Yesterday, Rep. Jan Schakowsky was among the seven Illinois Democrats to vote in favor of the proposed $700 billion Wall Street bailout package. What's interesting about her vote is that, on September 24, she and 15 other members of the House's progressive caucus signed a letter demanding better homeowner protections in the bill. The large majority of this group ultimately voted against this bill. Schakowsky, obviously, was an exception.
Here's her explanation on the House floor prior to the vote:
Today we are saying “NO” to a blank check! Congress cut in half the Administration’s automatic $700 billion, requiring Congressional review for future payments. We are making sure that none of the CEO’s who have run their companies into the ground and created this mess will retire with a “Golden Parachute”. We make sure that taxpayers get a share of the profits of participating companies, and require the next President to submit a plan to ensure that taxpayers are repaid in full by Wall Street. We help prevent home foreclosures destroying our neighborhoods by allowing government to work with loan servicers on new mortgage terms. Finally, we ensure tough, independent oversight and transparency, including judicial review of the Treasury Secretary’s actions.
Unfortunately, because of the need to obtain bipartisan support to move a bill quickly, this bill is by no means perfect. I believe that this legislation should have included bankruptcy protections and mandatory mortgage restructuring for homeowners in or at risk of foreclosure. I believe that we need to crack down on the lobbying practices and stop campaign contributions from companies which are clearly too irresponsible to manage themselves.
I am extremely disappointed that, even as we address part of the economic crisis, we failed to enact a second economic stimulus that would immediately create jobs and put money in the pocket of middle class families and struggling state and local governments. Unfortunately, the plan to extend unemployment compensation, increase food stamp and health care funding, and create jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure failed in the Senate last week. This is clearly unfinished business.
Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/30/2008 - 11:22
the problem with her statement is severly misleading. Case in point, she states, "We are making sure that none of the CEO’s who have run their companies into the ground and created this mess will retire with a “Golden Parachute”.
the actual wording of the bill states that pay over $500,000 can not be deducted from corporate taxes . That is NOT "making sure none of the CEO's ... will retire with a "Golden Parachute".
All that does is make it slightly more difficult for the "Golden Parachutes" to be structured, it doesn NOT eliminate them.
anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/01/2008 - 10:03
Sorry – I think you misread the bill: there are two sets of executive compensation penalties.
For those companies from which the government makes direct purchases, the bill eliminates any golden parachute for a CEO, and has other penalties.
For those companies from which the government makes purchases over $300 million at public auction, the bill prohibits golden parachutes for senior executives who are fired or whose company files for bankruptcy, becomes insolvent, or is bought by the government.
On top of that, the bill eliminates tax deductions for executive compensation packages over $500,000, as you said.
It’s not a great bill, but I think this is the first time Congress has ever limited executive compensation – and hopefully not the last. Seems to me it could be a lot worse.
Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/01/2008 - 20:42
Please tell me what the hurry is? Bush / Paulson / Bernanke are telling us that we MUST pass this carte blanche bill or our economic house of cards will come crashing down! We're supposed to capitulate to this and just believe them. They were wrong on Bear Stearns, wrong on Morgan Stanley, wrong on WaMu and they just outright stole Wachovia and gave it to the foreign interests who own Citibank - with out any board or stockholder input! When Chavez does this in Venezuela it's called Socialism, when we do it, it's called shoring up Capitalism? Jan don't trust them! Read Michael Moore's site, heck even read the Club for Growth site http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/09/122_economists_oppose_700_bill.php If the problem really is bad mortgage debt then there are many solutions to this crisis - Read daveramsey.com When Progressives and Conservatives agree on something shouldn't we listen. Please protect us - We will be taking off this "toxic debt" off the books of banks and foreign investors (whomever Paulson decides to let off the hook), but the Americans who are getting foreclosed on - still lose their house! If you choose to go with the Bush Administration on this ill thought and rash bill - YOU CAN COUNT ON LOSING MY VOTE AS WELL AS THOSE OF ALL MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD (ABOUT 17 PEOPLE).
Post new comment