|
December 2008 Constituent Q & A
Click to skip to the following sections:
ECONOMIC CRISIS
- Do you support cutting federal spending to help the economy?
- Why doesn't the government bail out the middle class instead of big companies?
- How can we make sure there is proper oversight of any auto manufacturer bailout?
- If we bail out the auto manufacturers, what's to stop them from coming back to ask for more money later?
- How can we make sure the financial industry bailout money is being used for its intended purpose?
HOUSING CRISIS
- Will homeowners get any relief in the bailout packages?
- What assistance is available for people having trouble paying their mortgages?
ENERGY SECURITY
- Why is the U. S. again allowing unreglated future trading on oil?
- Why does BG&E; continue to raise prices for residents when the price of fossil fuels is falling?
RETIREMENT SECURITY/HEALTHCARE SECURITY
- Will Congress suspend manditory required distributions for IRA's?
- How can we better fund the Social Security Trust Fund?
- Do you support a single-payer health care system, and how would it effect people with private health insurance?
Richard from Glen Burnie wants to know if I support cutting federal spending to help our economy.
I am strongly in support of balancing our budget, but you don't do that in a recession. In a recession, cutting spending or raising taxes would be counterproductive to what we're trying to do to get our economy back on track. The first priority needs to be our economy. We need to take steps to stimulate job growth, to stimulate economic recovery, to make it easier for small businesses to get loans, and to make it easier for people to keep their jobs and for job expansion. We really need to get back to fiscal discipline. We've got to get our budget balanced. We've got to do that for the sake of our long term economic growth.
Debbie from Baltimore wants to know why won't the government bail out the U. S. middle class instead of big companies?
I think it's a good question, Debbie. I think you're asking the right question, because most of the $700 billion has gone to help the financial institutions on Wall Street. I want to see the money used to help our communities. I want to see the money come into Maryland and go to Baltimore and go to different regions of our state, and say look, we're going to help small business. Small business can't get loans today. They go to the SBA and the SBA programs, you need a bank to participate. The bank, if they make the loan, there's no secondary market where they can get liquidity, so loans aren't being made. Why hasn't some of that $700 billion been used to help small business get the loans that they need? I've written to the Secretary of the Treasury and asked him to do exactly that. I want to make sure that the money gets down to our communityand that community banks get the help that they need. Homeowners should get the help that they need to save their properties and that this money shouldn't just be going to Wall Street. It's got to get to Main Street, so I think that's the right question to be asked.
Lynn from Silver Spring is in favor of an industry bailout of the auto companies because she thinks there are too many companies, personnel and families involved to let the industry fail. Lynn wants to know if any money is given to these companies, how will it be monitored? What accounting will be made by the government and to the public?
Lynn, great question, and I think most people agree with you. Most people do not want to see the U. S. auto companies go into bankruptcy. They understand that it would be terrible for our economy. But on the other hand they want to make sure that the greed we have seen among corporate executives, the fact that they flew their jets to Washington. The fact that they haven't been responsive to the type of automobile fleet that we need for the future of our country as far as energy and environment is concerned. The fact that we don't have the modern type of arrangements between the U. S. auto manufacturers and their dealerships. The fact that, in many respects, the arrangements with workers needs to be competitive to make sure the U.S. can compete internationally. All those are issues that Lynn, you're right, in asking those questions. I can assure you that if the federal government comes to the help of U. S. auto manufacturing - and I think we should - I don't think we should allow them to go into bankruptcy, we must know that the top management will make the type of sacrifices that we expect them to make, that will have the type of reforms so the U. S. auto manufacturing can not only get through this recession, but they can be competitive in this new environment, and that they make the type of product that's in the interest of our country.
Gloria from Bethesda wants to know what happened to our economy that the big guys get bailed out when they have private planes, big salaries and bonuses. Why do you think the auto companies won't just spend it all and ask for more?
That's a similar question, and I must tell you we should not make the federal credit available unless they have the type of reforms to make sure that there is salary reform for top management - that we don't see it going to corporate jets, that we find that there is major concessions made by the top management on their salary package, and that there's the type of oversight so that these reforms in fact happen. It was interesting, we've seen some of the audits now on what's happened with the $700 billion in credit and there's some disappointment that the industries haven't done what they said they were going to do. Well, that's the reason that we had the audits. We should have the independent audits. And we should make sure that the commitments that are made are commitments kept.
Robert from Gambrils understands that we have given $300 billion to various financial institutions that have used the money for purposes other than what we intended. "What kind of oversight question is there in using this money?"
The Congress insisted, even though the administration didn't want us to do it, in putting in the $700 billion package, oversight, independent oversight, so that you know how that money is spent, and whether the companies lived up to their commitments that they made in seeking government loans. The GAO, the Government Accountability Office has told us that they believe that many of these commitments have not been lived up to by the companies that have gotten federal loans. We are now in the position of demanding that that be changed. Because we have the openness in the review process. We have to make sure that the requirements that were committed to are carried out. Quite frankly I'm extremely disappointed by the way this administration has used the $700 billion. I think its been used much more for the big companies.
Noel from Frederick wants to know of there will be any relief for homeowners who have lost value in their homes and are now upside-down on their mortgages. He is concerned specifically about homeowners who are not in eminent danger of foreclosure but are still overburdened.
There are many people in that situation. Many Maryland homeowners are not in foreclosure, but they're finding it extremely difficult to keep up with their mortgage payments. I would urge these individuals to look for ways to renegotiate with their mortgage holder - the lender - more favorable terms so they can continue to make mortgage payments and not go into foreclosure. There's a Maryland HOPE program, that number's on the screen (1-877-462-7555), that you can use in order to get information about how you can renegotiate and get help in making your mortgage payments. Take advantage of those services. It's in no one's interest - it's not in the lender's interest, it's not in your interest, it's not in the community's interest - if you go into foreclosure.
Ann from Columbia says, "My husband's salary has been cut by more than half due to the current economy. We can no longer afford our mortgage payments. Could you tell us what types of assistance are available?"
I'm going to repeat that number for Maryland HOPE, which is toll-free, 1-877-462-7555, website address www.mdhope.org. The truth is that for many people it is extremely difficult to be able to afford your mortgage payments. It's in the mortgage companies interest to work out repayments with you so that the mortgage doesn't go into foreclosure. If it goes into foreclosure, the chances are that the mortgage company's going to lose more money than refinancing your mortgage. So, the first thing I urge you to do is to reach out to the mortgage company, use the services that are available through the Maryland HOPE program, and try to see whether you can't negotiate an arrangement with the mortgage company to have more affordable payments. There will be federal programs that will be available, federally financed programs, to try to purchase distressed mortgages from the lender, and then refinance with a homeowner, and that may be another opportunity that would be available for you.
Randy from Havre de Grace asks, "Why is the United States once again allowing unregulated future tradings of oil? Didn't the lack of regulation lead to record gas prices earlier this year?"
I agree with you. I think we've got to regulate oil futures, particularly for those who are speculating on oil price. Now there are consumers of energy, large consumers of energy, such as the airline industry or the utilites, that do need to have locked in future prices of their energy so that they can price their product with a predictability as to what energy will cost. But there are too many financial speculators the just buy oil futures on speculation. They should be regulated like any other financial transaction. It did lead to the record prices of gasoline at $4 a gallon. It doesn't help our economy to see gasoline prices go from $2 to $4 to $2 within 12 months. That unpredictability is bad for the economy. Speculation adds to the economic problems, and the federal government should have the same type of regulations on speculation as we do on other types of financial transactions.
Anthony from Columbia asks, "Why does BG&E; continue to raise rates for residents when the cost of fossil fuels is less than it was a year ago? Our bills went up when the fuel costs spiked upwards, but should our bills go down now that fuel costs are going down?"
That's an excellent question and one which I have a great deal of sympathy. It seems like that whenever prices are going up (the price of oil) that those who use oil increase their prices pretty quickly. But once they start coming down, it takes a long time for the consumer to get the benefits. The difficulty for Baltimore Gas & Electric is that they do buy their energy early. So they normally take advantage of a market where energy costs normally are going up. The consumer gets the benefit of lower cost. When it's going down, they have locked themselves in to particular needs for the winter where they have bought their energy for a higher price than the current market. Unfortunately, we all pay a little bit more as a result of it. It's a good question. I think that one of the issues that the utility companies need to look at and the regulators need to look at is how the consumers can get the advantage of price declines faster than they do today.
Margaret from Silver Spring asks, "Will Congress consider suspending the mandatory retirement distributions for 2008? Such a move would make life better for millions of seniors."
Margaret has a very good point. The problem is that because of the downturn in the economy, people are looking at their retirement funds and saying, gee, I've lost so much money. But the federal government requires me at age 70 1/2 to take a minimum distribution from our retirement fund. Well, I don't have as much as I had before, and I'd rather hold on to some of this money, because I don't know how long I'm going to live and I want to make sure I don't run out of money. I certainly hope that we will pass emergency legislation - Senator Baucus has authored it, I'm a co-sponsor of it - that will allow you to forgo the minimum distribution rules and be able to keep more money in your retirement accounts so that you have it for later in life, to make sure you don't run out of your retirement funds. It's a very good point. We hope to take action early in 2009 to protect your type of circumstance.
Janet from Montgomery County asks, "As our population ages, what do you think should be done to better fund the Social Security Trust Fund?"
This is an excellent question, the Social Security Trust Fund is in excellent condition. It has funds to be able to pay for the foreseeable future. I don't think there's any risk that people who are receiving their Social Security checks won't continue to receive those checks, and those who are retiring will get their Social Security checks. We, though, try to deal with 75-year solvency. Now, 75 year solvency is a long time, and there are relatively minor changes that could be made in the Social Security system in order to protect its long term solvency. President-elect Obama has made some suggestions that perhaps we look at the wage level on which you pay your Social Security funds and the employer matches it as one way. I think there are ways that Congress can work with this administration to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security. Let me say one other thing, and that is: if we didn't use the surplus - the cash surplus in Social Security to mask the true size of government spending - I think it also would help preserve the Social Security Trust Fund. We really need to take it totally off budget so it can't be used to mask government spending and government debt. The trust fund should be used only for Social Security.
Monti from Maryland wants to know if I support a one-payer health care system. What kind of impact would such a plan have on individuals like him who have private health insurance?
Well, let me assure you Monti, I support what Senator Obama talked about during his campaign. It's not a single-payer system where all the payments go through the federal government and everybody is in the same health care plan. It's where we have competition and diversity, where you can keep your employer provided health insurance, but you have options to get more comprehensive coverage and a community-rated plan if you don't have a good employer provided plan or you're uninsured today. The bottom line is we've got to reform our health care system. We need to bring down the cost of health care in the United States. We have to make sure that every person in this country has health insurance. It's wrong for those who have health insurance to pay for those who don't have health insurance. It's wrong for the taxpayers to pay for those who should be responsible for their own health care needs. We need a more cost-effective system, we have got to bring down the cost of prescription medicines. We need a much stronger emphasis on preventive health care that can save money. We need to use information technology more efficiently to bring down the administrative cost of health care in America. All that needs to be done as part of health care reform. I can tell you this, I'm going to be working very closely with President Obama and my Congressional colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see if we can't enact comprehensive health care reform so we bring down the cost of health care in America but make sure that everybody has access to affordable quality health care.
|
