Dorie Morgan’s Rising Up
Navigating Twenty-Something Suburban Life
-
Archive of "politics" Category
Leave Your Politics Out Of Hunger
On Monday, I went to an event at the United Christian Church focusing on solving hunger. It sounded like a great idea. How can you go wrong with a title like “Beyond Charity: solving the problem of food insecurity and hunger in Bucks County”?
The answer is far more easily than I expected.
I’m not a liberal by any account. I hate the idea of a huge federal government. I voted for Bob Barr. But I do care about my community. Brian and I give to several non-profits every year, even if that means we go without when it comes time to buy new clothes for work or skip date night. We believe in community as a means to better the world we live in.
With that being said, I wasn’t surprised when I got to this event and it was filled with social workers and advocates. But I was surprised when the first person spoke, Robin Stelly of Penn Action, mentioned how difficult it was to find a location for the event. She talked about churches and community centers not wanting to host the event because of political concerns.
I was confused. How are there political concerns with solving hunger in Bucks County? Hunger seems like a pretty straight forward issue: we weren’t going to be discussing gay marriage or abortion or stem cell research.
And then Joel Berg got up. Berg is a national leader in the field hunger and food security and recently published a book “All You Can Eat: How Hungry Is America?” He started his talk/book reading with a rehashing of his recent visit to Alaska and how he “battled” Sarah Palin. Then he started referring to Palin as the “Alaskan Bear” and how he made her back down.
This struck me as odd. And inappropriate. While I may not agree with Sarah Palin’s political beliefs, I do believe that we have the right to free speech and she has the right to run for office. We do not need to compare our fellow man to an animal when our fellow man has a different opinion. We also do not need to “battle” over ideas – this is not Gladiators. Whatever happened to having a calm, rational discussion of ideas?
Next Berg moved onto slurs against Libertarians. Later he told us that even if the conservatives are lying, liberals do not need to stoop to their levels. He ranted against individuals who disagreed with or had concerns over the Obama budget.
The message I got from Berg was that if you did not agree with his extreme liberal ideology, you were heartless.
It was hard to pick out solutions for hunger from Berg’s talk that were separate from his pro-government perspective.
The last straw for me was when Berg made fun of bloggers for asking questions about bailout money and the use of welfare and food programs. While only a passing snarky moment for him, it stuck with me. Here was a man in front of us who was not interested in having a discussion about solutions. He was only interested in being right. He was not interested in real questions.But I do need to mention how impressed I was with Joseph Quattrocchi of Pennsylvania Hunger Action Center and Jonathan Na of the Bucks County Opportunity Council. These men were able to provide a realistic and startling look at what hunger means in Pennsylvania as well as discuss what is being done already and how we, as a community, can contribute to solve the hunger problem.
“Food Insecurity” does not mean much to a woman who doesn’t know how she will feed her kids today. To her, she is starving. Not in the trite way we lament an hour before dinner but actually starving. She will choose to continue her hunger to feed her children. She might not be aware of food programs that are available at her children’s school or she may be too embarrassed to ask for help. She may not have transportation to get to a food bank.
“Food Insecurity” is just one of those terms we slap on a problem to make it sound nicer, maybe not so bad. For 12% of the US in 2007, it meant something very different.
Specter: The Dems Can Have Him
I’m not a fan of Arlen Specter. He’s out of touch. He ignores his constituents. He sends the wrong form letters. He cares more about his corporate campaign contributors than the people who voted for him. He is unable to answer any questions about what he is doing to help his Gen Y constituents.
I wasn’t one of them. He is my arch nemesis after all.
Still, I was thrilled that he jumped the Republican Party ship yesterday. Good. Good riddance to bad rubbish. The Democrats can have him. (Please note: I am a registered Libertarian but there is a small part of me that hopes and dreams that one day, the Republican Party could return to what it really stands for and then we could have a three party system.)
The only way this could possibly be better is if he didn’t get reelected.
What Specter is doing now is a last ditch effort to stay in office. Pat Toomey is going to get that Republican nomination in the primary. Because no self respecting Republican would have voted for Specter. And after thirty years in the Senate, Specter had to have known the fat lady was singing his song.
This had nothing to do with your best interests. That’s right. Nothing to do with you. You might his constituent. You might need your senator’s help. He does not care. This had everything to do with him desperately clinging to his political life as a feeble, 79 year old man.
If I was the Democratic Party, I would turn him away. I would be raising questions about his ability to make strong, effective decisions in the Senate. I would be wondering if he would be able to understand the world around him and the long term impact of his decisions on others. I would be asking his doctor for proof that dementia isn’t setting in.
But here’s the important part: Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian or an Independent, you don’t have to vote for him.
Just because he’s been around for a while does not mean that you have to participate in his ineffective politics any longer. Just because he has been in the Senate for 29 years does not mean that he has wisdom and insight. Just because he kept getting reelected before doesn’t mean you have to continue to vote for him now.
The message Senator Specter needs to hear from us, from his constituents, is that we will continue to hold him to standards. We will continue to have expectations of what his performance should look like. We will hold him accountable for his actions. Changing parties will not liberate him from accountability.
If anything, he needs to be held to a higher, more consistent standard. If anything, he needs to know that if he fails us, if he fails the voters, we will fire him. We will vote for Pat Toomey, not only in a primary but in the general election. We will seriously consider 3rd party candidates. We will no longer take what he says at face value. We will ask him tough questions and we will expect him to have honest answers.
And at night, I dream we’ll elect politicians who haven’t penned garbage like the Magic Bullet Theory.
We Stole All of It
Yesterday, as I arrived at the hospital, I overheard part of a conversation between two departing visitors.
“Well, you know all of the land along Route 413 was stolen from the Indians. Including the land for this hospital!” Her tone of voice was filled with disgust that people would live their lives on stolen land. How dare they!
Um, this is Bucks County. In Pennsylvania. The county is filled with names like Neshaminy and Nockamixon. There are documented Lenni Lenape tribe sites in the county parks.
Of course the land was stolen. How else would someone have gotten the land in the first place?
If you want to be technical, the whole county is stolen land. All of it. And really the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is stolen land.
And then I started thinking about wars and how no one ever went to war because their neighboring country or group was just giving their land away. At some point in time, every piece of land has been stolen from someone else. It just might not be in our collective memory.
I kept giggling to myself as I walked into the hospital. I’ll take the bright spot in a day wherever I can find it.
Making responsibility feel good
It can be easy to forget but there are some major differences between taking responsibility and taking credit.
Taking credit is the easy part. Taking credit can look like self promotion. Sometimes it looks like showing a project to your team when you know your project will improve the way your team works. Taking credit feels good. Usually, we like to take credit when we accomplish something we think is noteworthy.
Taking responsibility isn’t always easy. Taking responsibility is looking at something and recognizing that it needs to be better. Taking responsibility does not have the same feel good feelings attached to it.
The biggest difference is the internal aspect. Taking credit is an outward action. Taking responsibility has to happen internally.
When you take responsibility, you take ownership. Maybe it was a project you worked on that did not go as planned. Maybe it was a situation that wasn’t handled with grace and class. Maybe you led a team that failed to accomplish its primary goal. Taking responsibility in those situations is not going to give you the warm fuzzies.
But both actions are the key for personal and professional growth. When you only take one and not the other, you sell yourself short.
By only taking responsibility, you paint a picture of yourself as a failure. Sure, you could grow from those moments but after a while, management (or your spouse/family/friends) will begin to wonder why you are even here.
By only taking credit, people begin to wonder. At first you may seem to be the office rock star, but after a while, people start wonder where you are when things aren’t going well. After all, if you are amazing at everything you do, there’s this giant list of junk that no one else could fix. How are you going to fix it when all eyes are on you? Later on, your coworkers will wonder if you even deserved any of the credit you received in the first place.
As with most everything in life, there is a delicate balance to maintain between the two. And the people who are good at maintaining that balance are probably the people who are advancing in your office. And the same people who are good at maintaining the balance are also the people who are good at office politics.
Once you gain skill in maintaining the balance, taking responsibility will have more to do with take ownership of an area of your company and less to do with taking responsibility for what may have gone wrong.
And that always feels very good.
Babies: How many should you have?
Last week in California, a woman gave birth in 8 babies. And by gave birth, what we really mean is that she had a c-section because humans are not animals designed to give birth to 8 babies at once.
The woman already had 6 children. She’s a single mother. She conceived all of her babies through in vitro fertilization.
And now America debates: How many children should a woman have?
And once again, America is talking about events that transpire between a woman’s thighs.
If this woman had birthed 14 babies naturally and without fertility help, people may raise a few eyebrows about the fun she must have been having at night but America would not be discussing her reproductive decisions. But her children appeared with the aid of fertility drugs and that’s where this gets messy. Why did she feel the need to be pregnant once again after already having 6 children? She was a single woman, she was pursuing her Master’s degree in counseling, she was living with her parents.
While the whole situation makes me shake my head in disbelief, I still must ask the question: since when is the number of babies a woman has any of your business? The last time I checked, that was an issue between the mother, the family, the doctor and God.
Yes, there is a concern if the state is picking up the cost of the children. Neonatal care for 8 babies does not come cheap. Diapers are not cheap. Formula does not come cheap (let’s face it: she doesn’t have the milk production that would happen if the mom had 8 nipples). Babies are expensive. And yes, there is a concern from the insurance company regarding the cost of hospital care and what they are legally obligated to pay.
But beyond that, why is America concerned? Is it genuine compassion and concern? Or is it, once again, a side effect of our voyeuristic tendencies and our chronic know-it-all behavior?
My belief is the latter.
But here’s the big problem with our behavior in this situation: by sticking our noses in another families business, we make it easier for our own lives to be invaded. Sure, the woman has 14 children. Maybe that does make her an easy target. But what happens further on down the line?
Could I someday be criticized because I want to have four kids? Would that become the government’s business, the community’s business, your business? Would someone outside of my family with no knowledge of my health or my ability to parent be able to make a decision about what was too much?
Or a scarier thought: could it someday be determined that you were not having enough children? Could the government or the insurance company someday inform you that you are expected to have three children when you really want one child or no child? By opening the door, this could go both ways although one way is much harder to comprehend.
Really, this situation has nothing to do with a woman in California who opted to have 14 children. We want to say it is to ease our minds but we’re only fooling ourselves.
If we are really honest, if we really want to think critically about the situation, we have to realize that this has everything to do with reproductive rights. The conversation is taking place in a different package than Roe vs. Wade but the heart of the conversation is the same. We’re okay talking about abortion these days even though it can still get a bit heated at times but we’re okay with it because we know what to expect. Person A is going to talk about how life begins at conception and Person B is going to talk about it is the woman’s body that matters and then Person C is going to say it is not a decision she could make but she will never restrict another woman’s right to make that decision.
So is it anyone’s business if a woman decides to use help to get pregnant by utilizing fertility treatments? And is it anyone’s business if she becomes the mother of a multiple birth? As a society, do we want to create a minimum or maximum number of children a family is expected to have? And does a single woman have a right to be a family with her children? Or is a family just a mother, a father and children? Where does this leave single parent households, grandparents raising their children’s children, gay couples and the polygamists?
Inauguration: What will you remember?
While watching bits and pieces of the inauguration this afternoon, I kept catching myself tearing up. I really didn’t expect to cry at all.
After all, I am a white married woman in the suburbs.I didn’t even vote for Barack Obama. I did get into a verbal altercation with the Obama bus on election night over my vote for Bob Barr. That was a proud moment in my life (and probably on the list of embarrassing moments in my husband’s life).
I really don’t agree with Obama’s politics.
Still, I cried.
I cried because this was a moment that the world changed.
The first time I remember the world changing was November 9th, 1989. I was seven years old at the time.That was the day the Berlin Wall came down. Sort of. But that part doesn’t really matter. What matters is that I remember watching it on the TV and being told by my grandfather that this would change everything. I couldn’t quite comprehend the why of its importance at the time but the moment has stayed with me in the years that have followed.
The second time I remember the world changing was September 11th, 2001. I was a sophomore in college and I had skipped class that morning (who really needs to Intro to Drawing at 8:30 in the morning anyway). I had spent the night in my boyfriend’s room and his roommate woke us up to watch. From a dorm room in Allentown, we watched a plane fly into the second tower and we watched the World Trade Center fall. I knew my world had changed yet again, punctuated with the fear of what could come.
And now that feeling has come a third time. I cried because I remembered the first two world changing events. I cried because this time felt different.
Sometimes our world changes and we are confused. We know something big is happening but we don’t quite understand the events that are taking place. Still, we rough up the edges of our memory to hold that moment in our minds. Understanding can come later when we’re ready.
Sometimes our world changes and we are scared. Not scared in a childish way, but a more mature, adult fear that we did not know that we were capable of feeling. We know changes are coming and quickly and we do not know how we will shift to accommodate those changes.
But sometimes our world changes and there is hope. That wonderful feeling of hope that sometimes is fleeting in adulthood. Hope is easier when you are smaller, when you are less aware of world. Every once and while, something happens that allows adults to hope in the same manner as they once did as children.
I don’t need to agree with President Obama or his policies to enjoy the feeling of hope that I find surrounds most of my peers. The face that provides that feeling of hope really doesn’t matter. What matters is that the feeling is there.
So today, our world changed. And it will change again. I’m not so foolish to believe that this is it for the world or for America. But the change happened. How will you remember it? How will you tell your children and grandchildren about it? What pieces of today will be pulled out and cling to the edges of your memory?
Thank you President Bush
When I was in 9th grade, our history class took a month to discover our political beliefs under the guidance of Mr. Kennedy (who would not tell us his own beliefs until the very last day of the school year but only with the promise that we would not tell the 8th graders who would follow us). We had debates. We wrote essays. We took political quizzes. All of this was to determine which party we belonged to. Are you a Democrat? Or are you a Republican? There are your options and you must know who you are.
I landed in the Republican side of things. There was only one other kid in class who was farther in than I was but it seemed like his reasons were based more on not liking anyone and not being interested in even helping his own family whereas I ranted like a lunatic about Social Security and what seemed like a crazy system (some things never change).
I stuck to my party ever since.
I voted in the 2000 election for George W. Bush but my little Republican dream was John McCain in the White House.
I voted in the 2004 election for George W. Bush – although for that I argued was a choice between inconsistency and incompetence. At least I voted for the man who was consistently incompetent. At the very least, smart people might be around him. I wasn’t happy but I took the options presented to me.
But I haven’t been happy with Bush for quite some time.
So as I wrote yesterday, I voted proudly for Bob Barr. I made a financial donation to his campaign. And for once, I didn’t feel like I had to sacrifice my beliefs for the options in front of me.
I also changed my Republican status to Libertarian. Next time, I’ll be a registered Libertarian.
It turns out there are third parties. You do have other options.
During the 2000 election, I had no idea third parties existed until I got to college. There I discovered the Green Party but every collegiate Green Party member I met appeared to be a ranting, paranoid whack job. It wasn’t exactly the best advertisement for third parties.
This time, I did my research. I learned. I explored again with the same enthusiasm I had in the 9th grade. I needed to do this.
My dissatisfaction motivated me forward. And for that, I want to thank George W. Bush. I truly believe Bush was the best thing that has happened to the United States of America.
Before you get mad, think about it. Yesterday I stood in a record breaking line at 6 in the morning because people were so dissatisfied that they had to do something. Yesterday morning, for the first time in my life, I stood in line at a polling station that wasn’t just filled with white people. Even people from the Fleetwing section of Bristol (which is known for being worse than Philly neighborhoods and is also an open air drug market) were there to vote. And while some of them scared me slightly, it was important to see that they were there. They never came before.
I wanted to be the first voter at my polling station yesterday morning but there was an African American family ahead of me. They never voted before – it seemed fitting to see them go before me.
As of six o’clock this morning, Barack Obama received over 62 million votes. And they are still counting. That’s more votes than received by any other president in US history.
It seems to me that maybe we all had to get really uncomfortable to be motivated. Bush broke our apathy. And we should thank him for that.
A Dear John to the Government
Dear Federal Government,
We’ve been together for a long time now. In fact, I don’t remember a time in my life when you weren’t there. I always thought you had been committed to this relationship but now I realize that this thing we have isn’t going anywhere good.
It’s like you have these two sides. And there’s this one side that is so generous and giving and that desperately wants to help other people. But that side keeps giving away things it doesn’t have. It gives away my things. I don’t mind sharing but you never ask first.
Then there’s this other side – this side that wants to correct the mistakes. But you always go about it wrong and it starts being about power instead of actually fixing the situation. I don’t like it when you try to control me like that. It has nothing to do with what’s best for me and it has everything to do with what makes you happy.
This isn’t the only thing though. If it was just this, I might be okay with it but there’s just so much more going on.
I want you to get out of my marriage. My marriage is between myself, my husband and God. You have nothing to do with my marriage or anyone else’s marriage. What Brian and I have with you is a Civil Union. Stay out of my marriage and stay out of everyone else’s marriage. I don’t care if they are straight, gay or polygamous – it is none of your business.
I want you to get out of my panties. Or more specifically, the events that transpire between my thighs are none of your business, Federal Government. I don’t need you worrying about abortions and pro-life versus pro-choice. Let my State worry about that. That’s their job.
I want you get out of my wallet. If I want to help others in need, that’s my choice. I can choose how and when I want to do that. Don’t just “redistribute” my wealth. Let me choose who to give to and not just create programs that I’m forced into helping.
We had a good run, Federal Government, but I need you to change. I need you to let me pursue my happiness and not just what you think my happiness should be. Stop trying to protect me and let me make my own choices. I’m a grown woman. If I haven’t learned by now how to look out for myself, there really isn’t anything you can do for me.
I’m not going to vote for Obama or McCain. I know you gave me those options but those options aren’t cutting it. Those options aren’t really options at all.
You should know, I’m voting for Bob Barr today. I have a much better future with him than any of the “change” you could offer me.
I hope you can understand. I’ll never forget you, Federal Government, I promise. It’s just that I don’t love you the way you want.
Kind Regards,
Dorie
PS – Just in case you forget, I hate your bailout. It’s so big, it hurts. That’s not a good thing.
Arlen Specter and his Anti-trust Concerns
First things first, I have have to thank Andrew Norcross for sending me this link. The downside is that it fired me up again. The upside is that it fired me up again.
I had to do it again today. I didn’t want to but I had to do it. I had to send another letter to my favorite United States Senator. The one and only Arlen Specter.
Instead of fighting a bailout we don’t need or want and instead of taking the time to learn about actual needs of his constituents, Arlen Specter is taking the time to send a letter to the NFL.
That’s right.
You might be outraged that your tax dollars are going towards a bailout that doesn’t seem to help anyone but banks and auto makers but Arlen Specter wants you to know that he is outraged that the N.F.L. wants to air its games on its own network.
I don’t know about Arlen Specter but this suburban twenty something has bigger fish to fry than what channel you view your Sunday afternoon football games. I’m concerned with things like Social Security and why we continue to pay into a system that is falling apart. I’m concerned with things like college tuition costs and its long term impact on the American economy.
Perhaps I should be concerned with football.
It seems like Arlen Specter is more concerned with what his campaign contributors think than what the voters think.
Here’s what it comes down to: If you don’t keep the voter’s interests at heart, none of it matters. Sure you had more money for your last campaign but now you are failing the residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Will anyone of these people vote for Senator Specter next time?
I know this twenty something won’t.
Please take the time today to send a message to Senator Specter that this waste of time is no longer acceptable. Please let Senator Specter know that you are disappointed by his action. Please let Senator Specter know that you expect him to reevaluate his priorities as your elected representative.
I don’t care what state you live in, help Pennsylvania voters get the attention of Arlen Specter.
You can contact the Senator on his senate webpage. It will only take a few minutes of your time.
And as always…
My Letter to Senator Arlen Specter:
Dear Senator Specter,
After discovering the link below, I am very concerned as to how you are spending your time in office.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/sports/football/30specter.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
As one of your constituents, I am not concerned about the NFL and what network they choose to air their games. As a consumer, I can choose to make arrangements to see those games or I can choose to follow another sport or league (perhaps the IWFL).
I am actually more concerned that Comcast has been able to block competitors such as Verizon from offering their products in places such as Bristol Township. Does that concern you?
I would much prefer you to spend your time stopping wasteful spending in Washington, protecting the Constitutional rights of your constituents (regardless of their age, gender, race or sexual orientation) and learning about how you can better meet the needs of your Gen Y constituents.
Kind Regards,
Mrs. Dorie A. MorganAlso please note, I will be posting your response at my blog. If you or a member of your staff is interested in joining the discussion my blog can be found at http://www.dorieannmorgan.com
Arlen Specter: If only we were grading by the pound
I received a response this morning from Senator Arlen Specter regarding my comment to him on October 16, 2008.
I will say that this time, the response was substantial. Over 3000 words. If I was a college professor who graded by the pound, this guy would get an “A” and wreck the curve”. Unfortunately for him, if I was a college professor, I would grade based on content. And unforunately for him, he failed to answer what I repeatedly identified as my most important question: What is he doing to help his Gen Y constituents?
Apparently a big ball of nothing.
I’ve posted his response below and the ironic portion can be found in bold. Its a tough read but eye-opening. We need to let our politicians know that responses must be relevant and answer the questions posed to them.
A Final Response from Arlen Specter
Dear Mrs. Morgan:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding your concerns on higher education, as well as the economic rescue package. I appreciate your views on these matters.
The Higher Education Act authorizes Federal government student aid programs, provides assistance to higher education institutions, and offers support services to disadvantaged students to help increase their access to postsecondary education.
I have worked with my Senate colleagues in the 110th Congress to reauthorize the Higher Education Act and consider other legislation that aims to improve the accessibility and affordability of higher education. On July 31, 2008 I voted for the Conference Report on H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2008, which passed the Senate by a vote of 83-8 and was signed into law by the President on August 14, 2008. This bill reauthorizes the Higher Education Act of 1965 and includes additional provisions to help students prepare and pay for postsecondary education. Among the provisions in this bill are mandates on colleges and universities to enhance transparency of tuition information; stricter disclosure rules for student loan lenders; and a simplification of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form. The legislation also authorizes an increase in the annual Pell maximum grant award from $6,000 to $8,000 over 6 years.
Additionally, I supported H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, which passed the Senate on September 7, 2007 by a vote of 79-12. This legislation reduces the federal government’s subsidies to student loan lenders and guarantee agencies in order to support increases in assistance for low-income students and reductions to student borrower fees. H.R. 2669 creates a new program for low-income, Pell-eligible students to be established in addition to the Pell grant program. These new “Promise” grants would essentially supplement discretionary Pell grants funding with mandatory funding. This legislation was signed into law by the President on September 27, 2007.
I have taken the lead on the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education (LHHS) Appropriations Subcommittee to increase funding for programs authorized by the Higher Education Act. Specifically, I have battled to increase the maximum award for Pell grants, the single largest source of grant aid for postsecondary education attendance funded by the Federal government. Today, the maximum discretionary Pell grant award is $4,241. Since FY96, the maximum discretionary award has risen $1,771, or 72%, from $2,470 to $4,241. Additional mandatory funding of $490 provided in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 increases the total (discretionary and mandatory) maximum Pell grant award in FY08 to $4,731.
As either Chairman or Ranking Member of the LHHS Appropriations subcommittee, I have worked to secure funding for other programs that provide services and incentives to disadvantaged students, such as the GEAR UP and TRIO programs. GEAR UP provides tutoring, financial aid counseling and college scholarships to low-income students from the seventh grade through high school graduation. Since the program began in FY99, I have consistently supported increasing funding from the initial $120 million to $303 million in FY08, an increase of $183 million or 153%. In addition, I have advocated for support of the TRIO program, which provides student support services to participants who are from low-income families and are first-generation college students. Federal funding for the TRIO program has increased from $463 million in FY96 to $828 million in FY08, an increase of $365 million or 79%. I have been a strong advocate for our nation’s higher education system, and I will continue to do so throughout my tenure.
I reluctantly supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act because the failure of Congress to act would run the risk of dire consequences, including an economic downturn which could cause more foreclosures, jeopardize retirement accounts, and further restrict credit which is necessary for small businesses to operate. I am philosophically opposed to bailouts. I think that when you have Wall Street entrepreneurs who take big risks to make big profits and they go sour, they ought to sustain the loss themselves and not look to the government for a bailout which ends up in the laps of the taxpayers. However, I supported the plan to avoid economic disaster that would extend well beyond Wall Street.
If financiers knowingly overvalued assets on the books in order to lend more money, then fraud was committed and there will be repercussions. The same goes for individuals who engaged in predatory lending practices. The FBI has already begun investigations into major U.S. financial institutions whose collapse helped trigger this legislation. Moreover, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has held hearings investigating the cause and effect of the AIG bailout, and the cause and effect of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. In the Senate, the Banking Committee as well as other appropriate committees, including the Judiciary Committee where I serve as Ranking Member, will continue to examine how this happened with an eye on holding those who led us to this point accountable.
From the outset, I cautioned against Congress’s rushing to judgment. When the initial proposal was made in mid-September, I wrote to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell by letter dated September 21, 2008 urging we take the time necessary to get the legislation right. By letter dated September 23, 2008, I wrote to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asking a series of questions which have not yet been answered. Then by letter dated September 27, 2008, accompanied by a Senate floor statement, I made a series of suggestions to the executive and legislative negotiators. Again, there has been insufficient time for a reply. Copies of these letters are available on my website: http://specter.senate.gov.Whenever we deviate from regular order which has been developed during more than 200 years of serving our country very well, we are on thin ice. On regular order, the legislative process customarily begins with a bill which members of Congress can study and analyze. After the legislation is in hand, there are hearings with proponents and opponents of the bill and an opportunity for members to examine, really cross examine, to get to the heart of the issues and alternatives. Regular order calls for a markup in the committee of jurisdiction going over the language line by line with an opportunity to make changes with votes on those proposed modifications. Then the committee files a report which is reviewed by members in advance of floor action where amendments can be offered and debate occurs. The action by each house is then subjected to further refinement by a conference committee which makes the presentment to the President for yet another line of review. The process used to finalize this legislation drastically shortcut regular order.
The legislation passed by the Senate is enormously improved over the first Paulson proposal. The $700 billion is not to be authorized immediately, but instead there are installments of $250 billion, $100 billion at the request of the president and $350 billion more subject to congressional objection, although the latter phase may be unconstitutional under INS v. Chadha, which requires following regular legislative process with passage by both houses and Presidential approval to overrule Presidential action and perhaps inferentially legislative conditions. For protection of the taxpayers, the proposal contains a provision that if the government does not regain its money after five years, the President would be required to submit a plan for compensating the Treasury “from entities benefiting from the programs.” While that provision is a far way from a guarantee or even assurances that such recovery legislation would be enacted, it gives some important comfort to the taxpayers’ position.
There are provisions for multiple layers of oversight including a Financial Stability Oversight Board that will meet monthly to oversee the program. The Treasury Secretary will be required to report to Congress on a regular basis on the actions taken, along with a detailed financial statement. These reports will include information on each of the agreements made, insurance contracts entered into, and the nature of the asset purchased and projected costs and liabilities. Additional oversight will be provided by the Comptroller General (reports to Congress), a new Inspector General (audits and quarterly reports), a congressionally-appointed oversight panel (market and regulatory review, and reports to Congress on the program and the effectiveness of foreclosure mitigation efforts), and by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (cost estimates). A report will be required from the Secretary of the Treasury with an analysis of the current financial regulatory framework and recommendations for improvements.
There are substantial limitations on having benefits for entities which created the problem and limitations on executive pay. In cases where financial institutions sell troubled assets directly to the government with no competitive bidding and where the government receives a meaningful equity position, the legislation states that, until that equity stake is sold, executives would not get incentives “to take unnecessary and excessive risks” and would have to give up or repay bonuses or other incentives based on financial statements that “are later proven to be materially inaccurate.” The bill also would prohibit “any golden parachute payment to senior executives.”
The legislation is less stringent in provisions for financial institutions that sell their assets to the government through an auction. Such provisions would apply only to companies that sell more than $300 million in assets and would subject companies and employees to extra taxes. Corporations would not be able to deduct any salary or deferred compensation of more than $500,000, and top executives would face a 20% excise tax on golden parachute payments if they left for any reason other than retirement. In evaluating limitations on executive salaries, it is relevant to note that the Institute for Public Studies found that chief executives of large U.S. companies made an average of $10.5 million last year. That is more than 300 times the pay of the average worker.
The final proposal does provide for debt insurance, as advocated for by House Republicans, but leaves it to the Secretary of the Treasury to utilize that approach so it seems unlikely that it will be implemented in light of the fact that Secretary Paulson has bluntly stated his disagreement with it. Had there been floor amendments, Congress could have structured standards for utilization of debt insurance.
Had we followed regular order with an opportunity to propose amendments, consideration could have been given to my proposal, S.2133, which would have authorized the bankruptcy courts to restructure interest and scheduling of payments. The so-called variable rate mortgages have confronted many homeowners with the surprise that original payments, illustratively, of $1200 a month were soon raised to $2000 which resulted in defaults. Individualized examination by the bankruptcy courts might show misrepresentation or even fraud to justify revising the interest payments and rearranging the payment schedule. Or consideration could have been given to Senator Durbin’s proposed legislation, S.2136, which would have authorized the bankruptcy courts to reset the principal balance depending on the value of the home. I opposed that bill because I thought it would discourage future lending, and in the long run raise the cost to homebuyers. But at least, following regular order, there would have been an opportunity to consider Senator Durbin’s proposal as well as my suggested legislation.
The legislation contains authority for the Treasury Secretary to compensate foreign central banks under some conditions. It provides that troubled assets held by foreign financial authorities and banks are eligible for the Toxic Assets Recover Program (TARP) if the banks hold such assets as a result of having extended financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted. Had there been an opportunity for floor debate, that provision might have been sufficiently unpopular to be rejected or at least sharply circumscribed with conditions.
As a step to help keep borrowers in their homes, I proposed language found in Section 119 (b) of the bill to address the concern that some loan servicers have been reluctant to modify home mortgage loan terms because they fear litigation from investors who hold securities or other vehicles backed by the mortgage in question. The loan servicers have a legal duty to the investors to maximize the return on their investments. In testimony on December 6, 2007, before the House Committee on Financial Services, Mark Pearce, speaking on behalf of the conference of State Bank supervisors, discussed a meeting with the top 20 subprime servicers. He explained that “many of them brought up fear of investor lawsuits” as a hurdle to voluntary loan modification efforts. Because the rescue legislation encourages the government to seek voluntary loan modifications, it is important to remove any impediments to such modifications. To that end, the language provides a legal safe harbor for mortgage servicers making loan modifications, if the loan modifiers take reasonable mitigation steps, including accepting partial payments from homeowners.
On reforms to prevent a recurrence of this crisis, we need to question whether the rating agencies adequately analyzed mortgage-backed securities before issuing investment-grade ratings. These agencies appear to have failed. In July of 2007, when it became apparent that ratings issued by the big three rating agencies-Moody’s, S&P and Fitch- could not be relied upon, I urged the relevant committees to look into the ratings that those agencies issued in recent years regarding mortgage-backed securities. Financial institutions that issue asset-backed securities obtain ratings for such securities. The failure to issue reliable ratings misrepresented the facts and fed the ability of financial institutions to tout the value of securities even though their value was declining. Congress and the regulators need to take up the rating agencies issue, and consider whether ratings agencies that have utterly failed to detect and reflect the risks associated with the securities they were rating should be accorded any reliance or role in our financial system. Some have suggested they should be regulated and we may need to consider that.
In addition, Congress and the regulators should review “off-balance sheet” transactions and leveraging. There should be a close examination on whether banks are sufficiently transparent and providing accurate accounting that truly reflects risk and leverage. Similarly there should be a review on Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are privately traded derivatives contracts that have ballooned to make up what is a $2 trillion dollar market according to the Bank of International Settlements. They are a fast-growing major type of financial derivative. Many experts assert that they have played a critical role in this financial crisis as various financial players believed that they were safe because they thought CDS fully insured or protected them, but the CDS market is unregulated and no one really knows what exposure everyone else has from the CDS contracts. Consideration should be given to subjecting all over-the-counter derivatives onto a regulated exchange similar to that used by listed options in the equity markets.
Overleveraging has been a contributing factor in the turmoil that now threatens our financial institutions. We have seen a massive expansion of the practice of leveraged financial institutions (banks, investment banks, and hedge funds) making investments with borrowed money. In turn, they borrow more money by using the assets they just purchased as collateral. This sequence is continued again and again. The financial system, in its efforts to deleverage, is contracting credit. They must guard against future losses by holding more capital. Deleveraging is leading to difficulty on Main Street for individuals seeking to get a mortgage or buy a car. If a financial institution is able to unload its toxic assets onto the government, it will again be able to resume its lending activities that are crucial for economic growth in the United States. Unfortunately, much of the financial crisis has arisen from miscalculations of the risks involved with purchasing large amounts of securities backed by subprime mortgages and other toxic assets. We now see a situation where we are not just talking about a handful of firms. This is a widespread problem that should be addressed by this package and in future reforms of our financial regulatory structure.In addition, the package crafted by Senate leaders includes two notable changes from the version that was rejected by the House on Monday. It includes a tax package that was previously passed in the Senate by a vote of 93-2 on September 23, 2008, but has since been rejected by the House in a dispute over revenue offsets. It includes tax incentives for wind, solar, biomass, and other alternative energy technologies. It also includes critically important relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, which threatens to raise the tax liability of over 22 million unintended filers in 2008 if no action is taken. Finally, the package includes a host of provisions that either expired in 2007 or are set to expire in 2008, including the research and development tax credit, the IRA Charitable Rollover, rail line improvement incentives, and quicker restaurant and retail depreciation schedules. I supported the Senate-passed tax extenders bill because it struck a responsible balance on the issue of revenue raising offsets.
The package also includes a provision to temporarily increase the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance limit to $250,000. Currently, the FDIC provides deposit insurance which guarantees the safety of checking and savings deposits in member banks, up to $100,000 per depositor per bank. Member banks pay a fee to participate. The current $100,000 limit has been unchanged since 1980 despite inflation. This approach is supported by both Senator McCain and Senator Obama, by House Republicans, and by the FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. Raising the cap could stem a potential run on deposits by bank customers, particularly businesses, who fear losing their money. Such fears contributed to the collapse of Washington Mutual and Wachovia Bank.
Congress has been called upon to make the best of a very bad situation. Careful oversight of the authority given to the Treasury Department will need to be undertaken, and a review of our regulatory structure will be necessary as we move forward.
Thank you also for expressing your concerns regarding the future of social security. I have long been a supporter of efforts to honor the commitments made to senior citizens through the Social Security system. The Social Security program represents a vital social compact between the federal government and our nation’s aging population. As the baby boom population ages and enters into retirement, the need for Social Security reform becomes even more urgent. I believe any restructuring of the Social Security system must ensure that no paying individual be denied benefits or be removed from the Social Security rolls.
I am concerned about the potential insolvency of Social Security, which, according to the March 2008 Social Security Trustees report, could be as early as 2041. Even sooner, in 2017, cash-flow deficits are projected to begin. In other words, benefit payout will exceed incoming revenue and surpluses will end. In order to continue paying 100 percent of scheduled benefits, the Social Security Administration will need to begin redeeming its accumulated trust fund bonds from the Treasury.I have supported so-called “lockbox” legislation that addresses the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. This “lockbox” would require that any Social Security surplus funds be utilized solely for Social Security and would include budget mechanisms to ensure that Social Security revenues are not used for other purposes. I believe including Social Security surpluses in the budget is an artificial way to balance the budget because they are, in effect, a trust fund to pay Social Security recipients in the future. By invading the trust fund, we are spending more than we can afford and postponing current debt in the hope of finding a way to pay Social Security recipients when the due date arises. During consideration of the FY09 budget resolution I supported several amendments to prevent usage of the trust fund surpluses for anything other than Social Security solvency.
I did not take a position on the President’s plan for Social Security that was laid out in 2005, because I think Congress must review the details of a proposal before an evaluation can be made. I am prepared to examine any reform plan suggested by the Administration or members of Congress. When meaningful legislation is presented, I will remain committed to the bedrock principle that Social Security must be structured so that all workers, young and old, will have the benefits on which they have come to rely.
Again, thank you for contacting me on these important issues. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
Recent Comments