Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras
Subscribe

HomeNewsLocal News

State delegation divided over bill

4 vote no, saying more changes still were needed

Published October 4, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

Four Colorado lawmakers who initially opposed the bailout bill stuck to their position Friday in the U.S. House.

Opposing the bill were U.S. Reps. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs, Marilyn Musgrave, R-Fort Morgan, John Salazar, D-Manassa, and Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs. All had voted against the measure on Monday.

Supporting the bill, as they had in the previous vote, were U.S. Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, Ed Perlmutter, D-Golden, and Tom Tancredo, R-Littleton.

Proponents had warned that the economy could spiral into depression unless action were taken immediately.

But Udall said he was disappointed that after the initial rejection of the bill, the U.S. Senate added hundreds of pages of so-called "sweeteners" to win votes but did not add some of the provisions he was seeking to protect taxpayers and homeowners in jeopardy from the mortgage foreclosure crisis.

Udall praised one new addition in the bill that will raise the amount of bank deposits that are guaranteed under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., from $100,000 to $250,000.

"Those extra 300 pages don't do anything to fix the broken financial system that got us to this place in the first place," said Udall, who's running for Senate against Republican former Congressman Bob Schaffer.

Salazar also objected to the additional spending added to the bill, calling it "irresponsible."

"I voted against this on principle," Salazar said.

Salazar said he proposed doling out the bailout funds in increments of $50 billion a month, instead of giving the Treasury secretary $700 billion in one payment. That method would have given Congress time to work on the larger issues, he said.

But that proposal was turned down, Salazar said.

Musgrave also was holding out for deeper reforms.

"We should have gotten to fundamental reform before we passed that bill. I feel like this is happening backwards," she said.

Musgrave said the bill was "larded up" with additional spending.

"The American people are sick to death of earmarks," she said.

In a statement following the vote Friday, Lamborn called the bill "fundamentally flawed."

"It relies too much on taxpayer dollars to bail out reckless investors and not enough on private sector dollars."

Lamborn wanted a bill "that would have injected liquidity into our markets through tax incentives, releasing the economic power inherent in the American economy."

Comments

  • October 5, 2008

    12:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Shadow writes:

    The so called experts are now crying for bailouts for Massachuettes, and officially 7 billion for California. When will this bailout end? For tose who voted for it shame on them. Credit to Mark Udall for finally doing something in a responsible measure for the electorit. As for Tancredo, he is leaving office. No more support will I ever show this RINO sell out to his constituents.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.


Reprints