Rep. Hensarling: “Why I opposed the bailout”

U.S. Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas, issued a statement Monday after voting “nay” to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s $700 billion Wall Street bailout package.

Rep. Hensarling said while he sees it as a top responsibility to protect the economy and citizens from the credit crisis that is hurting today’s capital markets, he in good conscience could not support the legislation put up for vote on Monday.

“Inaction is not an option, and I stand ready to work for as long as it takes to do this right,” Hensarling said in a press release. “However, I have made clear from the beginning that the Paulson plan had fundamental flaws that were unacceptable to the American people and should not have been the only alternative considered by this Congress.”

Hensarling said he felt the initiative was rushed and did not take the time to adequately explore other alternatives.

“In my heart and in my mind, I believe that this plan was fraught with unintended consequences, would force generations of taxpayers to pick up the tab for Wall Street losses and could permanently and fundamentally change the role of government in the American free enterprise system,” Hensarling added. “Once the government socializes losses, it will soon socialize profits. If we lose our ability to fail, we will soon lose our ability to succeed. If we bail out risky behavior, we will soon see even riskier behavior.”

Looking ahead, Hensarling says it’s back to the drawing board for legislators.

“There are alternatives that myself and others have offered that must now be discussed and considered as we work to solve this crisis in a way that the American people support. At this moment, it still remains more important for Congress to do it right than to do it fast,” Hensarling concluded.

Referring to one of your quotes.

The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.

I don’t see these people being neutral if they voted for both bills (even if they changed their vote from one to the other).

I was for the bailout. Does that make me morally neutral? You can disagree with how people voted, or what position they took, but I think you go too far here.

I even had to explain the consitution to my 80 year old mother at dinner last night.

It is really annoying having to refute stupid columns written by people like Fredosso who ought to know better.

You know, I really do “get” why people dislike the bailout. And I even understand why people aren’t going to let it go.

But continuing to lie about how it had “Pork” added to it, isn’t helping your cause, and is not helping us win this election.

Is your diary being critical of these congressmen for simply changing their vote on the bailout from “no” to “yes”(I am a tepid supporter of the bailout), or of changing their vote on the bailout due to pork and earmarks? I just wanted to know.

I can’t quite echo pilgrim’s implied characterization of the FINAL votes on the Senate amended Paulson Panic Prevention Bill, as a great moral conflict with the yea-sayers and/or the nay-sayers that were once yea-sayers necessarily deserving to be denied re-election.

This does not mean that I would have voted for the final bill. I would not.

As many here may suspect, the last two weeks were my busiest ever at Redstate.

I was encouraged to quit writing easier political/legal stuff and tap into my economics education to thoroughly analyze the $700 crisis prevention bill.

Samples of my opprobrium:

In Dicta or Ditka:

Now, the Senate Republicans have “sweetened the bill” (super cinnamon flavor?) with a truly great provision: elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that the Democrats had refused to consider eliminating for the past two years. This tax is a very great burden to many middle class taxpayers and small businesses. The Senate also finally accepted a GOP proposal to more than double the amount of bank deposits insured by the FDIC and the SEC finally agreed to soften the “mark to market” rules that are a key to the liquidity crisis. (But this could have been done administratively much earlier and still has not been sufficiently changed as I write)

If the above were the only add-ons and if the Cantor GOP insurance and loan provisions were strengthened to greatly reduce or eliminate the exposure of the taxpayers and massive increase in the National Debt of the Paulson-Pelosi main portion of the bill, the Castor oil might have been transformed into Coca-Cola.

But, no, the Democrats in the Senate have out-bargained the Republicans again, making the bill a clear and present danger to the future general welfare of America and the world.

In GOP improved Obamanation will go Schwarzenegger in months

October 3, 2008 – McCain and House Republicans emerged as conservative heroes when they improved the Paulson Wall Street Bailout, and, despite the pork the Senate included, it improved a bit more with the AMT change. But I still opposes the bill because I don’t think we need to commit so much taxpayer money to increasing the national debt; suspect that we are in for a year or two of a hard time no matter what we do; and suspect the bill will only loosen credit and relieve the crisis for a very short time.

And this morning we see an example of why and how:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, alarmed by the ongoing national financial crisis, warned Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson on Thursday that the state might need an emergency loan of as much as $7 billion from the federal government within weeks.
The warning comes as California is close to running out of cash to fund day-to-day government operations and is unable to access routine short-term loans that it typically relies on to remain solvent.

The above is why this bail-out bill is PREMATURE action. Its why one can’t put fires out before they start. Wouldn’t want to run out of water keeping all buildings wet…

In the Notion,

We will pay for the party. The only question raised by machinations over when glorified representatives would pat themselves on the back, was how much ammo we would have left when payment comes due.

Thanks to the GOP, we will have more ammo when it comes, but the whole focus on same misses the big picture.

Fellow Americans, I would suggest that you watch 1930′s black and white movies that feature boarding houses occupied by the non-familial and take notes.

Then go to Church, and pray.

So, my bona fides re the pros and cons of the original paulson proposal; all versions since then; and my opposition to the final bill are established beyond reproach.

That said, and with GOP and many Dem no voters retaining my greatest admiration, I do think the final vote was close call given the Cantor and other House GOP improvements that greatly water down the effect of the bill on the national debt (insurance for a large percentage and another vote required for half the money to be spent); revision of the abominable AMT tax that would have produced a recession causing or deepening tax hike; and the prospect of massive small business failures and/or market crash very soon absent confidence building from such a bill.

Note that I think we are going to have hell to pay no matter what government does.

My rep in the House, Sue Myrick is on Pilgrim’s flip-flop list. She did explain her changed vote based on the above and on phone calls from car dealerships and other businesses that can’t get credit.

I am not a big opponent of pork, whether spending or mis-named special interest tax cuts.

I am for any tax cut anytime until we get the total tax take for any American under 25%.

And given that pork expenditures are puny and are often the grease that makes good legislation possible, I don’t strain on gnats with dragon flies about.

Got no prob with wooden arrows!

Now, Here’s Lucy! I love Lucy!