Every week, 2,000 - 3,000 Second District residents write to me about the issues pending before Congress, and I work hard to respond to each person as promptly and thoughtfully as possible. On this "Letter of the Week" blog, I highlight constituent letters that are of general interest. If you'd like to share your own views, please feel free to e-mail me at any time!

Dear Nancy,

I oppose any bailout associated with the current financial crisis. I believe that the proposed bailout is a short term solution and that we will be asked to bailout others later. Let those companies fail that made bad business decisions. The fall out will be short term and then the economy can get back on sound footing. Small businesses in Kansas, like mine, would not receive any bailout if we were to fail. Because a business is large, is not a reason for the taxpayer to come to their rescue. Please vote against any bill that would provide for a bailout of these companies that have gotten themselves into this mess.

John from Manhattan, KS.

Dear John,

Our country is facing some very difficult decisions.  We are certainly in challenging economic times, and we must be extremely careful with our resources.  There are no clear paths forward; each has significant risks.
 
I voted against the bailout.  The vote failed 228 no to 205 yes.  I know we face turmoil in the markets, and we need to do something to stabilize them.  I spoke to many economists this past week.  And every time I asked the question, “Do you think this will work?” they look away. They actually break eye contact with me and come back and say they’re not sure.  I’m not asking for a guarantee, only “Do you think it will work?”  And not one would say they think that this will work. What every economist agrees on is there are several other options that have a higher probability of success at less risk to the taxpayer.

This bill tried to solve our economic problems from the top down, instead of the middle up.  Four hundred economists, including three Nobel laureates suggested we slow down and get this right.  It was widely agreed there are other and better alternatives for dealing with this situation. 

The problem is that if we spend $700 billion on this option and it doesn’t work, then we don’t have that money to spend on doing what really needs to be done to strengthen our economy for the short term and the long term.

As for executive compensation, quite honestly, all we got was window dressing.  There was no real reform to curb the excesses of Wall Street that got us to this point.
 
Ultimately, I decided to vote against the bill when it became clear that this bailout plan will make it much more difficult to do the necessary work of stimulating our economy in the short, medium, and long term. 
 
This bill will not help the underlying economy.  It does little for distressed homeowners.  It is directed mainly at bailing out the speculators and hedge fund managers that got us into this mess. 
 
In addition to this crisis in the financial markets, our economy definitely needs additional stimulus.  Economists felt the bill would not stimulate the underlying economy and would have made it much more difficult to stimulate later.  I was not willing to take that risk.  President Reagan's appointee to the FDIC said, "it's delusional to think we'll make money on this package; it gives too much discretion to the Treasury."
 
We are in challenging times and there are no easy answers.  We need to continue to work together to address these important issues.

Very truly yours, 

Nancy Boyda
Member of Congress