William Larsen

Bailout - Debate opportunities missed

I missed several opportunities in the debate yesterday.
1. Middle Class Tax Cut

• Montagano wants to provide healthcare coverage for all children. He also wants to save Social Security. There is a the problem with this; Middle class pays very little if any Federal Income Tax while they pay very high payroll taxes (Medicare 2.9%, Old Age Survivors 10.6%, and Disability 1.8%). This means Montagano wants to fund Social Security with fewer dollars unless he is going to fund his middle class tax break with borrowed money.

In summary Montagano wants to spend more, save Social Security and cut milled class taxes

2. Ear Marks

• Souder speaks out of both sides. On one side he says if he does not bring back ear marks for special interests, then other counties and states will take our share of taxes. Instead of standing up to special interests and addressing the problem of earmarks and how they lead to out of control spending, Souder joins the earmark club, caves into special interests and is now addict like everyone else.
  

My problem is twofold. I was hurt in the navy and suffered a traumatic head injury. This has impaired my verbal communication. However, the navy neurologists said my analytical side is still fairly intact. However, this may actually be a blessing. Instead of running off the mouth like Souder and Montagano do, I have to think about what I am going to say first.

3. The Bailout was wrong on so many points.

“Souder said that the plan is still so new, and so much is still being formulated, that it’s too early to expect results yet.”

In simple terms the plan has not been thought out! No one thought about this. It is still being formulated. Now we here that banks may use it to buy other banks, pay bonuses or increase their bank reserves that they are not meeting. This contradicts what Souder says.

“I was not going to let America go down the tubes and not do anything,” He says businesses that rely on banking were deeply threatened by the credit crunch. Businesses that depend on those banks for lending constituted a wider ring of risk.

What were those risks? Did he communicate that to the voters, no? Has he since identified these risks, no? Does the bailout passed address these risks, no? Is the plan defined, no? Yet Souder voted for a bailout that has only one thing defined, it is going to spend our money!

posted by William Larsen @ 8:32 AM