So evidently Allen voted for the bailout package and Michaud voted against it.

[mainegreen]

I gotta say, I'm not surprised how Allen voted, but I am a little surprised (and pleased frankly) about Michaud's vote.

No link, but I heard it on NPR this morning.

[MaineDem]

1. Here's a link

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=213073&ac=PHnws

Maine's Democratic U.S. representatives landed on opposite sides of the financial bailout bill Monday, as constituents besieged them with calls on an issue fraught with political as well as economic risks.

Rep. Tom Allen, who hopes to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins this fall, was among 140 Democrats who supported the bailout bill.

Rep. Mike Michaud, who is facing a challenge in Maine's 2nd Congressional District from John Frary, a retired professor, was among the 95 Democrats who opposed it.

Sixty-five Republicans supported the measure and 133 voted against it.

Spokesmen for both congressmen said they had been inundated with calls from constituents.

"Initially, they were almost unanimously in opposition to what the president has proposed," said Mark Sullivan, Allen's communications director. "In the last couple of days, the tide has changed, and we have been getting as many, if not more, people supporting the package."

Monica Castellanos, press secretary for Michaud, said his offices had received more than 2,000 calls and e-mails, with 90 percent opposed to the bailout.

Allen expressed disappointment in the House vote, which he said put the nation's economic security at risk.

"It is unconscionable that the House failed to reach consensus on legislation to stabilize financial markets as America stands on the brink of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s," he said in a prepared statement.

Michaud said in a written statement that there were other proposals that offered better protections for taxpayers, but Congress wasn't given the chance to consider them.

[luckyleftyme2]

2. if I were a congressman

Iwould consider after the response from the other side of the aisle seriously playing hardball and voting no. the right is playing it for the election and if the left doesn't respond strongly the right will win. and there will be no change then!

[tburnsten]

3. I don't think this is a left vs right issue

It was a terrible plan, the fact that we have to get something done in the very near future to keep homeowners owning their homes and prevent our financial industry from crashing doesn't mean we should just do whatever poorly thought out plan appears first.

Apparently a major (unadvertised) part of the plan was to give Secretary Paulson almost total control over the money, with little to no oversight. Great idea.


I actually think greatly reducing tax rates on businesses would be the way to go, since that would give the companies a far greater amount of breathing room so they won't go under while getting their affairs in order, and also many businesses that aren't in all that much trouble would be able to expand, creating jobs and hopefully working wonders to help stabilize the communities they are located in.


I don't know, maybe I'm wrong but there is a reason so many large businesses are sending their business overseas, and small businesses don't make it. And I think it would help all of us if our damn income tax rate would get reduced a little. I am losing about thirty percent of my income to taxes, and I only make around 33 thousand a year before taxes.

[MaineDem]

4. Both Senators voted for the revised plan last night

The House should get to vote again on Friday.

[mainegreen]

5. Last I heard, Allen got a bit of a spanking from the electorate for voting for it.

See how he votes this time.

[NorthernSpy]

6. Michaud holds firm -- votes against the bailout again!

And he gives his reasons:

(snip)


I ultimately voted against the bill for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I believe the bill provides a meaningless check on the White House’s ability to spend the full $700 billion. Though the bill divided spending authority into parts, Congress has no real say in it. More specifically, unless Congress passes, by veto proof majorities in both chambers, a resolution disapproving the Administration’s request to spend more, the White House is free to spend. When it’s $700 billion of the taxpayers’ money on the line there should be serious accountability provisions included.

The provisions to pay taxpayers back are little more than fantasy. The legislation merely requires that a future president propose a bill five years from now to pay for the losses incurred by the taxpayers. If repaying the taxpayer was important, there should have been an ironclad repayment provision written into the text of this bill. I do not have faith that Congress, five years from now, will vote to pass a multi-billion dollar tax increase on Wall Street.

As you read the text of the final bill, it actually recognizes the severe impact this plan will have on future generations. The bill includes a provision that raises our current debt ceiling to an astonishing $11.3 trillion. The bill even allows for the bailing out of foreign investors, with no guarantee of reinvestment in the United States. Maine taxpayers deserve better.

Unfortunately, when the House initially rejected the plan, the Senate’s answer was to add new spending and tax breaks into the bill, including tax extenders to make wooden arrows for children and excise tax relief for rum from Puerto Rico. These tax extenders are outrageous to include in a bill that was supposed to be devoted to addressing the credit crisis.

That's just a portion of his statement. The rest is at his Congressional site.

[Angsty]

7. Bailout

This wasn't a Republican vs Democrat issue - it was Elite vs Non-Elite. Thank you for looking out for us, Mike! Tom... you're lucky Collins voted for it, too.