If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

I have to give these twenty-five brave souls credit. The fear mongers have been screaming that the Apocalypse was coming but they held their own. For whatever reason they decided to stand up for the American people. They didn’t listen to the cries of Wall St. or the begging of President Bush, Barack Obama or John McCain. Here is the list of those that said NAY and why they did so. Keep these people in mind if you get the chance to vote for them when the time comes.

Allard (R-CO) Full Comment.

“In considering proposals to stabilize the economy, taxpayers have always been my top priority,” said Allard. “In creating this $700 billion package, Congress held no hearings, nor did it use a process to provide a reasonable assurance that this proposal would even work. I am unwilling to leave a huge legacy of debt for generations to come without confidence that it would be worth the price.”

“I have always believed that the government should live within its means and thus have opposed increasing the federal debt limit. The bill before Congress would increase the national debt to a whopping $11.3 trillion. I believe that Congress can find a way to unfreeze the credit markets without unfairly penalizing American families for the greed and mismanagement on Wall Street.”

“I have seen no evidence that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act is in the best long term interests of taxpayers and the economy, and I also strongly oppose the additional spending provisions rolled into the bill,” continued Allard. “We shouldn’t spend this kind of taxpayer money on assumptions and guesswork.”

Barrasso (R-WY) Full Comment.

“As I have said from the beginning of this debate, providing a $700 billion rescue package to our financial institutions is a significant risk to taxpayers. Any government assistance must protect taxpayers - not reward failure.

This rescue package did not meet my three core principals - accountability, oversight and taxpayer protection.

Strong oversight, accountability and transparency are essential. I will continue to fight for folks in Wyoming who work hard for their money and deserve to have their tax dollars used wisely.”

Brownback (R-KS) Full Comment.

“Congress needs time to get this right. A rushed $700 billion bailout package is unlikely to produce the long-term results we need. Plus, $700 billion is a lot of money. You could buy all the farm land in the top 16 agricultural producing states in America with that amount of money. Or it could buy 4.4 million Americans a home at the median price
in Kansas.

“I applaud the hard work of Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke and their staffs. They are good people.

“But Kansans see this differently than they do. We didn’t do much of the subprime mortgage borrowing or lending and now we’re asked to pay for it. If that is the case, then we want something that works for the broader economy to get us out of the recession rather than just bailing out a few bad actors and hoping it helps everyone else.

“For these reasons, I intend to vote against the current bailout package.

Bunning (R-KY) Full Comment.

“Since Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson first came to Congress with this plan I have opposed it,” said Bunning. “And while some of the language and the length of this bill may have changed in the last week, it is still the same old bailout for Wall Street with a few extra sweeteners intended to buy off votes. In the end, this bill still puts the taxpayers on the hook for Wall Street’s losses and takes America’s free market system down the path towards socialism. I cannot and will not support that.

“There is no question that America is currently facing a very serious financial challenge and I am just as concerned about what is going on in the economy as everyone else. There are extreme tensions in the financial markets right now, which have only been made worse by the rhetoric of the Treasury Secretary and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. We all know that those problems could soon have an impact on businesses and individuals who had nothing to do with the mortgage mess. But I do not believe that this bailout bill is the solution. This is a short-term fix that does nothing to address what is really a long-term problem.”

Cantwell (D-WA) Full Comment.

“The people of Washington state sent me here to fight for sound fiscal policy. I have led the fight for taxpayers in my state to get the fairness they deserve with the state sales tax deduction. I have led the fight for rural communities in my state and across the country to be treated fairly with payments for the federal land in their counties. I have fought long and hard to break the partisan stalemate on a bold new clean energy tax policy and unleash the power of solar and renewables. I support these provisions in the bill.

“And while I put my full support behind these tax relief measures, I believe that bold action is needed to solve our current financial crisis. I am just not for this action. I am in favor of putting the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government behind solving this financial crisis, but I do not support turning the keys of the U.S. Treasury over to the private sector. I don’t believe it’s the government’s job to pick winners and losers in corporate America.”

Cochran (R-MS)

No official comment has been released as of yet.

Crapo (R-ID) Full Comment.

“I voted no because I am not convinced that the Administration’s proposal in its current form is the right solution, that taxpayers were protected,” Crapo explained following the vote this evening. “This is not to diminish the serious and real threat that faces our financial markets and economy. To be certain, there is a substantial threat that must be dealt with, but this proposal requires the taxpayer to assume the majority of the risk. The taxpayers must be protected if this solution doesn’t work out, and should be the last to take a financial loss. However, after much review and evaluation, I concluded that this proposal fails the fairness test and left the taxpayers with too much risk. The credit crunch has extremely serious repercussions throughout every aspect of our economy, and we simply must get this right. We have not spent any time determining if Congress has chosen the best response; there are many well-informed people who argue that we have not.”

DeMint (R-SC) Full Comment.

Dole (R-NC) Full Comment.

“Action is clearly needed to return stability to our financial markets, but most importantly, effective, sound action is needed. To fix the markets, we must deliver a market-based solution, not a government bailout.

“Because of unrelated spending additions, this bill now comes at a cost of over $800 billion, and it is still a government takeover of our economy with no protection for taxpayers. It raises the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion. It bails out foreign investors before American homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages. And it does nothing to address the root cause of this mess, the housing crisis.

“I was against the Administration’s original plan. I was against the bill that failed in the House. This latest revision is an improvement but still contains the flaws of the earlier proposals, and I will not support it.”

Dorgan (D-ND)

No official comment has been released as of yet.

Enzi (R-WY) Full Comment.

“Throughout this debate, I have listened to arguments from both sides. I studied this legislative proposal line by line, and tried to measure the benefit this legislation would bring to our financial markets against its enormous cost to our taxpayers. Ultimately, I do not believe this is the best solution for our economy or the taxpayer. Something does need to be done to save our economy, but this package is just a very costly band-aid for big banks that will do very little to help patients who needs major surgery.

“A rescue plan of this scale requires a clear plan of action with a substantial chance of success. This plan has neither. This does not provide any measurable goals for success. I cannot vote for a bill to authorize $700 billion in taxpayer money without a substantial chance of success.”

Feingold (D-WI)

No official comment has been released as of yet.

Inhofe (R-OK) Full Comment.

“From time to time in our dynamic economy, which has produced the highest standard of living the world has ever seen, we confront periods of turbulence and uncertainty,” Senator Inhofe said. “Credit begins to tighten and institutions that made poor decisions begin to fail. These times can be difficult and painful for all of us. As Congress considers how to respond, its duty is to figure how we can best help all Americans confront an uncertain future. This bill does not do that.

“After examining the issue very closely and spending time with constituents, local business leaders, and elected officials, I felt compelled to vote against Secretary Paulson’s proposal,” Senator Inhofe said. “As we work to address the financial situation in a timely way, Congressional leaders must be mindful that such a massive proposal needs to have the support of the American people. It is the American taxpayer, after all, who is being asked foot the bill for this bailout. Constituents and business leaders here in Oklahoma continue to tell me they are hesitant to pay for mistakes made by others. Those concerns are valid, and its Congress’s duty to find a solution that takes them into account.”

Johnson (D-SD) Full Comment.

“I have struggled with this decision, as has the entire Congress. There is no question that there are reasonable people on both sides of this issue, and that the package before the Senate tonight is an improved version of the proposal the Administration sent to Congress two weeks ago. However, despite the fact that this proposal has merits, I continue to have concerns that it lacks the necessary protections to fix the abuses that caused this problem, provides little direct assistance to American families, does not go far enough to cut the golden parachutes of irresponsible CEO’s, and does not do enough to address American tax dollars benefiting foreign banks.

If we are to ask the American people to shoulder such a large and enduring burden because of the irresponsible and greedy actions of Wall Street then it is important that we get it right. This is closer, but it’s not close enough.

Consequently, I will vote against this bill tonight.”

Landrieu (D-LA) Full Comment.

“Unfortunately, it appears that an influx of taxpayer money will ultimately need to be a part of any attempt to stabilize and restore faith in our financial sector. However, if the people of Louisiana have learned anything in the last several years, it is that simply throwing money at a disaster doesn’t fix the problem unless paired with wise reforms to the practices that failed us.

“Significant improvements have certainly been made since the audacious first draft of the bailout plan. But in its current form, it falls too short of having the safeguards needed to ensure American taxpayers aren’t left shouldering the burden of problems left uncorrected.”

Nelson (D-FL) Full Comment. (Sorry about the caps. That’s how it was on the site.)

“MADAM PRESIDENT, I CAN SAY A LOT ABOUT THIS, BUT LET ME JUST SAY THAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT ULTIMATELY THIS BILL FORCES TAXPAYERS TO BAILOUT INVESTMENT BANKS THAT CAUSED THE CRISIS IN THE FIRST PLACE AND IT DOES NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE REAL PROBLEM WHICH IS HOME FORECLOSURES AND A RESUSCITATION BACK TO LIFE OF THE HOUSING MARKET. AND UNTIL WE STOP THE RECORD LEVEL OF FORECLOSURES, THIS CRISIS IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORSEN WHETHER WE PASS THIS BILL OR NOT.

FOR THESE REASONS I OPPOSE THIS BILL. I THINK THAT CONGRESS CAN DO BETTER AND I THINK CONGRESS CAN COME UP WITH A BETTER, MORE TARGETED SOLUTION TO THIS COMPLEX CRISIS. AND IT IS — IT SADDENS ME THAT I WOULD OPPOSE SO MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE OFFERED VERY — COGENT REASONS. IT’S TRUE THAT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. BUT, THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATION IS NOT THE RIGHT SOLUTION.”

Roberts (R-KS) Full Comment.

“I understand and share the concerns Kansans have about the turmoil in the financial market,” Senator Roberts said. “Like all Kansans, I want to make sure we have stability in our markets and our economy.

However, Kansans - by the thousands - have made clear to me that the financial plan currently before the Congress is not acceptable. I agree. It is not clear this plan will get the job done.

The plan permits taxpayer dollars to be used to buy assets of foreign financial institutions that have a presence in the United States. If U.S. taxpayer dollars are going to be put at risk, those dollars should be used to shore up U.S. based companies.

In addition, the proposal says that if this plan has lost taxpayers’ money at the end of five years, the president must develop a plan to recover losses from the financial services sector. I’m very concerned that an open ended plan such as this could result in new taxes or regulatory proposals that would punish Kansas banks and institutions that had little if anything to do with the current financial problems.

Let me be clear: I strongly support the tax extenders, disaster assistance, and mental health parity legislation that are included in this bill. I voted with 92 other senators to pass them in September. However, I cannot in good conscious vote for this proposal - even with these provisions attached.”

Sanders (I-VT) Full Comment.

“This country faces many serious problems in the financial market, in the stock market, in our economy. We must act, but we must act in a way that improves the situation. We can do better than the legislation now before Congress.

This bill does not effectively address the issue of what the taxpayers of our country will actually own after they invest hundreds of billions of dollars in toxic assets. This bill does not effectively address the issue of oversight because the oversight board members have all been hand picked by the Bush administration. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of foreclosures and addressing that very serious issue, which is impacting millions of low- and moderate-income Americans in the aggressive, effective way that we should be. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of executive compensation and golden parachutes. Under this bill, the CEOs and the Wall Street insiders will still, with a little bit of imagination, continue to make out like bandits.”

Sessions (R-AL)

No official comment has been released as of yet.

Shelby (R-AL)

No official comment has been released as of yet. I see a trend here in Alabama.

Stabenow (D-MI) Full Comment.

“What I find deeply concerning is that we are not here by accident. We are in this credit crisis because of a failed philosophy and a failed set of priorities that have rewarded greed. While it’s true that today’s economic crisis must be addressed, we can and must do more to ensure that Michigan families receive the help they need to stay in their homes and keep their jobs.

I opposed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 because it is fundamentally the wrong approach to fixing our economy. We need to start from the root of the problem - helping families stay in their homes and keep their jobs. While I’m glad it included alternative energy provisions that I championed as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, it did not do enough for the people of Michigan, and so I could not, in good conscience, support this bill. I will continue my work in the Senate to ensure that we remain focused on legislation that creates jobs and puts American families first.”

Tester (D-MT) Full Comment.

“Like most Montanans, I’ve got a heck of a lot of concerns about this,” Tester said after the hearing. “I want to know that this legislation fixes the root problems, so we’re not doing this year after year. I want to know that no CEOs are getting big paychecks for running their companies into the ground. And I want to make sure that Main Street not just Wall Street is helped.”

During today’s hearing, Bernanke said Congress needs to take urgent action to avoid “serious consequences” in the financial industry and the U.S. economy. Tester was disappointed because the Treasury proposed its complex, controversial $700 billion plan just days ago.

Wasn’t there some opportunity somewhere down the line where we could have been informed of how serious this crisis was so we can take some preventative steps before we got to this point?” Tester asked Bernanke. “I’m not sure we’ve got the whole sentence written much less the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed.”

Vitter (R-LA) Full Comment.

“First, it’s an unprecedented government bailout that will almost certainly pave the way for even more - maybe sooner rather than later.

“Second, it requires people at Treasury to make tens of thousands of judgment calls about what they buy and for how much. And these will be folks who are from Wall Street and want to go to back. That ensures bias and even corruption.

“Third, there’s been no adequate discussion of the major reforms needed. And I’m afraid this big government first step helps ensure that Congress won’t make those strong reforms - like breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and demanding real cash down for all home purchases,” said Vitter.”

Wicker (R-MS) Full Comment.

“The proposal being brought to the Senate floor tonight is an improvement from the initial Paulson plan. But at its core, this is still the same plan that calls on taxpayers to go $700 billion further into debt in an attempt to fix this problem, while doing absolutely nothing to prevent it from happening again. I have strong philosophical differences with this approach, and I will not vote to support it.

“I recognize the challenges facing our economy, and agree steps need to be taken to protect the middle class from the credit problems that stemmed from mistakes on Wall Street. However, it is more important for Congress to do this correctly than to do it quickly.”

Wyden (D-OR) Full Comment.

“In 2004, Congress rushed through the process of authorizing the Iraq war, failed to verify the answers to the questions it received from the Bush administration, and five years later we have spent over $600 billion on the war in Iraq.

“Now, in 2008, we have been rushed into voting on a package that would spend $700 billion in a far shorter period of time to address the credit crisis that threatens our markets. In my judgment, the bill we are considering tonight leaves far too many questions unanswered, and misses the mark in addressing both the causes and potential cures for the current crisis.

“First, the bailout package provides help to large institutional investors who took foolish risks. Rather than extending assistance to get credit flowing at appropriate levels again to shore up confidence in our markets, it is likely that much of this money will go to those who don’t deserve a taxpayer bailout for their miscalculations. Wealthy investors, who ought to know better, shouldn’t be allowed to gamble with taxpayer money.”

The remaining comments will be added along with any videos that surface online. Click here to keep an eye on updates.

Related Posts

• Burn the Constitution to Save It
• What Capitalism?
• America Calling America
• Let Them Fail
• How is Your $700 Billion Being Spent?