to keep me informed of the issues important to you.







Office of Senator Evan Bayh
(202) 224-5623
Russell 463
Washington, D.C. 20510

 

[BloodEclipse]

Yeah I recieved the same one. If you believe that, I have a bridge (to nowhere) to sell you. He knows his ass is on the line for voting for this rape of working Americans wallets. My vote will be going elsewhere. Same thing goes for Lugar.

 

[SavageEagle]

I figured as much. I used to think he was a good guy. Now I think he's just a wolve amongst sheep. Bastard.

 

[Dogman]

Bayh should start all of his letters with " Once upon a time". And end them with " they all lived happily ever after".

 

[Feign]

Bayd should start all of his letters with " Once upon a time". And end them with " they all lived happily ever after".

Pure cockamamie from him. Blah.

 

[Prometheus]

The bailout passage is PROOF the elected officals could give a flock less about us.

It is also proof that voting democrat or republican doesn't really matter in the end.

We are still going to get screwed.

I'll be voting against both Bayh and Lugar next time they are up for reelection.

Anyway we can do some sort of recall on them?

 

[right winger]

Bayh

Yeah I recieved the same one. If you believe that, I have a bridge (to nowhere) to sell you. He knows his ass is on the line for voting for this rape of working Americans wallets. My vote will be going elsewhere. Same thing goes for Lugar.

Bayh and Lugar are both on my list. And I do not mean my Christmas list.

 

[MinuteManMike]

Business as usual. Private profits, socialize costs.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Wow, I guess I read a different letter from you. Yeah, the bailout isn't ideal, but as many have said, including Bayh, doing nothing would have been much, much worse for us.

I would consider Bayh and Luger to be some of the better politicians in DC, and while all of us have our flaws, I think that they are genuinely trying to protect thier constituents.

Yeah, it was a form letter, but I'm sure that he's getting thousands of e-mails a week about this, and other issues.

Whenever people gripe about a particular decision, I always turn it back on them..."What would you have done...could you have done it better?"

So, I'm sure I'll stir the pot a bit, but, what would you have done, and could you have come up with a better solution? I ask that as a serious question...so back your responses up with facts.

 

[SavageEagle]

You have a point. They needed to do something, sort of. Sending billions of money we don't have into the market was a dumb idea but it was the only idea I saw. Then again I don't think it's going to do much good in the long run. I'm waiting to see the Dow hit 7999.9. That's when I'm boarding up the house and cutting slits for aiming! LOL J/K Seriously though, I think he did what he thought was right, but he still went against the people. That's never a good thing in my book.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Wow, I guess I read a different letter from you. Yeah, the bailout isn't ideal, but as many have said, including Bayh, doing nothing would have been much, much worse for us.

I would consider Bayh and Luger to be some of the better politicians in DC, and while all of us have our flaws, I think that they are genuinely trying to protect their constituents.

I disagree. Doing nothing would have caused the bad part of our economy to be flushed away. It's like having a limited supply of drugs on hand in a disaster. Do you give them to those who can survive or do you give them to those who are going to die anyway? In this case we gave it to those who are dying.
Those of us who did nothing wrong are now dragged into a mess perpetrated by others. We end up paying because others made mistakes. We are rewarding failure and bad behavior.
What else could have happened? The stock market might have crashed?... oh wait it did that already.

Bayh and Luger don't seem to have Hoosiers in there best interests. They seem to be on the opposite side of me on most issues. That wasn't the case years ago but it is now.

 

[DodgebyDave]

For what it's worth, here is what my money dude told me

this bailout is the same as a case of musical chairs, the special deal is that it sets up assigned chairs for when the music stops
yep, even if you manage to scramble up a chair, if your name isn't on it you have to give it up to someone who does

lol, how long after the vote was it that one of the bailed out firms had a large enough party (cost in the multi millions) that we could have bought most of Fiji at best and possibly resurrected George and John for a beatles reunion at worst?

All this "bailout" did was transfer the cost of 20 years of mismanagement to the public.

lol, every stock tanked but Campbell soup. It is actually up.

lesson learned

 

[Gryphon]

Lugar is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I thought the Dave Ramsey's proposed plan made much more sense. I'll let you read it for yourself, and it was proposed ahead of either of the votes, would have cost us a small fraction of $700 billion and possibly averted the nationalization of our banking system.

Dave Ramsey Plan

 

[ATM]

I thought the Dave Ramsey's proposed plan made much more sense... Dave Ramsey Plan

Oh yeah... you gettin rep'd fo sho!

(I'd rep Ramsey too if he were here)

 

[dburkhead]

I received the exact same reply from Bayh to my own expression of displeasure at his vote.

Thing was, I didn't see it until I was cleaning out my spam folder.

How appropriate, on several different levels.

 

[MinuteManMike]

I disagree. Doing nothing would have caused the bad part of our economy to be flushed away. It's like having a limited supply of drugs on hand in a disaster. Do you give them to those who can survive or do you give them to those who are going to die anyway? In this case we gave it to those who are dying.
Those of us who did nothing wrong are now dragged into a mess perpetrated by others. We end up paying because others made mistakes. We are rewarding failure and bad behavior.
What else could have happened? The stock market might have crashed?... oh wait it did that already.

Bayh and Luger don't seem to have Hoosiers in there best interests. They seem to be on the opposite side of me on most issues. That wasn't the case years ago but it is now.

Right on, dude.

The bailout does nothing to discourage future stupidity.

In addition, the inflation that will result robs every dollar in the country of even more of its buying power.

The bailout is exactly the wrong move.

We learn nothing from economic history. The Federal Reserve and its policies are the causes of our economic woes. Relying on them to fix them is just more of the same bad moves, digging a deeper hole.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Right on, dude.

The bailout does nothing to discourage future stupidity.

In addition, the inflation that will result robs every dollar in the country of even more of its buying power.

The bailout is exactly the wrong move.

We learn nothing from economic history. The Federal Reserve and its policies are the causes of our economic woes. Relying on them to fix them is just more of the same bad moves, digging a deeper hole.

At the risk of sounding like a politician, I'm going to agree and disagree with you guys.

I do agree that results of the poor decisions of these companies were passed on to you and me. I'm not very excited about that either.

Where I disagree is that the bailout was worse that doing nothing. True, it might encourage more poor judgement in the future. However, doing nothing could have resulted in a much larger financial crisis that we're going through, and are yet to go through.

There were very legitimate concerns that if some of these bad debts were not erased, a significant amount of other companies that didn't participate in bad practicies could have gone under. This would be due largely to the restricting of credit, causing many Fortune 500 companies to have seriously worse short term cash flow problems.

The simple analogy is this. Company A buys parts from Company B and sells product to the general public, but can't pay their bill for the parts because they cannot get credit to finance current projects (A BAD THING REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION). Company B buys material for the parts from Company C. Because Company A is late on payment, Company B's cash flow is now to the point where they can't make payroll. Company B lays off a good portion of its workforce. Meanwhile, Company C is also having the cashflow crunch, and has to layoff employees.

Employees of Company B and C are now unemployed, and can no longer buy the product that Compnay A makes. This makes the situation of Company A so much worse that they too go bankrupt, and lay off all their employees.

So, in effect, there was a Domino effect, creating much more widespread unemployment and collapse of companies.

You can easily substitute well known companies and suppliers for Companies A, B, and C. What would happen if General Motors suddenly shut its doors and laid of the hundreds of thousands that work for them? What happens to the economies of those employees lived and worked in? What happened to the thousands of medium and small businesses here in the U.S. that still do a majority of their business with GM?


The bailout was not ideal. However, I think that at the fundamental level, it did at least prevent a short term, complete collapse of several large companies. What will happen in the long term? I think its too early to tell.

I'm currently working on my MBA at a well known business school in our state. As you can imagine, this has been a hot topic in our course discussions in Economics, Accounting, and Finance. Without exception, the instructors of this course have all said that while the bailout is not ideal, it was one of the few things that could have prevented a much worse crisis that would have resulted from doing nothing.

What would I have done differently? I'm not completely sure. I don't have all of the facts and details behind it. Part of my plan would have definitely included some short term infusion of cash to help keep companies doors open, and employees paid.

But I think the other part of that would have most certainly had to have been some sort of short term, low interest loans that guaranteed that much of the loaned cash would come back into our government. In effect, much of this bailout is a long term loan from the taxpayers to these companies. I don't like the fact that the U.S. now owns a lot of these bad debts and assets. Even if they can be re-sold later, I don't think we're going to recoup the cash that we infused.

 

[CarmelHP]

Where I disagree is that the bailout was worse that doing nothing. True, it might encourage more poor judgement in the future. However, doing nothing could have resulted in a much larger financial crisis that we're going through, and are yet to go through.

There were very legitimate concerns that if some of these bad debts were not erased, a significant amount of other companies that didn't participate in bad practicies could have gone under. This would be due largely to the restricting of credit, causing many Fortune 500 companies to have seriously worse short term cash flow problems.

And the banks that got the cash are now sitting on it hoping to gobble up any weaker competition that is not "too big to fail" and still not loaning it out. This helps who? This encourages what behavior?

 

[jblomenberg16]

And the banks that got the cash are now sitting on it hoping to gobble up any weaker competition that is not "too big to fail" and still not loaning it out. This helps who? This encourages what behavior?

Very good point. I think that was an effect that the bailout planners didn't consider, or at least didn't think would happen.