So many blogging ideas and too many other things to do while visiting up to The Big City while our daughter does a three day, 60 mile cancer association walk. But had to get this one posted in a timely manner.

The Senate passed the bailout - but with hundreds of millions of pork added on. Traitors are supposed to be hung, aren't they? Go Bull Moose Party!

And here is Congresswoman Drake's response to my email about her vote. She voted against the second time, also. Do not agree but it is a valid response and deserves equal time. She is right but ....

"Over the past several weeks, we have seen dramatic upheaval on Wall Street amongst our nation's financial institutions. Let me be clear, I do not take lightly the critical nature of the credit crisis that our markets face today. I am also conscious of the situation that every American could face should our credit markets collapse. I have spent significant time researching the issues and listening to financial, government and business leaders in my district and in Washington. Furthermore, my office has been inundated with comments from constituents with over 90% of them opposed to a bailout. In fact, I have never experienced such fervent opposition to a piece of legislation while serving in Congress. While I understand and respect the views of those who support the package, I did not support it and I would like to use this letter to explain my votes.

I did not support the Administration's original proposal, which provided the Treasury Secretary with $700 billion of taxpayer money and new blanket authority to purchase bad mortgage securities from financial institutions in an effort to free up credit in the marketplace. That proposal contained little if any protections for taxpayers, provided no independent oversight or Congressional input, did not seek to address the issues of excessive executive compensation, bonuses, or "golden parachutes", and provided little to ensure that the taxpayers could share in any gains realized by firms who participated in the program. Republicans in the House worked diligently to improve the proposal by addressing these concerns and removing some of the most egregious provisions, such as a slush fund of taxpayer money for political advocacy groups. Eventually, when the bill was taken up in the Senate, a package of extended tax breaks -including a patch of the Alternative Minimum Tax and legislation to create mental health parity in health insurance coverage- were included in the bill. While I support all of these provisions and have voted in their favor in the past, the underlying proposal remained the same and therefore my concerns remained the same.

While the bill is expected to provide liquidity in the credit markets by buying up illiquid assets and bad mortgage securities, the bill still does nothing to address the root causes of today's market difficulties. It does not address the regulatory concerns in the financial marketplace in a significant way. It does not address concerns of undercapitalization at our nation's financial institutions. It does not give the agencies with jurisdiction over the financial marketplace the updated tools and mechanisms they need to meet the oversight demands of the 21st Century global financial economy. Furthermore, both supporters and opponents of the package agree that the bill still poses enormous risk to the taxpayer with no guarantee that this current situation will not simply repeat itself. Therefore, I could not support the bill and subsequently voted against it.

Over the past decade, we have seen enormous growth in private profit and wealth. However, the American people are now being asked to take on enormous public debt to deal with private losses. Socializing economic risks come at a great cost to the American economy by misallocating capital, inviting political manipulation, and putting taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars. Such a large takeover by the government will surely be accompanied by adverse, unintended consequences and if the government incurs $700 billion in debt to finance the purchase of bad bank assets, the danger that it will trigger dramatic inflation is very worrisome. The long-term affects of this bill, including inflation, a weaker dollar, and an even more precarious federal balance sheet, could easily outweigh the short-term stabilization of financial markets.

I support providing credit relief. I know that we need to get our credit markets working again. However, I did not believe the only option to address this problem is to use taxpayer dollars in the way this package demanded and neither did many of my colleagues both Republican and Democrat. Unfortunately, Congress missed an opportunity to come together to fully examine the issue, consider alternatives and develop a comprehensive solution that all Members could support. With this being one of the largest domestic issues facing the country today, the American people deserved a deliberate process to look at the best way to deal with current concerns.

As you know, the package ultimately was passed by both the House and Senate and was sent to the President for his signature into law. I am truly hopeful that taxpayers will be able recoup their money from this action as supporters of the package have asserted. Regardless, Congress now has a responsibility to address the root causes of the current problem and there is plenty of work to be done. Congress must act deliberately and diligently, take its time, hold appropriate hearings, and then consider the appropriate course of action to address the concerns in the marketplace. I look forward to being a part of that process and I look forward to hearing more from you on these critical issues."

Even though I disagree with her on too many issues, Congresswoman Drake seems responsible and reasonable. She does respond quickly, canned of course but a good response nontheless.

Go to Congress.org and let your employees know what you think.