Burgess: A Bailout by Any Other Name is Still a Bailout

f t # e
Washington, DC, Oct 3, 2008 | comments
This bailout bill’s second verse is essentially the same as the first so I cannot support it. Today’s vote is a difficult one and there are good, well-intentioned people on both sides. Action is needed and there are some necessary tax relief measures contained within. Yet, a bailout by any other name is still a bailout. It’s as if we opened up the patient, poked around the tumor, and stitched them right back up without doing anything about the cancer.
share: f t
This bailout bill’s second verse is essentially the same as the first so I cannot support it.

Today’s vote is a difficult one and there are good, well-intentioned people on both sides. Action is needed and there are some necessary tax relief measures contained within.  Yet, a bailout by any other name is still a bailout.  It’s as if we opened up the patient, poked around the tumor, and stitched them right back up without doing anything about the cancer.

Does this bailout hold people accountable? Not the right ones. Instead, it puts the whole country on the hook for the greed and irresponsibility of a few.  Is expanding the size and scope of our government really the only available answer? Should Washington subsidize the irresponsibility and arrogance of Wall Street?

The phone, fax, and email systems in my office have been deluged with overwhelming opposition to this massive, unprecedented government giveaway. People are outraged that we are in this predicament and rightly so.  They want accountability and not rewards for recklessness. They don’t want Washington writing blank checks that their children and grandchildren will be forced to fund.

How does this bailout prevent this from happening again? What happened to personal responsibility?  These questions remain unanswered as the Congress agrees to support the largest public intervention in the private market in history.


f t # e