Response to Senator Casey
Dear Senator Casey:
I received your letter dated 12/15/08, regarding our disagreements regarding your vote for the poorly named “bailout” of the financial sector: as I have stated previously, “handout” would be a better word. Your letter in response is wholly inadequate, unless one is looking for evasions, straw men, and red herrings. Also, you and your staff substantially misrepresent your record.
You write “we face troubling economic conditions, and we have spiraled into what could be a severe and prolonged recession.” Nowhere do you say WHY this has happened: you do not mention that the Senate and Congress spent the past few decades dismantling New Deal safeguards like Glass-Steagal, and setting up the now-notorious craps game know as the “credit default swap market”. Until you address these actions, how can you hope to solve the problem?
You write, “Since the TARP program began, the Secretary has used more than $300 billion of these funds to make loans to, and acquire equity stakes in, a number of banks and AIG, a large insurance company. While these actions have prevented further failures…”
And let’s stop there for a moment. Putting aside your abuse of the comma, I would like to know exactly WHICH failures have been prevented. The FDIC posts a list of banks eaten by other banks every week, and it is well-know that the TARP rewards larger banks that take over smaller ones, whether those smaller banks are solvent or not. We also know the TARP funds are supposed to stimulate lending, and that such lending isn’t happening because the bill you voted for doesn’t have any strings attached. So I would like to know; which failures? Name them, and detail how the TARP funds prevented these failures.
You write, “we need proper oversight of all government investment to ensure sensible use of funds.” That’s not what you voted for. You write, “no blank checks should be awarded.” That’s not what you voted for. You wirte “there need to be clear limits ion executive salaries and bonuses in all companies receiving taxpayer support.” That’s not what you voted for.
Senator, I don’t think you really responded to my letter. Perhaps this kind of evasion and horse manure fools your low-information constituents, but it’s not enough for me. I want a REAL response that details A) how congress and the senate plan to reinstate regulations that prevent economic collapses; which failures have been prevented; and why you voted for a laissez faire bailout when it was obvious that strict conditions needed to be implemented.
I’ll make a point of calling after the holidays, and look forward to speaking with you or your staff.
