Plane Talk - Midwest Flight 100, Seat 9-B

Dear Friend,

I’m heading home to Kansas where I’ll have the chance to spend about 40 hours in the Second District. I've been in D.C. for nine days straight working on this bailout or rescue or recovery bill. Everyone has a pet name for it.

I voted "No" on the bailout bill.

In the days leading up to the vote, we received over 2,000 letters, emails, calls and faxes from people in the Second District. Only about 100 of these contacts were form letters. The rest were thoughtful, personal letters that people took the time to write themselves. They were overwhelmingly against the bailout. Many were very angry. About 40 were in favor of a rescue package.

You would think then that this was an easy vote. But it wasn't. The stakes are high, very high. It was a white knuckle vote. I do believe our economy is facing serious challenges.

The last nine days in D.C. have been a nonstop policy debate and discussion about the economy. Economists, experts, business leaders weighed in. I listened.

Then over the weekend, there were opportunities to meet economists in smaller groups and ask even more questions. I met with four economists personally. Two thought we should do the bailout and two thought we shouldn't.

Let me summarize what I've heard over the last weeks:

*No one could venture a guess whether this would work. I made it very clear I wasn't asking for or expecting a guarantee, just a best guess that some part of the plan would work in making credit available again. They all said no one knows. No one would go there. I kid you not.

*They all agreed there would be better options that would cost less, have a greater chance of success and put the taxpayer at less risk. They offered several specific options, not just generalities. The problem was that everyone was rushing to get something done – right now – immediately if not sooner - there was no time to even look at other options. (That's the white knuckle part.)

*They agreed that an ownership (equity) position would be a better deal for the taxpayers AND begin to actually address some of the real balance sheet problems. Once again, there was not time to address this.

*They generally agreed that the actual cost to the taxpayers would be far less than $700 billion. BUT, the use of that $700 billion would limit our options and alternatives. If the bailout didn't work and three or six months from now we’re faced with the same situation (which some thought was a reasonable possibility or even probability), then what???

So, where do we go from here?

First, we have to do this together. Partisanship will drive us further away from a solution.

I disagree that we can't look back. If we don't at least understand AND acknowledge how we got here, then how can we really fix the problem? So it's like a bad accident: it's OK to look (back) – just don't stare. Don’t dwell on it.

I was working with some of my colleagues on some of the alternative ideas suggested by the economists and business leaders I met with over the last week. We met soon after the vote and began taking a lead in bringing together these ideas and others that will work on both sides of the aisle. We'll work together by conference call and email for the next 40 hours until we get back to D.C.

So, do I think something needs to be done? Yes, I do. The excesses, massive fraud, and sheer greed that have been allowed to run rampant are going to have to be dealt with. They have damaged our country from top to bottom. When they took the referees off the field, guess who got run over? The American people.

At this point, I wouldn't even begin to speculate how I'll vote on the next proposal that comes to the House floor. But, I am working for a better deal for the taxpayer. That's for sure.

You know how much I appreciate hearing from you – even when we may differ in opinion! Please keep in contact. The whole House email and voicemail is staggering under the weight of all this, so you may have to try more than once.

I'd also appreciate your prayers through all this. It's pretty crazy.


With warm regards,

Nancy Boyda
Member of Congress


Casework Corner – Nancy Helps Resolve Ambulance Charges for a Kansas Veteran

One of the most important things our office does is offer assistance to veterans and their families. Our office has constituent service representatives who specifically work on issues pertaining to veterans and the military. Among their many duties, they help our brave men and women receive the benefits they have earned for themselves and their families. This could not be more important when veterans are wrongfully denied their benefits and services.

Such was the case for Walter Ross of Topeka. At the beginning of August Mr. Ross came into our office with an astonishing bill he received for an emergency ambulance transport with American Medical Response. The bill was $796.49. Mr. Ross is a disabled veteran and is covered 100% under Veterans Administration guidelines for issues connected to his service in the military. Yet, the VA denied his original claim for coverage for the ambulance.

Mr. Ross voiced this concern to our office because he believed the VA should cover this bill since the debt was the result of a medical emergency. Our Topeka District office contacted the VA to discover why Mr. Ross’ bill was not covered. We then received a response from the VA that “a second review of his claim was conducted and a decision was made to pay his AMR ambulance bill.” As a result of our inquiry, the VA reviewed Mr. Ross’ claim and concluded that he did not have to pay $796.49.

Our office works with federal agencies, including the VA, on a daily basis. We consider it an honor to assist our military heroes and ensure they receive the benefits they richly deserve. If you have received a bill from a provider of emergency medical transport in which the VA has denied payment, please contact our office. We would be happy to make an inquiry on your behalf.


Letter of the Week - Nancy Says "No" to the Bailout

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