If you read the article Ruffian posted before your post, this bill didn't do nearly enough for home owners, and little but stick taxpayers with a big tax bill for generations to come. Like him, I expected reforms that ensure the crisis wouldn't recur, and oversight would be strictly enforced.
I don't know of anyone that has read the darned thing, and I doubt Inslee or McDermott or any other congress person has, so I might be wrong, but I doubt it.
It looks more like feds protecting criminals to me.
Inslee said the Senate's added tax proposals were good legislation, but "there are some amounts of gall you just can't abide."
He opposed the bailout both times, he said, because he doesn't believe it does enough to assist homeowners saddled with mortgages they can't afford, and it didn't make reforms to ensure the crisis wouldn't recur.
Federal action is required, he said, and he hopes the bailout works. But he said: "This particular scheme was both sadly inadequate and grossly inequitable."
Representatives who voted for the bill said they did so grudgingly because they felt they had to do something to stem the deepening financial crisis.
"I am not suggesting this is a perfect solution," Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton, said in a statement. "The time to act is now. This is the only option before us. We must pass it."
advertising
Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, said the credit crunch was hurting small businesses in his district and that doing nothing was not an option, according to a statement he released before the House vote.
"To quote two of my constituents, 'Please vote for this bill — no one likes it, but we have to do it.' " |
