Because of the data storm the House servers are experiencing I had trouble getting those links to open, so here are screen shots, click to enlarge:
NOTE: Blogger screwed up the screenshot - it was legible when taken, but got compressed somehow during posting to not be that. The second screenshot below (when clicked to enlarge) is legible - so here's a cut/paste of the text of the first:
WALZ REMAINS SKEPTICAL OF BUSH’S WALL STREET BAILOUT
Says he will be looking for answers in Bush’s address tonight
For Immediate Release
{September 24, 2008}
Contact: Meredith Salsbery
507-388-2149
WASHINGTON D.C. — Today, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson testified before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee. Congressman Tim Walz said that the statements he heard are causing him to grow more skeptical of the proposed Wall Street bailout.
“Secretary Paulson’s comments have raised more questions than they answered for me,” said Walz. “That’s a very serious problem if he wants my support for his plan.”
Walz, who took part in a conference call last Friday with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke to discuss the government’s response to our economic crisis, today sent a letter to Secretary Paulson pressing for specific answers about the bailout plan. Congressman Walz also said he will be closely watching the President’s address to the nation tonight for answers to his questions.
“People in southern Minnesota ask hard questions before making a big decision and have a healthy amount of skepticism for anyone who insists on an immediate decision about something this important. I share that skepticism and have serious questions about President Bush’s plan to provide a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.” said Walz.
“We’ve seen before what happens when Congress allows itself to be backed into a corner by President Bush and forced into making a hasty decision with long-term consequences. We need answers before Congress votes on this bailout. Without satisfactory answers to key questions, I will not vote for this package,” continued Walz.
He concluded, “My top priority is to protect the interests of middle class Americans who had nothing to do with this problem but who are now being asked to pay for the fix. President Bush and Secretary Paulson need to answer some hard questions about this plan and explain how it will help the people of my district and of America, and not just bailout the irresponsible Wall Street bankers who got us into this mess.
“We need to take quick action, but most importantly, we’ve got to get this right or we risk making this whole mess even worse.” Walz concluded.
Text of the letter follows:
September 24, 2008
The Honorable Henry M. Paulson Jr.
Secretary of the Treasury
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Secretary Paulson:
As Congress considers how best to address our current financial crisis, I have serious questions about the unprecedented scope of your proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street and the speed with which Congress is being asked to approve it.
In the few days since your proposal has been brought forward, I have heard from many residents of southern Minnesota who are deeply skeptical of the necessity of this bailout and the wisdom of using taxpayers’ dollars to fix a problem that the taxpayers did not create. To be honest, very few of the constituents I’ve spoken to expect to see much benefit from this bailout. For that reason, I would appreciate your assistance in answering some of the many questions I have about your proposal:
1. How will this bailout be helpful to Americans who do not own stock in these troubled Wall Street institutions?
2. If the management of a Wall Street firm was so poor that it now requires federal assistance, do you support efforts to ensure that no managers at that firm receive excessive compensation or “golden parachutes” that reward them for their mismanagement?
3. How exactly will this money be spent and who will receive it? Will there be any limitations on how federal funds can be spent once they are received by the troubled company? How much do you expect will end up as compensation for Wall Street executives and shareholders?
4. Of the $700 billion provided through this bailout, how much is at risk of not being returned to the taxpayers?
5. In your testimony before the Senate Banking Committee yesterday, you said: “The market turmoil we are experiencing today poses great risk to US taxpayers…Americans' personal savings, and the ability of consumers and businesses to finance spending, investment and job creation are threatened.” What are the real-life consequences if Congress does not approve your bailout proposal? How likely are they?
6. Several economists have expressed skepticism about whether your bailout proposal would fix the real problems in our financial markets. They argue that the underlying problem is not illiquidity, but insolvency. If Congress does approve an unprecedented amount of money to help stabilize Wall Street, what assurances do we have that another bailout package won’t be necessary again in a few months time?
7. Many economists believe that your proposed bailout would set a precedent for future intervention in the financial markets. Are you concerned that this proposal would provide a moral hazard for executives at financial institutions who would otherwise have to live with the consequences of their risky decision-making?
8. You have cited the need for urgent action by Congress to address the financial crisis. What are the consequences if Congress approves a legislative package in the next few weeks, as opposed to the next few days? What are the specific consequences that we are likely to experience if Congress does not act with the speed that you are urging?
Thank you for your prompt assistance in answering these questions, which will form the basis for my decision-making about any proposed financial relief package that Congress is expected to consider in the coming days.
Sincerely,
Tim Walz
Given his reasoning being so clearly on the record for his first NO vote, I cannot see how he'd legitimately change, for this more-not-less offensive package. Nor other Democrats like him. So if the measure passes it will be the GOP porkers switching, saying somehow hash tastes better with more pork in it.
Honesty, at least, will be their branding.
And will McCain claim "credit" for the Senate version?
Increasing the FDIC single-account coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 for deposits is in the Senate version [a version not for protecting retirement 401K hits, but at least adding coverage in case the bank taking large deposit amounts fails, i.e., the coverage is not for investment loss on Main Street, but only for savings accounts on the one hand and for Wall Street speculative houses on the other].
That question of the $100,000 FDIC coverage cut-off seemed phony even during the Reagan years [the Keating-related S & L bailout times]. Who's dumb enough to put "all eggs in one basket" on depositing more beyond the insured limit in one single savings institution, when there's another down the street and holding several accounts in multiple institutions, each insured to the limit, is not a rocket science insight - it parallels diversification in investment account holdings? Are you that kind of dummy?
So that's a smokescreen, a fig leaf thing to say the Senate version differs from the earlier rejected House version because of a single savings account FDIC cap change. A non-factor, really.
Anyway, if you own a home and over $100,000 in retirement savings, are you the kind that would put it all in low-interest-earning bank savings deposits? Huh? If risk averse, you'd still be able to buy treasury bonds, issued by the same U.S. government that prints money and owns/runs the FDIC. You trust Uncle Sam either way.
So, will the House Republicans end their obstructionism and pass the $700 billion package? The voting is set for today.
Finally, Ramsey people, answer this - if the Tink [Ramsey's overpaid consultant who says he knows Oberstar] actually gets a NorthStar stop in Ramsey, will the credit be there to fund the stupid thing or to fund a Community Center, for that matter? Has the Municipal Bond credit market also tanked? That is just a thought, not something to worry about very much before the election where, hopefully, a more prudent and less spendthrift set of council members will be elected.