Inhofe National Review Online Op-Ed: Take It Back

Inhofe National Review Online Op-Ed: Take It Back
Senator Inhofe Delivers Floor Speech on Halting Handout of Bailout Funds
Inhofe: Roll Back the Bailout
Hostile Green Takeover: The Auto Industry Faces Environmental Thuggery
INHOFE LEGISLATION COMMEMORATES ARMY
INHOFE HITS THE AIRWAVES TO DISCUSS NEED TO FREEZE BAILOUT
In the News...Inhofe - Cancel the Blank Check
In the News...Kudlow and Inhofe: Enough is Enough - Freeze the Bailout, Stop the Madness
Enid302 N IndependenceSuite 104Enid, OK 73701(580) 234-5105Map this Directions ToWashington D.C. Office
McAlester215 E Choctaw AveSuite 106McAlester, OK 74501(918) 426-0933Map this Directions ToWashington D.C. Office
Oklahoma City1900 NW Expressway StSuite 1210Oklahoma City, OK 73118(405) 608-4381Map this Directions ToWashington D.C. Office
Tulsa1924 S. Utica AvenueSuite 530Tulsa, OK 74104(918) 748-5111Map this Directions ToWashington D.C. Office
Washington453 Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510(202) 224-4721Map this Directions ToWashington D.C. Office
Inhofe National Review Online Op-Ed: Take It Back
National Review Online Take It Back By Jim Inhofe November 21, 2008 The government must begin the process of extricating itself from the financial sector of our economy. The events which have occurred since passage of the financial "rescue program" last month should concern every American who cares about the integrity of our system of government and how it does its business. Congress entrusted one unelected official with the unprecedented power to distribute $700 billion-no strings attached. This Congress has set an extremely dangerous precedent, but it also has a chance for redemption. Treasury Secretary Paulson recently came before Congress and said that if he wasn't immediately empowered with his plan to buy $700 billion worth of troubled assets we would all be held responsible for the cataclysmic consequences of not "doing something." Then the plan wasn't troubled assets anymore. The new plan was taking positions in major banks. Then we learned that the plan to buy troubled assets had been entirely abandoned and that we should stay tuned for the new plan involving consumer credit markets. Now we learn that the new plan is no plan for the remaining $350 billion of the original $700 billion. The money is to be available for "flexibility." With all due respect, I don't think "flexibility" and "$350 billion in taxpayer dollars" belong in the same sentence. The original justification for granting unprecedented authority to the Treasury Secretary was to prevent a financial meltdown that could drag us into a Depression-like scenario. Last week, Secretary Paulson stated in an interview on CNBC that "the financial markets have been stabilized." That's good news, but the question then becomes: If the threat of an all-out financial calamity dragging us back to the 1930s has subsided, should the unprecedented authority to prevent it subside as well? Congress gave Secretary Paulson the $700 billion in two installments of $350 billion. The first has been used and the second has not. If the financial markets, though still troubled in many ways, are stable, Congress needs to remove the authority for the second $350 billion dollar installment. The American people have been shocked, and frankly disgusted, to watch their government spend $4.28 trillion dollars (the total spent by the Fed, Treasury, and Congress) to bailout institutions that only last year showered their top executives in cash. At the same time, we are about to confront an unheard of $1 trillion deficit this year alone. Since there is no plan for this money, and the crisis for which its availability was made no longer threatens us with absolute economic devastation, perhaps it should not be added to the deficit. There comes a time when you have to draw the line in the sand. That time is now, and the line I am drawing is refunding the remaining $350 billion to the American taxpayer by removing the authority to spend it. Of the many reasons why I voted against the bailout last month, there are two I would like to note here. The first was that it set the precedent that any troubled industry could lobby for bailouts and handouts. The second was that we were handing over $700 billion to essentially one man to spend as he sees fit. This was something we had never done before in our history, and I didn't think it would be good for our system of government. It's my hope that the events of the past few weeks have convinced some of my colleagues that these are good reasons to take a second look at what we have done and to reverse our present course. We have the opportunity to do so during the lame duck session. This Congress has the opportunity to show American taxpayers that its government still cares about them, too, and it can do that by taking back what's left of the $700 billion. Doing so just might help the American people have a little more confidence in the integrity of our institutions and the common sense of our leaders. The greatest threat to our economy is not some obscure divergence of bond yields anymore. By far the greatest threat to economic growth and prosperity in the years to come is the extent to which the government has recently entangled itself in the marketplace. The government must immediately begin the process of extricating itself from the financial sector of our economy. Let's begin that process. This has been and will continue to be a difficult time for all Americans. The unwinding of past mistakes is never a pleasant process. However, many of us believe additional government attempts to make that process more pleasant will not only be futile, but will also move this country further from those first principles that have made us the great nation we are today.
Senator Inhofe Delivers Floor Speech on Halting Handout of Bailout Funds
On Monday, November 17, 2008 Senator Inhofe introduced legislation to amend Section 115 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) to require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury's plan for the remaining $350 billion and require a freeze on any remaining funds of the first $350 billion, stating, "It is imperative that we not allow that amount of money to be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion this year without any input from the legislative branch." In a speech on the Senate Floor, Senator Inhofe went on to say, "Congress completely abdicated its responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary. However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it." "Though there are still significant challenges in financial markets, it appears that the threat of financial crisis spinning so out of control that we face another Great Depression-which was the original justification for the grant of such sweeping authority-has subsided. Has the need to allow one person to control hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and spend as he sees fit subsided as well? I've never seen in my entire career of public service anything like the spectacle we are now witnessing. Is it unreasonable to ask whether or not the additional $350 billion should not be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion? Congress should have a debate." The full text of Senator Inhofe's speech as prepared for delivery is below: Given the recent news about Secretary Paulson's execution of the TARP program, I firmly believe action is required by Congress. This morning I introduced S.3683, legislation that will freeze any remaining funds from the first installment of the $700 billion and require Secretary Paulson's plan for the remaining $350 billion in authorized TARP funds to be ratified by an affirmative vote in the U.S. Congress. When Secretary Paulson fist came to the Senate and explained his plan in a conference call on September 19th, I asked a few questions about his proposal. How are you going to determine which assets to buy? At what price? From which institutions? In what manner? Secretary Paulson didn't have any answers to those questions at the time, and they were never satisfactorily answered throughout the entire debate, if one can call it that, of the bailout bill. In my statement opposing the Paulson Plan last month, I laid out three primary reasons why I voted 'no'. The first is that I wasn't convinced that the asset purchase program was the right way to do this. The second is that it would lead to increased lobbying for handouts and bailouts by any industry facing financial trouble. And third, that we were handing over $700 billion to essentially one man to spend as he sees fit, something that has never happened before in American history. It's not the way our government is supposed to work. I stated at the time that my vote was against the Paulson Plan - not against taking extraordinary action to provide necessary confidence to financial markets. As I said, "The Paulson plan would have Washington take $700 billion worth of toxic Wall Street assets from financial firms' balance sheets and put them on the balance sheet of the federal government.... I'm not confident in its success." The critics were right. On October 14th, in a significant shift, Treasury outlined a plan to directly purchase equity stakes in major financial institutions. The Wall Street Journal noted "critics...say Treasury should have formulated a comprehensive plan earlier in the crisis." This past week, Secretary Paulson announced that he has completed a remarkable about -face, as summarized by November 13th Investor's Business Daily front page headline, which read, "In Major Reversal, Treasury Won't Buy Bad Mortgage Debt." This is a complete reversal. Why did Paulson reverse course? Last Thursday's Los Angeles Times provides the answer: "Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson's decision to abandon plans to buy troubled bank assets shows that he has come to two conclusions about what was once the chief focus of the government's $700-billion bailout: The first is that it wouldn't work." I know many of you have serious concerns about how Secretary Paulson has executed the financial rescue program and I share them with you. Congress completely abdicated its responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary. However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it. During the lame duck session, if Secretary Paulson submits his plan to Congress in order to access the remaining $350 billion while we are in session, a doubtful prospect, we could immediately introduce the disapproval resolution pursuant to Section 115 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and push for its enactment. This is unlikely to happen, however. Furthermore, the experts on the matter tell me that the law is ambiguous as to whether Congress would be forced to return to Washington for consideration of a disapproval resolution if Treasury submitted his plan while Congress is adjourned and avoid debate. I have therefore introduced S.3683, legislation to do two things: First, it will amend Section 115 of the EESA to require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury's plan for the remaining $350 billion, instead of the current statutory process which gives the Secretary far too much latitude. Second, it will require a freeze on any remaining funds of the first $350 billion. It is imperative that we not allow that amount of money to be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion this year without any input from the legislative branch. Secretary Paulson stated in a CNBC interview at 2:00pm on Friday, November 14th "the financial markets have been stabilized." If that is the case, it is Congress's duty to have a say in what happens with the remaining authorized amount of $350 billion. Paulson came to us in September and said that if he didn't get $700 billion there was no telling how bad things could get. It was a panic scenario. Now that there is no longer an all-out panic in the financial world, it seems to me that the original rationale for the blank check no longer applies. It is clear that it was a mistake to sign a blank check to one man for such a tremendous amount of money. Though there are still significant challenges in financial markets, it appears that the threat of financial crisis spinning so out of control that we face another Great Depression-which was the original justification for the grant of such sweeping authority-has subsided. Has the need to allow one person to control hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and spend as he sees fit subsided as well? I've never seen in my entire career of public service anything like the spectacle we are now witnessing. Is it unreasonable to ask whether or not the additional $350 billion should not be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion? Congress should have a debate. I fully understand the severity of the ongoing financial crisis that erupted this past year. I am also fully aware of the need to take extraordinary action in such situations. From the rescue of Bear Stearns in March to the announcement of the bank equity purchase program in mid-October, the U.S. government has indeed undertaken an extraordinary effort to calm financial markets. In addition, it is likely that the country is about to endure a recession that, though the severity of it is unknown at this point, will likely be more severe than the last two. However, it is clear to me and many of my colleagues that Treasury accessing the remaining $350 billion will do little to avert or ameliorate what is to come. It is time for the U.S. government to cease announcements of new programs or plans designed to inject confidence in markets. Moreover, I think confidence would be better instilled by halting the capricious manner in which the rescue program has been executed. I understand the need to move in accordance with changing conditions. I simply think the time has come to stop. One of the major causes of this crisis was the accumulation of far too much debt on the part of some financial institutions. The U.S. government can make the same mistake. We are now anticipating an astounding $1 trillion deficit for this year alone. This truly massive debt accumulation poses a serious inflationary threat to future stability and economic growth. It too needs to stop. By far the greatest threat to economic growth and prosperity in the years to come is the extent to which the government has recently entangled itself in the marketplace. The government must immediately begin the process of extricating itself from the financial sector of our economy. Many very smart people made some very poor decisions that will continue to cause economic hardship for some time. It is my firm belief, however, that more government attempts to prevent that hardship will not only be futile, but will also move this country further from those first principles which have made us the great nation we are today. In the meantime we are doing the typical bureaucratic Washington things, such as arguing over whether the Senate banking or Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction and discussing confirmation of an inspector general who we will need to debate and confirm. I would note that Senator Grassley is calling for investigations right now, so there are clearly others who are concerned about transparency and accountability while we are thinking about appointments and confirmation processes. I would also note that the current inspector general of the US Treasury, Eric Thorson, was quoted in a Washington Post article saying this program is "a mess" and went on to say ""I don't think anyone understands right now how we're going to do proper oversight of this thing." There isn't time to do these things the way we usually do them. We have got to stop the bleeding now and the way to do that is S.3683.
Inhofe: Roll Back the Bailout
Senator Inhofe also wrote to his Senate colleagues to push for legislation that will require Secretary Paulson's plan for the remaining $350 billion in authorized Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to be ratified by an affirmative vote in the U.S. Congress. In the letter, Senator Inhofe writes that the lame duck session provides Congress a tremendous opportunity to change course. Below is the text of the letter. Dear Colleague, I write to inform you of the actions I will be taking during the lame duck session of Congress regarding the funding status of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Given the recent news about Secretary Paulson's execution of the TARP program, I firmly believe action is required by Congress. I plan to push for legislation that will require Secretary Paulson's plan for the remaining $350 billion in authorized TARP funds to be ratified by an affirmative vote in the U.S. Congress. In my statement opposing the Paulson Plan last month, I laid out two primary reasons why I voted 'no.' The first is that I wasn't convinced that asset-purchase program was the right way to do this, and the second is that it would lead to increased lobbying for handouts and bailouts by any industry facing financial trouble. I stated at the time that my vote was against the Paulson plan - not against taking extraordinary action to provide necessary confidence to financial markets. I stated that "The Paulson plan would have Washington take $700 billion worth of toxic Wall Street assets from financial firms' balance sheets and put them on the balance sheet of the federal government.... I'm not confident in its success." The critics were right. On October 14th, in a significant shift, Treasury outlined a plan to directly purchase equity stakes in of major financial institutions. The Wall Street Journal noted that "critics...say Treasury should have formulated a comprehensive plan earlier in the crisis." This past week, Secretary Paulson announced that he has completed a remarkable about face, as summarized by November 13th Investor's Business Daily front page headline, which read, "In Major Reversal, Treasury Won't Buy Bad Mortgage Debt." This is a complete reversal. Why did Paulson reverse course? Thursday's Los Angeles Times provides the answer. "Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson's decision to abandon plans to buy troubled bank assets shows that he has come to two conclusions about what was once the chief focus of the government's $700-billion bailout: The first is that it wouldn't work." I know many of you have serious concerns about how Secretary Paulson has executed the financial rescue program and I share them with you. Congress abdicated its Constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary. However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it. During the lame duck session, I will be taking the following actions. First and foremost, if Secretary Paulson submits his plan to Congress in order to access the remaining $350 billion while we are in session, a doubtful prospect, I plan to immediately introduce the disapproval resolution pursuant to Section 115 of the EESA and push for its enactment. I will also introduce and actively pursue enactment of legislation to do two things: First, it will amend Section 115 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury's plan for the remaining $350 billion, instead of the current statutory process which gives Secretary Paulson far too much latitude. Second, it will require a freeze on any remaining funds of the first $350 billion. It is imperative that we not allow that amount of money to be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion this year without any input from the legislative branch. Secretary Paulson stated in a CNBC interview at 2:00pm on Friday, November 14th that "the financial markets have been stabilized." If that is the case, it is Congress's duty to have a say in what happens with the remaining authorized amount of $350 billion. It is clear that it was a mistake to sign a blank check to one man for such a tremendous amount of money. Though there are still significant challenges in financial markets, it appears that the threat of a catastrophic financial crisis, which was the justification for the grant of such sweeping authority, has subsided. Perhaps the additional $350 billion should not be added to the deficit. Congress should have a debate. I appreciate your time and attention to this matter and look forward to working with you in the coming week. Sincerely, Senator Jim Inhofe
Hostile Green Takeover: The Auto Industry Faces Environmental Thuggery
Senator Inhofe delivered a speech on the Senate Floor on Thursday discussing the Wall Street Journal editorial The Environmental Motor Company. Senator Inhofe's remarks from the Senate Floor: Mr. President, Americans are once again being asked to foot the bill for yet another "urgent" bailout. In October, Congress voted for an unprecedented $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, and now much of the same alarmist rhetoric is being employed to pressure members to act quickly. The latest bailout demand making the rounds in Washington is for the Big Three auto industry. Democrats would have you believe the proposed bailout is all about saving jobs, but, having been in Washington long enough, my instincts led me to dig deeper where I unearthed green roots hiding beneath the bailout rhetoric. It now appears that much of what you have heard in the media about the auto bailout being about "jobs" has been misleading. In fact, there are "usual suspects" working behind the scenes to subvert the auto bailout and ultimately betray auto workers. The facts are these: The proposed $25 billion bailout of Detroit now appears to have been hijacked by the powerful environmental lobby. The November 19 Wall Street Journal asks: "When is $25 billion in taxpayer cash insufficient to bail out Detroit's auto makers?" Answer: "When the money is a tool of Congressional industrial policy to turn GM, Ford and Chrysler into agents of the Sierra Club and other green lobbies." According to the Wall Street Journal, the auto bailout has degenerated into a tool to "make Detroit a subsidiary of the Sierra Club." We hear proponents of the auto bailout endlessly say it's about jobs. But the truth is, this bailout appears to be about environmental lobbies taking over the U.S. auto industry. The Wall Street Journal explains: "In their public statements, proponents describe the bailout as an attempt to save jobs, American manufacturing and the middle-class way of life. But look closely and you can see that what's really going on is an attempt to use taxpayer money to remake Detroit in the image of the modern environmental movement. Given a choice between greens and blue-collar workers, Congress puts the greens first." And just how did this attempt at a green takeover of Detroit come about? Congress approved $25 billion for Detroit earlier this year for "green retooling." President Bush proposed to revise that $25 billion and allow it be used for Detroit's general purposes by eliminating the green conditions. But the Wall Street Journal reported, "Democratic leaders refused. They are insisting instead that the Bush Administration give Detroit another $25 billion in cash." "The Bush Administration's proposal is unacceptable," declared my colleague Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Wall Street Journal asked, "If the problem is so urgent, why keep the green chains on that first $25 billion? GM in particular is saying that it may have to declare bankruptcy by the end of the year without a taxpayer capital injection. Aren't jobs at stake?" But jobs do not appear to be the overriding concern when it comes to the proposed auto bailout. A November 13 commentary in the Chicago Sun-Times bluntly declared that Congress should "attach environmental strings to the Big Three bailout." "The auto industry occupies a critical position, not just in the U.S. economy, but also in the struggle to cope with climate change and the energy crisis. The government has immense leverage right now to force the Big Three to make progress on multiple fronts and should not be afraid to use it," Andrew Leonard wrote in the Sun-Times. "President-elect Barack Obama has spoken many times of his ambitious plans to steer the U.S. toward a future where Americans are driving fuel-efficient cars that run on renewable energy. If the government is going to bail out the auto industry, it should do so only with the explicit requirement that the Big Three accelerate down that road as fast as they can," Leonard demanded. One of the key "green strings" that the environmental lobby wants to impose on Detroit is making the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards more draconian. My colleague, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, wants conditions on the auto bailout that would mandate auto companies increase their average fuel economy to 40 miles per gallon in 10 years and then 50 miles per gallon a mere two years later in 2020. Nelson also reportedly wants requirements for an "increased production of hybrids, flex-fuel and electric vehicles," according to Congress Daily. My colleague, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, has also tied auto bailout money to increased CAFE standards. "Congress should require that the automakers shift to a new business model that focuses on hybrid, electric, and other next generation vehicle technologies," Senator Feinstein wrote on November 14. Senator Feinstein even expands the mandates to include costly global warming concerns by "requiring NHTSA to use the Energy Information Administration (EIA)'s most accurate gasoline price projection and consider global benefits from reducing greenhouse gas emissions when setting CAFE standards." The Wall Street Journal countered with a common sense alternative to increasing CAFE standards. "If Congress wants to ease the immediate burden on Detroit, it could also ease the onerous fleet-mileage standards (CAFE rules) that force the companies to make cars domestically that are unprofitable. A mere tweak would help a lot -- for example, simply allow Detroit to meet CAFE standards by counting the cars it makes at home and abroad. This alone might save Chrysler from bankruptcy. But Congress won't budge on that simple change." This latest bout of environmental thuggery is not an isolated incident. The legislative goals of Democrats and their environmental allies reveal that saving jobs is not their highest priority. President-elect Obama has pledged to grant California a global warming motivated waiver to allow the state to demand its own standards of emission reductions from new autos. This would essentially allow a state by state approach, thus creating a patchwork of regulatory compliance regimes in addition to the federal standard that would be even more costly for automobile manufacturers. The Wall Street Journal summed up this attempted hostile green takeover and the efforts to create an "Environmental Motor Company" this way: "All of this shows that Democrats don't merely want to save jobs. They want an entirely different American auto industry that serves goals other than selling cars to consumers. The green lobbies have disliked Detroit for decades -- for resisting fleet mileage standards and having the audacity to make SUVs, trucks and other vehicles that people have wanted to buy but that violate modern environmental pieties. For the greens, the bailout is their main chance to remake Detroit according to their dictates." The Journal continued: "The more realistic alternative to this utopian green vision is to let GM or Chrysler file for Chapter 11 like any other company that can't pay its bills. The immediate costs would be severe, but at least bankruptcy would provide the political and legal means for them to evolve into smaller, more competitive companies. Taxpayers shouldn't be asked to finance a green industrial policy promoted by lobbyists and Congressmen who know nothing about what it takes to make a car -- much less make a profit."
INHOFE LEGISLATION COMMEMORATES ARMY
Senator Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and co-chair of the Senate Army Caucus, announced on Wednesday the Senate passage of the United States Army Commemorative Coin Act of 2008 (S.2579). The bill, co-sponsored by Senator Inouye (D-HI), authorizes the U.S. Treasury to create a commemorative coin, the proceeds of which will be directed towards building a museum honoring the heritage of the U.S. Army. "As co-chair of the Senate Army Caucus and a former soldier, I am proud to pay tribute to the United States Army, which has dutifully served our nation for over 230 years," Senator Inhofe said. "The Army is the only service branch that currently does not have a national museum honoring its members and veterans. The Commemorative Coin Act will help raise the revenue needed to build a museum dedicated to the men and women who have for so long protected the sovereignty and freedom of our country. The museum will serve to commemorate the enormous sacrifice of our soldiers, and will be a symbol of the Army's dedication to the fight for freedom." The legislation, which passed the Senate on November 17th, would create a series of three coins - a $5 gold coin, a silver dollar and a copper-nickel clad half-dollar. The coin designs will feature motifs honoring the Army's founding, heritage and its role in American society. These would be the first and only United States coins ever issued to honor and celebrate the United States Army in its entirety. Surcharges from the sale of the coins would be reserved for the Army Historical Foundation, for use in helping to fund the National Museum of the United States Army at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
INHOFE HITS THE AIRWAVES TO DISCUSS NEED TO FREEZE BAILOUT
This week, Senator Inhofe has been leading the charge to restore accountability in the financial recovery plan calling on Congress to freeze the Treasury's further spending of the $700 billion bailout funds. With the status of the bailout plan spinning out of control, Senator Inhofe has introduced legislation to require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury's plan for the remaining $350 billion and require a freeze on any remaining funds of the first $350 billion, stating, "Congress completely abdicated its responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary. However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it." Senator Inhofe has been hitting the airwaves drawing public support for his legislation, S.3683, to bring transparency and responsibility back to the government's handling of the current economic crisis. Go to http://www.youtube.com/JimInhofePressoffice to visit Senator Inhofe's new YouTube Channel which hosts video of all of Senator Inhofe's recent appearances and floor statements. Senator Inhofe also conducted several radio interviews that can be found at http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.AudioClips
In the News...Inhofe - Cancel the Blank Check
TULSA WORLD Inhofe: Cancel the 'blank check' He criticizes Henry Paulson for changing the $700 billion bailout plan. by: JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Saturday that Congress was not told the truth about the bailout of the nation's financial system and should take back what is left of the $700 billion "blank check'' it gave the Bush administration. "It is just outrageous that the American people don't know that Congress doesn't know how much money he (Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) has given away to anyone,'' the Oklahoma Republican told the Tulsa World. "It could be to his friends. It could be to anybody else. We don't know. There is no way of knowing.'' Inhofe's comments, unusually pointed even for a senator known for being blunt, come on the heels of Paulson's shift in how he thinks the bailout funds should be spent. Last week the Treasury secretary announced he was abandoning his plan to free up the nation's credit system by buying up toxic assets from troubled financial institutions. Instead, Paulson wants to take a more direct action on the consumer credit front. "He was able to get this authority from Congress predicated on what he was going to do, and then he didn't do it,'' Inhofe said. "So, that's enough reason right there.'' Inhofe recalled earlier comments opposing Paulson's plan because the administration's point man did not have answers for a number of questions. He also recalled questioning the rush to get the bailout passed. "I have learned a long time ago. When they come up and say this has to be done and has to be done immediately, there is no other way of doing it, you have to sit back and take a deep breath and nine times out of 10 they are not telling the truth,'' he said. "And this is one of those nine times.'' Inhofe has laid out his legislative plans for this week on the bailout package in a letter to his Senate colleagues. He wants to freeze what is left of the initial $350 billion - reportedly $60 billion, but Inhofe concedes he does not know for sure. Then he wants a provision requiring an affirmative vote by Congress before Paulson can get his hands on the second $350 billion of bailout money. Current law lays out a scenario where President Bush submits a plan on the second half of the funding. Lawmakers have 15 days to disapprove it, but Inhofe questions that wording. "Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary,'' he wrote. "However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.'' In the interview, the senator said his plans can provide "redemption'' for those senators who supported Paulson. Inhofe's plan appears to be a long shot at this point. Senators originally approved the bailout plan by a 74-25 vote. He does not know how much support he has among his Republican colleagues, and he concedes Democratic leaders could block it. Bush also could veto it if it were to make it out of Congress. Neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office nor the Treasury Department commented. Reid, D-Nev., wants to use the upcoming lame duck session to push economic issues such as extending unemployment benefits and aid to the nation's ailing auto industry. Inhofe opposes both. "You don't stimulate the economy by giving away more money,'' he said. In response to concerns expressed by some that allowing even one of the big automakers to fail would be too much of an economic hit for the nation, Inhofe said reality must be accepted. "If we keep on nursing a broken system, then we can't expect to have a different result come later on,'' he said. "I just think we have to draw the line someplace, and the time is here.''
In the News...Kudlow and Inhofe: Enough is Enough - Freeze the Bailout, Stop the Madness
Renowned economist, host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company and financial commentator, Lawrence Kudlow joined Senator Jim Inhofe's call to change course and put a freeze on the taxpayer dollars being spent on Secretary Paulson's TARP program. Senator Inhofe this week introduced legislation (S.3683) that would freeze unspent bailout funds and ensure Congress votes on any further plans to spend the remaining $350 billion in available TARP funds. Kudlow, who reluctantly supported the initial financial rescue program, agrees with Inhofe that the bailout madness needs to end and that it's time to "stop any new TARP money-period. Enough is enough." Townhall.Com Tarp The TARP By: Lawrence Kudlow Wednesday, November 19, 2008 Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has called for a pause in the financing request for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), halting it at $350 billion. (The original request was for $700 billion.) I think that's an excellent idea. But in a recent hearing of Barney Frank's Financial Services Committee, Democrats went ballistic at the thought of no more TARP money. They want to keep spending. They want to throw money at GM, the other Detroit car makers, plumbers, auto-parts suppliers, homeowners, mortgage problems, and foreclosures. Candy stores all over America now want TARP money. Meanwhile, Senior Obama advisors are talking about another $600 billion to pull us out of recession. Some reports even suggest the development of a new industrial policy for big-government interference in housing, banking, energy, autos, and more. But all this brings up a whole new problem in American finance: How are we going to transport and deliver trillions of dollars of new government money? It's not an easy task. We've moved beyond show me the money. This is throw me the money. And shovels alone won't do. We'll need to convert Caterpillar earth movers into money movers. We'll need new streamlined helicopter fleets to drop money from the sky. We'll need a trucking armada and full use of the railroads. And we'll need an army of smaller trucks and SUVs to reach folks in the off-road areas. And let's not forget FedEx and UPS -- we'll need them to make sure the money arrives on time. We may even need high-level planners at the Department of Transportation to help coordinate this vexing money-delivery problem. Sending out trillions of dollars may sound great to your average liberal Congress member. But this will not be easy. Perhaps the transitioning Obama administration can designate a Transportation Monetary Tsar. These logistical realities must be dealt with. Or maybe there's a better idea: Maybe we take Mr. Paulson at his word but go one step further. Let's stop any new TARP money -- period. Enough is enough. The TARP has already done some good. Banks have more capital. Credit spreads in the money markets are narrowing. And there even are signs that business and consumer loans are flowing once again. So let's cap the TARP -- or tarp the TARP. The new congressional Keynesians believe government can spend us into prosperity. They're wrong. Everything we have learned in the last four decades tells us that governments don't create permanent new jobs or capital investment. In fact, the more we spend, the more we'll have to raise tax rates. And that depresses growth. Europe went down this road and failed. So did Latin America and parts of Asia before they wised up. And for some reason no one in Washington is talking about cutting tax rates, which would strengthen incentives to work, invest, and take new business risks. We should be making it pay more after tax for entrepreneurial activity of all kinds. How about this: Let's get back on the path of free-market capitalism. Even at the G-20 meeting in Washington this past weekend, all one heard was "global fiscal stimulus" -- or more spending on a worldwide scale to fight recession. It won't work. It never has. Hundreds of academic studies over the past 25 years show clearly that countries that spend more, grow less; but that nations that tax less, grow more. Why these lessons have been forgotten is beyond me. We have to restore market discipline and personal accountability. We should reward the economic good, but punish the bad. Instead we have launched a demoralizing government-spending nymphomania. Incidentally, all this talk of big-government bailouts and a never-ending flow of government spending has disheartened the stock market, which is now down five of the past seven days. Since the November 4 election, the Dow is off 15 percent, or more than 1,400 points. All this shows why, like the grounds crew at a baseball stadium on a rainy evening, we need to roll out the tarpaulin in order to preserve the field. To safeguard today's economic field, it's time to tarp the TARP. Let's stop right here at $350 billion before everyone in the country demands a piece of the new TARP action. At the same time, let's cut taxes to grow the economy. Slash the corporate tax rate. Reduce personal rates across-the-board. Promote investment with a lower capital-gains tax and a lower estate tax. Let's restore the incentive model of economic growth. Current political trends in Washington are gonna push us off some left-wing economic cliff. Instead, let's have some sanity. It's time for a reality check about what works and what doesn't in fighting recession and promoting long-term economic growth. I say tarp the TARP.