Duneland’s congressional delegation split its vote on Monday for the so-called bailout package.

U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-2nd—who represents Jackson and Pine townships — voted for the package; Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-1st, voted against it.

In separate statements released after the vote, Donnelly said that he supported the measure because not doing so would jeopardize the U.S. economy; Visclosky, in contrast, said that he opposed it because President Bush did nothing to save Bethlehem Steel Corporation or LTV when they went bankrupt.

Donnelly’s statement:

“I couldn’t be angrier at the Wall Street executives who have put our jobs and futures at risk. However, I decided to support this bill because I believe it is my duty to do everything I can to protect our jobs and our savings back home.

“Last week, we received a ‘blank check’ proposal from Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson that didn’t go far enough in protecting taxpayers. Through much negotiation, we had a bill that was geared toward protecting taxpayers and Main Street.

“The bill that failed today would have provided necessary oversight by a bipartisan commission; limitations on compensation to executives to make sure they would not be rewarded for reckless actions; help for homeowners that would have allowed them to stay in their homes; and protections for taxpayers to ensure that they would have reaped the rewards of any profits and Wall Street would have paid for any losses.

When there are serious people discussing the possibility of another economic depression, it is time to act. The rescue plan was not perfect but it was necessary. And while no one took any pleasure in voting for it, the alternative—doing nothing—is potentially disastrous and therefore unacceptable.”

Visclosky

Visclosky’s statement, in part:

“(T)his crisis is not the result of a single error in policy. It is the direct result of years and years of deliberate and cynical exploitation by the captains of an unregulated industry, aided and abetted by an Administration that has willfully failed to enforce our laws and regulations, and that has selected individuals from the very institutions that need oversight to watch over their friends and former colleagues. This crisis is what happens when you set the foxes to guard the henhouse for eight long years.

“Now we are being asked to solve this crisis that has been building for most of the last decade in seven days. But is the solution being foisted on us really going to help Main Street? Or is it simply meant to clean up Wall Street’s mess, clock the Bush Administration’s abysmal failure to protect the people of this country from financial predators, and further enrich those whose covetousness has caused this problem? Is it going to help the people we represent or is it going simply to add to the profits of foreign banks? . . .

“The Bush Administration is rushing us into spending $700 without stopping to think things through, because there just isn’t time for thinking. They say, trust us, this is necessary.

“I’ve heard this before.

“To me it sounds like what we were told about Iraq: that we had to go to war right away, because of the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam Hussein possessed. Oh, that’s right, they didn’t exist. We were told ‘Trust us.’ . . .

“Where was the bailout when real people, the people I am here to represent, experienced financial crisis?

“When LTV went bankrupt and thousands of people lost their jobs, President Bush didn’t sound the alarm. All I know is that Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers made $34,832,036 last year.

“When many Bethlehem Steel retirees had their pensions cut, did President Bush provide a helping hand? All I know is that when Stan O’Neal retired from Merrill Lynch, his compensation package was worth $161.5 million.

“When National Steel went bankrupt, did this Administration ask for a bailout? All I know is that Freddie Mac’s Richard F. Syron made $18,289,575 in 2007. . .

“It is clear that the problems in our current financial system are not temporary aberrations in an otherwise healthy system, and will not be easily addressed with a one-time infusion of cash. I know that I am not alone in saying this. On Sept. 25, 2008, 200 independent economists who don’t work on Wall Street, who don’t work for the Federal Reserve, who don’t work for the U.S. Treasury, signed a petition stating that this plan could create perverse incentives, that it is too vague, and that its long-run effects are unclear. Gary Aguirre, a former employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission, points out that as much as half of the $700 billion could be wasted if there is no careful oversight over the valuation of the bonds we would be buying, resulting in a $350 billion gift to Wall Street.

“Now these economists and Mr. Aguirre may be wrong too, but they have a lot more veracity with me than the supposed experts promoting this bailout plan, who are from the same institutions that created this mess in the first place.

“Given the gravity and systematic nature of our problems, and given the lack of information with which we have been provided, I believe that Congress should be deliberate and conduct a comprehensive examination of alternative solutions. . . .

“We are now in the golden age of thieves. And where I come from we put thieves in jail, we don’t bail them out. We should reject this proposal.”

How Indiana delegation voted

Of Indiana’s U.S. House delegation, three representatives voted for the financial bailout bill Monday and six voted against.

The vote cut across party lines, with two Democrats and one Republican voting yes, and three Democrats and three Republicans voting no.

Democrats voting yes: Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth. Republican voting yes: Mark Souder.

Democrats voting no: Pete Visclosky, Andre Carson, Baron Hill. Republicans voting no: Mike Pence, Dan Burton, Steve Buyer.

Posted 9/30/2008