|
|
|
| Sun, Nov. 29 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
Is Senate bill right answer?
John Warner, Wittman, Day talk about bailoutDate published: 10/3/2008 Congress needs to do something to restore confidence in the nation's financial system. Republican Sen. John Warner, Republican Rep. Rob Wittman and Wittman's Democratic challenger, Bill Day, all expressed that sentiment in interviews yesterday about the financial rescue bill scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives today. That bill would allow the Treasury Department to spend up to $700 billion to buy troubled assets from financial institutions. Warner, who came to a Republican debate-viewing event at the Fredericksburg Expo and Convention Center last night, admitted that the bill he voted for in the Senate Wednesday night isn't perfect, but "what we've got to do is restore a sense of confidence in the American people in regards to the financial system." Not acting, Warner said, would be "paralytic to the American economy." Since the Senate passed the bill Wednesday, Warner said he has been calling colleagues in the House of Representatives, expected to vote on the bill today, to explain his feelings on the matter. One of the House members getting a lot of phone calls--both from fellow lawmakers and from constituents--is Wittman, who voted against the version of the bill that failed in the House on Monday. Wittman said at the time that he was concerned that the plan put too much taxpayer money on the line with no protection, interfered with free-market principles and would have "created a massive new bureaucracy with no guarantee of success." Yesterday, Wittman said he was still sifting through the new version of the bill that came out of the Senate. The Senate added provisions to raise the federal deposit insurance limit from $100,000 to $250,000. It also added a number of other measures meant to make the bill more palatable to certain politicians. Those include tax proposals that will cost $150.5 billion over 10 years and a requirement that employers and health insurers give mental-health problems the same coverage as physical problems. Wittman said he'd still like to see more specifics in the bill on exactly how Treasury will buy and sell the troubled assets. He said he'd like to see the option for firms to buy insurance instead of selling their assets to the government made more of a requirement. Wittman said he's still getting a flood of calls from constituents who oppose the bill. He wasn't certain last night what his vote would be today. "I believe we need to do something. The question is, 'Is what's before us the right thing?'" he said. Day, who is challenging Wittman for the 1st District congressional seat, said revisions by the House and Senate have "both made huge strides" toward a plan he'd support. Day said he thinks the bill needs more provisions for oversight in the form of more requirements for Treasury to tell Congress how it is appraising and buying assets. He also doesn't like the peripheral measures that were added to the bill before the Senate vote. "What they have to do with the financial crisis is beyond me," Day said. "We need to approve this thing on its own merit. Not with the sweeteners." Warner said those measures are "very important to members of the House of Representatives, and that's where we've got to get additional votes." Emily Battle: 540/374-5413
Date published: 10/3/2008
PORK LARD makes reading the bill tough
(posted by
WeimCity
, Oct. 3, 2008 5:45 am)
Senator Warner - the so-called "sweeteners" are nothing more than additional unnecessary obligations being attached for tax-payer's burden. Why could not a base bill addressing only the issue?
|
 |
|||
|
|||
