Last Friday, I offered an alternative to the majority’s “permanent bailout” banking regulatory bill, H.R. 4173. My alternative (known as a “motion to recommit) would have shut down the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), required that all TARP funds repaid to the Treasury be used to decrease our nation’s burgeoning deficits, and reduce the debt limit by the amount saved by ending TARP.TARP was originally enacted as a temporary plan to address an extraordinary crisis in our financial markets as a result of the collapse of financial firms that the government said were ‘too big to fail.’ Those who voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which created TARP, did so with the assurance that the money would be returned to the taxpayers. The program was set to expire Dec. 31 of this year.
However, the Administration has extended the TARP program to October 3, 2010, which has opened the door to efforts by Democrats in Congress to begin spending repaid and unallocated TARP funds for programs unrelated to the financial emergency.
Click here to watch my Floor speech on my efforts against this plan.
Unfortunately, the banking bill that passed, H.R. 4173, not only fails to end the TARP - even though the emergency in the financial markets has abated — it also turns TARP into a revolving slush fund to pay for the Majority’s political, economic, and social agenda. H.R. 4173 provides for a “permanent bailout” fund, creates yet another federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and also establishes a government “credit czar” to dictate which financial products can and cannot be available to American consumers.
The explosion of government growth and spending under this Congress’ Majority is unsustainable, and I will continue to fight against it. If we are going to see our economy rebound and create sustainable jobs, we must restore sound fiscal and economic policies for this country.
31 comments:
I like that Dent feels that paying down the deficit is more important than bringing more jobs to Americans.
This is coming at the same time as he voted against a health care bill that will cover 95% of Americans, reducing the deficit by $104 billion in 10 years, while supporting a surge in Afghanistan with no way to idea how pay for it.
Still waiting for those answers, Bernie.
I can't believe he hasn't gotten back to me! I thought you were sure he was going to?
This is as bad as Callahan not returning a call from you.
But I'm a blogger, damnit!
rylock, great remarks as always. You continue to expect logic and fairness from Ohater. You are the eternal optimist.
Dent is officially a Republican Party tool. he supported all the unpaid Bush initives.
Sadly, Obama has to clear up all this crap and Dent is sitting on the sidelines parroting the RNC.
Historic medical legislation is waiting to make America a 21st century nation but the Republicans and Dent decided to sleep through it.
Rylock, You fired off LTE as soon as you came up w/ that question. You have no interest in an answer and are oply interested in rhetoric, my man.
Maybe Charlie opposes things because he just likes saying NO.
Recent House Votes Tax Extenders Act of 2009 - Passed (241-181, 12 Not Voting)
The House voted to extend a number of expiring tax cuts. The bill now awaits Senate action.
Rep. Charles Dent voted NO
FY2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill - Passed (221-202, 1 Present, 10 Not Voting)
The House passed this bill that combines 6 unfinished 2010 spending bills. The Senate gave final approval to the bill on Sunday.
Rep. Charles Dent voted NO
The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 - Passed (223-202, 9 Not Voting)
This House bill would overhaul financial services regulations and place new controls on institutions deemed to pose a risk to the entire financial system. The bill now awaits Senate action.
Rep. Charles Dent voted NO
God bernie, get your head ouit of the sand already. Dent opposed Tarp 2 because he's a REpublican and always votes against anything Obama puts up that's worthwhile. Their obstructionism is just getting sickening anymore. Any moron can pick at things in any bill and make some lame excuse for opposing it. Charlie has been a major disappointment in following the lead of these right wing corporate ass kissing Republicans. I've voted for him twice before, but never again!!
"Maybe Charlie opposes things because he just likes saying NO."
Or maybe he voted against TARP II for the reasons he stated.
"Dent opposed Tarp 2 because he's a REpublican and always votes against anything Obama puts up that's worthwhile."
Or maybe he voted No for the reasons that he hiself states.
Whose explanation should I believe, that posed by you and LVCI, or Dent himself?
Well fortunately for the people of the Lehigh Valley, they have an option to both the GOP and Dems - (Rep. Dent of course CO-SPONSORED and voted for the TARP banker bailout)
http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/bailouts-and-corporatism
Jake Towne
2010 Candidate for US Congress, PA-15
Liberty, Sound Money, the Rule of Law, and Accountability
TowneForCongress.com
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.” – Thomas Paine, “The American Crisis,” 1776
To rylock
Rylock, if the money we are spending, Stimulus Money, is being used to bring in more jobs. it is a complete failure. (Stimulus 2 is coming.) Unemployment rate--10.2%.
And if you really believe that a health care bill costing more than a trillion dollars (over 5 years), that's 1,000,000,000,000 dollars, will be a budget reducer, I have a bridge in Manhatten I would like to sell you.
We as a nation are so far in debt, that we will be a "banana republic" in two years.
Please even if you disagree with this post, send a message to Obama asking him to quit spending money we do not have. Do you realize that the interest on the national debt will average about a half a trillion dollars a year, that's $500,000,000,000. How can we run an economy with that much debt? TAXES, no other way.
Bob Romancheck
Bob,
Remember it is the intention that counts with our friends on the left, they want to “help” and need money to spend in order to make the world a better place. If you don’t follow this simple logic you are a hater , selfish, merely partisan , idiotic or all of the above.
Trying to explain the details and the flaws in the means to their end is almost always a lesson in frustration. Comforted and self righteous by their own sense of altruism they will often simply sweep away all of the evidence with grand sweeping statements and insults.
I find it all endlessly fascinating.
Scott Armstrong
Anon 10:36, Rylock believes that we should just confiscate the money we need from the rich.
EAT THE RICH!
Any money a rich person has is teh result of exploitation of the poor underclass.
Congress is developing a health care bill because they care.
"Rylock, You fired off LTE as soon as you came up w/ that question. You have no interest in an answer and are oply interested in rhetoric, my man."
Bernie, I fired off that LTE in hopes that more people would start asking that question, so I would get an answer!
Isn't it funny how I can't write an LTE asking Dent his positions, but you can trash Callahan on here almost every night and whine that he doesn't take your calls?
I think you an I are in opposite sides of the same boat, my friend.
I'd agree we're on opposite sides of the same boat. You fired off that LTE, never expecting an answer. i called callahan's office in an effort to be fair and because I did expect an answer.
You are not troubled by politicians who are unwilling to open up w/ the public, so long as YOU think they will evenetually come down on your side. I am very bothered by a lack of transparency and will support transparent candidates with whom I disagree over those who keep the public in the dark.
Dent opposes everything except the perks his family gets as a Congressman
"Rylock, if the money we are spending, Stimulus Money, is being used to bring in more jobs. it is a complete failure. (Stimulus 2 is coming.) Unemployment rate--10.2%."
Hey Bob, I actually don't think that the stimulus has been a complete failure. I certainly agree that it should have done more, but it didn't because a lot of good stuff was gutted right before final passage. The CBO estimates that the stimulus created or saved as many as 1.6 million jobs. I think those 600,000-1.6 million people would disagree with you that it's a complete failure.
"And if you really believe that a health care bill costing more than a trillion dollars (over 5 years), that's 1,000,000,000,000 dollars, will be a budget reducer, I have a bridge in Manhatten I would like to sell you."
I find it really interesting when people feel like they know more than the CBO. The CBO projects that the House's health care bill will reduce the deficit by $104b and the Senate's will reduce the deficit by $129b. That's in the first 10 years, and the CBO projects that the savings will be even greater in the next 10.
If you have math that rivals theirs, I would certainly take a look at it!
"Please even if you disagree with this post, send a message to Obama asking him to quit spending money we do not have. Do you realize that the interest on the national debt will average about a half a trillion dollars a year, that's $500,000,000,000. How can we run an economy with that much debt? TAXES, no other way."
I am certainly not assuming that you are/were a Bush supporter. Innocent until proven guilty!
However, where were all the "fiscal conservatives" over the last eight years while spending was completely out of control -- and progressives were the ones saying, "wait a second!"
I know that we disagree on policy and how to get us out of the economic turmoil that we're in. But, for example, a spending freeze was what was offered by Republicans to fix this? A SPENDING FREEZE? That's seriously one of the most bat-shit crazy things I've ever heard.
Neither of us like it, but we have to spend to get out of this mess.
It seems like when a Republican goes hog-wild with spending, conservatives don't make much of a stink, but when a Democrat comes into office, re-institutes PAYGO (that Bush got rid of), and tries to get us out of a financial meltdown, he's suddenly the antichrist.
"You fired off that LTE, never expecting an answer. i called callahan's office in an effort to be fair and because I did expect an answer."
How is that fair?
I would really like to know the difference between me calling Dent's office and writing an LTE after not getting a response, and you calling Callahan's office and firing off a negative blog-post after not getting a response.
"You are not troubled by politicians who are unwilling to open up w/ the public, so long as YOU think they will evenetually come down on your side."
Hell no. Even though most people are bound to contradict themselves sometimes, I try as hard as possible not to.
For example, when the Republican-controlled congress was using reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts, obviously I was upset, because I disagree with the Bush tax cuts, but I refused to disparage them for using the process, because I knew that I would support it in the case that it would be used for something that I was in favor of.
And there's a monumental difference between a candidate running for congress a year out and a three-term congressman.
I will allow nobody that represents me provide a lack of transparency. Democrat or Republican.
"I am very bothered by a lack of transparency and will support transparent candidates with whom I disagree over those who keep the public in the dark."
So you'll stop supporting Dent, based on his lack of transparency about the funds being used for the war in Afghanistan?
Rylock,
Your LTE was out the very day you made your call. You expected no answer and just wanted to score political points. In fact, you derided me for daring to think that someone magnificent like Callahan should return my call.
Unlike you, I have a deep and abiding belief in government transparency. It's why I take the Sunshine Act so seriously. It's no game. Obama's promise of transparency is one reason I voted for him. Unfortunately, his government still has the same flaws that existed under Bush.
When I ask a local leader a question, I expect an answer. This has nothing to do w/ my ego and everything to do with holding govenment accountable to the people.
Dent's transparency is one reason i vote for him. This year alone, he's conducted at least 17 town halls. At any one of these, you can ask your questions unhindered. He is willing to meet, hours at a time, with people wo think he's going in the wrong direction. he actually sat down w/ LEPOCO defendants on the day they were sentenced for refusing to leave his office at quitting time.
I do onot know his answer, but told tyou before that our national defense is not quite the same thing as health care. e can't do w/o defense, and if that means we borrow money, then we borrow money. I would prefer a tax, as I stated, and let me be clear that I do not know how Dent feels about funding Obama's Afghanistan surge. But I have the satisfaction of knowing that he will explain himself, as he always does.
"Your LTE was out the very day you made your call. You expected no answer and just wanted to score political points. "
How do you consistently ignore things that I stated directly above your post?
It'd almost be impressive if it weren't rude and egotistical. And I say that because you always assume you know other peoples' reasoning even when they explain it to you themselves.
I want nothing more than Dent's answer. If I brought the topic to more peoples' attention, how would that not force him to go public with it sooner?
You're right. I wrote that LTE almost directly after his staff had absolutely no answer for me. And I'm still waiting for my answer.
"Unlike you, I have a deep and abiding belief in government transparency."
See what I mean? "Unlike me?" That's insane.
Transparency is a main reason why I voted for Obama also. While I do not think he has lived up to the rhetoric of transparency that he campaigned on, he's certainly worlds better than Bush. I mean, Obama passed new ethics and transparency guidelines the day after his inauguration.
"But I have the satisfaction of knowing that he will explain himself, as he always does."
Well, I'm still waiting for his answer. It's been about a week and a half now.
Unlike Callahan, Dent currently holds federal office.
I just hope he clarifies his position before he votes, or doesn't vote, to fund the surge.
Also, if you're inclined to post things that "does your job" as a blogger, I can't seem to find the contradiction between Dent's voting against the FY2010 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, but then took credit for police departments in Lehigh and Northampton counties receiving $1.3 million in grants from a bill that he voted against.
''It's an ongoing priority for the congressman ... [that] first responders in multiple jurisdictions have the technological capability to communicate with each other,'' said Dent's spokesman, Greg Bortz.
Didn't he vote against that bill? This certainly is interesting.
I'm sure you have it up here somewhere. Probably just something wrong with my computer.
I'll hit refresh a few times.
Rylock,
I'll explain why I have a hard time believing you. In this comment thread and in others, you deride me for daring to think that Callahan owed me an answer to a simple question, which was posed in a desire to be fair and so I could share it with my readers. You disparage me, a simple an insane blogger, for being so self-important as to think I deserve an answer.
But under my view of government, I think I do deserve that answer. I think government officials have an obligation to be foprthcoming. It's why I ask annoying questions about finance reports. It's why I bring flipcams to meetings. it's why I've spent what little money I have to enforce the Sunshine Act.
While deriding me, you expect me to believe that your own question was posed in a similar desire for transparency and out of fairness. If this is how you felt, then why did you deride me?
I have no reason to call you a liar and will accept your claim that you are motivated by a desire for transparency, too. I doubted that bc of your own derision.
Rylock,
In what seems to be some effort to just find reasons to snark Dent, you now make an OT claim that Dent is taking credit for grants he voted against. That money was appropriated long ago. Dent not only voted for it; he helped sponsor it. I have no problem with your criticism of Dent, but would ask that you at least try to get it right. http://lehighvalleyramblings.blogspot.com/2007/07/bush-threatens-to-veto-dents-public.html
Bush in fact threatened to veto these public safety initiatives.
TARP II may be a nice Republican turn of phrase, but it's anything but the truth. It's not bailout authority. It's resolution authority. It gives the government the legal authority to wind down failed banks and other large financial institutions so that they don't take the entire financial system down when they fail. Of course the bill's main elements, which Dent doesn't want to talk about, create stricter regulation of derivatives and establishes a Consumer Protection Agency to reign in predatory lending. It could be stronger, for my tastes, but the reason it isn't stronger is because Republicans and conservative Democrats watered it down to protect the bankers. John Boehner held a pep rally for financial industry lobbyists and the House Republican caucus on the Hill prior to the vote to lobby Democrats against it. Did Charlie attend the pep rally for the banksters?
Another point here that is plainly insane is Dent's terrible idea that unspent TARP funds should be used to pay down the deficit. Since he quite clearly doesn't understand the basics of economic policy, I'll explain. The deficit is a structural problem, not a temporary problem of having a lot of debt. There is a widening disconnect between how much we need and how much we take in. Throwing a one time bulk payment of unspent TARP funds at the deficit instead of using it to grow the economic pie is like a struggling family choosing to sock money away for retirement instead of buying food and other immediate needs. The first step should be getting people back to work using credit we already have. Dent hasn't named one credible idea for creating jobs yet.
Bernie,
I won't say argue completely that some of my posts are filled with "derision." Mockery and sarcasm are some of the only things that keep politics interesting.
And, put yourself in the shoes of someone that you attack daily on this blog to all of your readers, I wasn't mocking you for asking a question. I was mocking you for thinking that Callahan would give somebody like you the time of day, when every reader on here knows that you'll distort it to the point that Dent will be happy.
The difference between us is that I don't have a fairly popular Lehigh Valley blog in which I attack Dent almost every day.
And the difference between Callahan and Dent is their employment and the respective offices they hold.
I agree that once Callahan's campaign is up-and-running, he should have positions on everything we ask of him. And if he doesn't, he'll pay the price.
But he is not representing me in congress right now. Dent is. And I expect these answers immediately from my representative. Something that you clearly don't care about as long as you like them.
And if Callahan were my representative, I would be no different in my demand for these answers.
"That money was appropriated long ago. Dent not only voted for it; he helped sponsor it. I have no problem with your criticism of Dent, but would ask that you at least try to get it right. "
Bernie,
I didn't say that Dent didn't push for the appropriation to give police departments in the Lehigh Valley $1.3 million.
What you're leaving out is that the FY2010 Omnibus Appropriations Bill ultimately secured the funds for the Lehigh Valley.
Which Charlie voted against.
He cannot take credit for something that he ultimately voted against.
How is that wrong?
I'll keep hitting refresh.
I'm leaving nothing out. What you fail to recognize is that this money was appropriated two years ago and was unaffected by Dent's vote on the 2010 appropriations. Do your homework. It simply was not part of that. It was not included among the 2010 earmarks.
Then what about all the reports that state that the omnibus bill "secured" Dent's appropriation?
I will admit that I didn't read the FY2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill, I'm just going off of news outlets.
If you've read it, and can show that it's not in there, I'll back down on the claim.
Mr. O'Hare, you should stop arguing with Rylock and turn your attention to the Morning Call. Demand the newspaper correct its print and on-line reporting that says, well, pretty much what Rylock says.
Rylock is one hundred percent correct. Charlie "two face" Dent is taking credit for a bill be directly voted against. Shameful and outright dishonest, one would think he would be well aware of his own voting record. Mcall retraction please?
Rylock, I have looked into your claim. Here is what I've learned.
* Charlie voted for the Commerce Justice & Related Agencies Appropriations Bill as a stand alone bill.
* Funding for this project was part of that original bill.
* That bill was lumped into an Omnibus Bill, an amalgam of six appropriations bills.
* The spending for the six appropriations bills that made up this Omnibus increased by 12 percent over the spending levels for the same six bills last year.
* Dent ould not support the increased speding.
* Part of this grant was in last year's omnibus bill, which Dent did support.
* Dent was the listed sponsor and he had submitted the language for the project. (Which is also important. If no one puts the language in, the project certainly doesn’t get funded.)
* There is no direct quote from Dent in the MC story, and the press guy was more explanatory than credit-seeking.
Basically, Dent sponsored this project, got some money for it last year, and voted to support more money for it this year in a spending bill. When that bill was lumped together with six different spnding measures, Det did vote no.
Basically, we are both correct and are both wrong.
Luckily there are Representatives (including MANY democrats) out there who look passed the good feeling names of bills and actually view the policies and motives behind the legislation. Even Tim Holden saw how ridiculous the health care bill was saying the party leaders were "foolish" and that he "did not want to be a pawn in the chess game between Henry Waxman and Harry Reid and Max Baucus."
Instead of an open minded centrist like Charlie, people like Rylock would rather a pawn in Pelosi's political games.
"Basically, we are both correct and are both wrong."
I can live with that.
I can especially live with it because the majority of my claim remains true.
If Dent was the deciding vote this funding would not have happened. Even if it was only part of it.
He might as well be Bobby Jindal running around handing out those giant stimulus checks.
Post a Comment