Changes made to a $700 billion government bailout of the financial industry still weren’t enough to garner the support of Congressman Kenny Hulshof, who for the second time this week voted “no” Friday to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
The proposal, however, was approved in the U.S. House by a margin of 263-171. The measure, which was approved Wednesday night by the U.S. Senate, now goes to President Bush for his signature.
In a statement issued by his office, Hulshof acknowledged that he has heard from many of his constituents over the past few days who are concerned about the “tightening credit market, declining job market, and safety of their investments.” Despite their anxiety, Hulshof said his constituents “were overwhelmingly opposed” to the proposal brought before the House.
“I had hoped that the new proposal brought forward by the Administration and Congressional Democrats would have addressed the concerns that I and other House Republicans had raised. Unfortunately, the bill today is still deficient in many areas,” said the Republican in the statement.
Heading Hulshof’s list of reservations is the cost of the Act.
“The price tag on this bill is still excessive. In fact, the cost has increased $100 billion since the bill was considered by the U.S. Senate,” he said. “I do support some of the provisions added to this bill, including the provisions on Mental Health Parity, the Alternative Minimum Tax Patch, tax incentives for development of bio-fuels and a series of incentives for energy use and development. Those provisions, however, should be considered in separate legislation and should not be added as an enticement to sway additional votes as the tax extenders are not germane to the issue the bailout package seeks to address.”
While he noted regulatory changes were made in the new proposal, they didn’t go far enough, according to Hulshof.
“It’s true the Securities & Exchange Commission ‘clarified’ their rules on mark-to-market accounting, but that temporary regulatory change does not go far enough,” he said. “I continue to believe this accounting practice has exacerbated the current economic crisis. I wholeheartedly agree that we need more transparency in our accounting rules, so that shareholders and investors know exactly what they are buying into, but these accounting rules seem to be doing more harm than good.
“The bill today still does not address the practice of naked short selling, which will once again be legal at the end of the week.”
Hulshof noted that under the legislation Congress will only be consulted by the treasury secretary for loan authority after it has already been granted.
“I strongly believe that Congress should be consulted first and throughout this process,” said the Congressman. “I wholeheartedly support the proposal offered by Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) that would immediately authorize $250 billion in authority to purchase toxic mortgage assets but then would require the Administration to consult with Congress to approve additional funding if needed. Said proposal was, unfortunately, given no serious consideration.
“We have received no assurances from the secretary of the treasury that he is fully supportive of implementing a sound, market-based insurance alternative. The secretary has remained fixated on the singular approach of America’s taxpayers providing the backstop for Wall Street’s mistakes, rather than the hybrid approach House Republicans have proposed.”
|
|
|
Changes made to a $700 billion government bailout of the financial industry still weren’t enough to garner the support of Congressman Kenny Hulshof, who for the second time this week voted “no” Friday to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
The proposal, however, was approved in the U.S. House by a margin of 263-171. The measure, which was approved Wednesday night by the U.S. Senate, now goes to President Bush for his signature.
In a statement issued by his office, Hulshof acknowledged that he has heard from many of his constituents over the past few days who are concerned about the “tightening credit market, declining job market, and safety of their investments.” Despite their anxiety, Hulshof said his constituents “were overwhelmingly opposed” to the proposal brought before the House.
“I had hoped that the new proposal brought forward by the Administration and Congressional Democrats would have addressed the concerns that I and other House Republicans had raised. Unfortunately, the bill today is still deficient in many areas,” said the Republican in the statement.
Heading Hulshof’s list of reservations is the cost of the Act.
“The price tag on this bill is still excessive. In fact, the cost has increased $100 billion since the bill was considered by the U.S. Senate,” he said. “I do support some of the provisions added to this bill, including the provisions on Mental Health Parity, the Alternative Minimum Tax Patch, tax incentives for development of bio-fuels and a series of incentives for energy use and development. Those provisions, however, should be considered in separate legislation and should not be added as an enticement to sway additional votes as the tax extenders are not germane to the issue the bailout package seeks to address.”
While he noted regulatory changes were made in the new proposal, they didn’t go far enough, according to Hulshof.
“It’s true the Securities & Exchange Commission ‘clarified’ their rules on mark-to-market accounting, but that temporary regulatory change does not go far enough,” he said. “I continue to believe this accounting practice has exacerbated the current economic crisis. I wholeheartedly agree that we need more transparency in our accounting rules, so that shareholders and investors know exactly what they are buying into, but these accounting rules seem to be doing more harm than good.
“The bill today still does not address the practice of naked short selling, which will once again be legal at the end of the week.”
Hulshof noted that under the legislation Congress will only be consulted by the treasury secretary for loan authority after it has already been granted.
“I strongly believe that Congress should be consulted first and throughout this process,” said the Congressman. “I wholeheartedly support the proposal offered by Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) that would immediately authorize $250 billion in authority to purchase toxic mortgage assets but then would require the Administration to consult with Congress to approve additional funding if needed. Said proposal was, unfortunately, given no serious consideration.
“We have received no assurances from the secretary of the treasury that he is fully supportive of implementing a sound, market-based insurance alternative. The secretary has remained fixated on the singular approach of America’s taxpayers providing the backstop for Wall Street’s mistakes, rather than the hybrid approach House Republicans have proposed.”
