Economic bail-out bill passes, but why
What happened? Did I miss something? There was an overwhelming objection in the U.S.A. to the economic bailout. Congressmen and Senators' offices were overwhelmed with e-mails urging their elected officials to vote no. By one count, the opinions were running 10 to 1 against. The bill failed once, but went back to the House and Senate again with enough additional pork that they passed it. Enough house members changed their mind to pass it including my own congressman, Neil Abercrombie. Why?
Representative Brad Sherman - D-California, 27th District - Sherman Oaks and Northridge brought to the House floor some disturbing information. Was he exaggerating or misrepresenting the facts? Visions of Hillary Clinton running from an airplane under sniper fire, Mitt Romney's father marching with Martin Luther King, and Mike Huckaby receiving a Ph.D. all pass through my head. If not, clearly this needs to be investigated. I'm an idealist, I know, but pressure to vote one way or another MUST only come from the people that elected that person in the first place. Here is the transcript of Rep. Sherman's speech (taken from C-SPAN's archives.)
"The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. That atomosphere is not justifed. Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop 2 or 3 thousand points the first day and another couple of thousand the second day. And a few members were even told there would be martial law in America if we voted no. That is what I call fear mongering. Unjustified. Proven wrong. We have got a week, we have got two weeks to write a good bill. The only way to pass a bad bill is to keep the panic pressure on."
Interestingly, I could not find this an ANY news sites other than the OpEdNews site.