Representative Emerson: Please Vote No on Bailout Bridge to Nowhere

Dear Representative Emerson,



I was extremely disappointed to learn that you voted for the bailout bill in the House of Representatives. I was even more disappointed in light of the fact that you were one of only 65 House Republicans to support this Bailout Bridge to Nowhere.



It seems to me that many representatives in Congress don't remember who they were elected to represent. I found this quote from an article in the Southeast Missourian telling:



"Emerson was also convinced to vote for the measure when associations representing businesses showed almost unanimous support for the bill, Connor said."



So, despite overwhelming opposition from your constituents (aka voters), you voted to support the interests of "associations" representing business.



Some of your concerns about the bill were listed as follows:



"The concerns ranged from oversight to controls on the "golden parachutes" enjoyed by top executives to bail outs for foreign banks and transparency about the price taxpayers would pay for banks' troubled assets."



It's interesting that amongst your concerns I can't find the following:



1) Should the government take 700 billion from the people and give it to businesses and individuals that, through corruption, poor management, poor decision making, neglect, etc., lost the money in the first place?



2) What effect will the bailout have on this and future generations?



3) What lesson do we teach society by passing a bailout package?



4) Is there a line we don't step over in regulating the free market?



5) What responsibilities do businesses and individuals bear for their own actions?



6) Are there better, less costly ways to deal with our economic situation?



7) What role did government regulation and monetary policy play in the current economic situation?



What role do the people play in the legislative process? Does it make sense to vote on and pass bills when Congress, much less the people, has not had any time to review them?



9) Even if we could agree that a bailout was necessary - which I ensure you we cannot - would this bill address the root of the problem?



I submit that the government should not take 700 billion dollars from the people and give it to businesses and individuals who have made at a minimum poor, and at worst, criminal decisions. This bill will not address or solve the current economic situation. In fact, government intervention will lengthen and deepen the economic downturn by allocating economic resources to businesses and individuals that have already proved that they cannot efficiently use them.



Worse still, we will be teaching this and future generations that mistakes don't have consequences. Incompetence, neglect, poor decision making, corruption, and criminal conduct in the free market doesn't matter because the government will be there to backstop our every mistake. We are crossing, if we haven't already, the line between free market capitalism and socialism - if not something worse than socialism.



For anyone with eyes to see, and ears to hear, there are clearly better ways to deal with the current economic situation. One way, though painful, will inflict less damage on our people, our economic system, our political system, and way of life. We must allow the free market to function. Bad investments must be allowed to be cleared from the market.



Government intervention in the free market, combined with the Federal Reserve Systems' encouragement of below-market interest rates, combined to create a housing bubble. Banks, mortgage lenders, etc. made loans to individuals they never would have made under a purely free market system. Instead, these businesses assumed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with their implicit guarantee, would ensure that none of their bad loans went bust.



This, more or less, brings us to the present. It is a present where the House of Representatives, with only hours to review the Senate's language, is making a second attempt to pass a bailout. Apart from the fact that the Senate taking up this budget legislation before the House clearly violates Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, this is an awful bill. The original House bill was over 100 pages long. The Senate version is over 500 pages long. It seems reasonable that the House should have  a few days to review the bill. It seems even more reasonable that the people have a right to review and make comments on the new bill, but that did not happen. This is taxation without representation and is deeply offensive to Americans' sense of fairness. 



Even if we could get past all of the above points, which we can't and shouldn't, we're still left with one question. Will this bailout work? The simple answer is no. The depth and complexity of this problem is beyond the reach and intended scope of this or any government. Government, for once, should learn the lessons of its own mistakes and change its ways. The people, thus far, have been much wiser than their government. Sadly, this Congress may not have the wisdom and humility to listen. Of course, we the people, still have the right to choose who will represent us. Unfortunately, should you choose to vote for this legislation, Representative Emerson, I cannot in good conscience vote to return you to Congress.



I pray you will listen to the voice of the people.



Terry Kinder