Lawmakers fear consequences of crisis and bill's failure

By GAZETTE STAFF   Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2008
ADVERTISEMENT
 

Photo

Paul Ryan

Photo

Tammy Baldwin

Paul Ryan has been studying economics all his life, and he’s never seen a situation like the one the country faces now.

That’s what Congressman Ryan, R-Janesville, told WCLO Radio on Monday afternoon after the House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion bailout bill by 23 votes.

“I think now we’re going to sort of see the consequences of what happens, the consequences of this bill going down,” Ryan told WCLO. “What it means to our 401(k)s, our IRAs, our ability to get loans, businesses’ ability to get money to make payroll and other things. This is going to be a shock to our system.”

Ryan spoke passionately in favor of the bill on the House floor Monday after Republicans and Democrats spent the weekend working on a compromise bill.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin also voted for the failed measure, putting her and Ryan in the rare position of being on the same side of an issue.

“Today's legislation was not perfect, but it was a significant improvement over the unacceptable blank check requested by President Bush a week ago,” Baldwin said.

Baldwin, D-Wis., spoke to The Janesville Gazette from an airport Monday on her way home to Madison after the House voted against a bill to bail out the nation’s financial system.

Baldwin said the collapse of the nation’s investment banks was a shocker, and now it’s conceivable that her constituents in the 2nd District could start suffering.

Ryan told the House the original bill asked for a “blank check” for the treasury department. But he said both parties worked to put taxpayer protections, cost-sharing measures and executive compensation limits in the bill.

“This bill offends my principles,” he said. “But I’m going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles, in order to preserve this free enterprise system.

“This is a Herbert Hoover moment. He made some big mistakes after the Great Depression, and we lived with those consequences for decades. Let’s not make that mistake.”

Ryan criticized the White House and legislators who voted against the bill in his speech on the House floor and a news release sent out Monday. He accused those voting against the bill of caring more about keeping their jobs than protecting taxpayers’ jobs.

“In light of the political expediency of my colleagues and the horrendous failures of the Bush Administration, we will have to roll up our sleeves and go back to the drawing board to enact a meaningful solution to our financial crisis,” he said in the release.

Baldwin raised the specter that small businesses wouldn’t be able to get loans and meet payroll, so people wouldn’t get their paychecks.

Other possible effects before long could be an inability to get student loans and a severe loss of pension value, Baldwin said.

Baldwin said that if the financial markets, lenders and banks react negatively to Monday’s vote, she expects to be called back to Washington as early as Thursday.

On the other hand, “if we don’t see signs of distress, there is probably not a reason for Congress to reconvene to take another try at this,” Baldwin said.

Baldwin said she couldn’t understand why the vote failed. She said key members of both parties, from both House and Senate, had seats at the table as the deal was negotiated.

Also at the table were the Federal Reserve chairman, Treasury secretary, John McCain and Barack Obama, Baldwin said.

Baldwin said everyone headed for the airports right after the vote, so there was no chance for her to find out why so many members of the House voted against the bill.

Baldwin noted that the Senate was scheduled to be in session Thursday: “We’ll be watching them and watching the markets and the other financial sectors that are in financial distress right now,” she said.







reader COMMENTS (8)
Minan
Oct 1, 2008 at 8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal

I hope they never vote to bailout Wall Street. We, the tax payers should not have to pay for other people’s mistakes. Serious repercussions should be put onto the CEO’s who got to greedy and didn’t look after their company’s interests. Representatives who vote for this bailout should be voted out of office on the very next election. The markets will readjust themselves with the governments help. Yes my 401k will take a hit, but that is still better than paying for this mess for the next 30 plus years.

kiowamohican
Oct 1, 2008 at 3:53 a.m.
Suggest removal

A poll would be interesting, but like most polls on here, it would be skewed by people voting multiple times, and the sample demographic would also be skewed. Most national polls taken have showed 60-70% opposed the bailout. Calls to congress were OVER WHELMING against it.
.
Oddly it has brought the EXTREMES from both sides to oppose it. Micheal Moore and Rush Limbaugh both strongly opposed it! Now what are the chances of that ever happening? Of course the left has different reasons for opposition then does the right. Nevertheless I think it's clear that this failed because MANY in congress were scared they would not be re-elected if they voted for this.

Jakiao
Sep 30, 2008 at 3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal

On a completely unrelated note, why is the Gazette using a manipulated image as the headline image for this article?

sannio
Sep 30, 2008 at 1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal

They screwed our country into the ground with cheap credit, and endless money printing. Now the SAME PEOPLE are asking for almost a trillion dollars from the Citizens to DO THE SAME THING. Still want a bailout? Of course, we'll have to wait until after Rosh Hashanah for them to get back to "work". After their vote they can all vote themselves a healthy pay raise. Hopefully everyone is enjoying their day off too!

lakennedy
Sep 30, 2008 at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal

I'm hearing mixed thoughts on this. I'd love to see the Gazette do a poll asking whether Janesvillians support this bailout or not.

biggirl
Sep 30, 2008 at 11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal

Do I accept that something bad might be coming? Yes. Do I accept that the government should give the biggest give-away in history in order to rectify this problem, even when economists say that it is likely not to work? No. If we're going to spend what would be with Fannie M. and Freddie M. a trillion and possibly more dollars, I'd rather see it spent on improving America's infrastructure or on inventing new energy resources. The latter would offer jobs, including jobs in the midwest, whereas the bail-out of Wall Street will help the rich easterners, who were the ones who got us into this mess. No bail out, I say.

janesvillean
Sep 30, 2008 at 11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal

I agree with the nearly universal opposition to the Paulson plan, although there were many on both sides who obviously thought the revised compromise bill was at least palatable. I would still prefer to see a "nordic-style" plan based on the 1992 Swedish bank nationalization, which is viewed favorably by economists, and is not that different in principle from the AIG takeover that Secretary Paulson was able to engineer using existing law. Perhaps a major stabilization effort is needed, but I cannot condone transfering so much money and power to a cabinet position, especially as a rush job, and especially when action taken last spring might have averted some of the damage. Paulson's reputation has been seriously damaged by these events.

TCB
Sep 30, 2008 at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal

"Baldwin raised the specter that small businesses wouldn’t be able to get loans and meet payroll, so people wouldn’t get their paychecks."

This statement demonstrates Baldwin's utter lack of understanding. Baldwin is stoking the fear of small business failure due to a lack of credit. She does not understand why the bill failed? It was a lousy bill. There were enough democrates in the house who could have passed the bill without a single republican vote. This is failure by Nacny Pelosi and those who want to load this bill up with pork-who are primarily democrates.

The ACORN slush fund must be removed-something democrates do not want. Second, the so-called union proxy to run a slate of corporate directors is a big problem. Third, all profits from the Treasury rescue mission must be used to reduce the national debt — 100%.

What is needed is a cleaner bill, absent the pork. Keeping tax rates low, holding back cheap-money inflation, strengthening the dollar and building a more effective regulatory structure that does not stifle free enterprise is what will promote long-run economic prosperity.

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT