Please read David Goldhill's article on healthcare in the September issue of The Atlantic

I stopped in at Dutch Ruppersberger's Timonium office last week and dropped off a copy of Mr. Goldhill's article. The title is How American Health Care Killed My Father.

I attached a note to Dutch that said (roughly):

Dear Dutch -- This article is one of the best pieces of analysis and explanation that I have read on any topic, ever. Please read it. I hope you will incorporate parts of it in your thinking and in your public statements on health care. After you read it, I'd like to discuss it with you. Please call me on my cell at 410-xxx-xxxx.

Thank you.

To everyone else out there, please read the article and send a copy of it to your Congressman.

By the way, Dutch has scheduled a town hall conference call for September 21st at 7:30 PM. Details such as the call-in number and passcode are TBD.

Dutch Ruppersberger votes for Waxman-Markey cap and trade "travesty"

Clive Crook of the Financial Times has some choice words for the bill: it "neutralizes itself", it would create a "vastly complicated apparatus", the "net effect ... will be small to none", and it constitutes a "minefield of unintended consequences".

Many green lobbyists don't like the bill either.

The official name of Waxman-Markey (HR 2454) is the American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009. I haven't looked at the details yet, but from 30,000 feet it doesn't look promising:

The cap-and-trade bill is a travesty. Its net effect on short- to medium-term carbon emissions will be small to none. This is by design: a law that really made a difference would make energy dearer, hurt consumers and force an economic restructuring that would be painful for many industries and their workers. Congress cannot contemplate those effects. So the Waxman-Markey bill, while going through the complex motions of creating a carbon abatement regime, takes care to neutralise itself.

It proposes safety valves that will ease the cap if it threatens to have a noticeable effect on energy prices. It relies heavily on offsets – theoretical carbon reductions bought from other countries or other industries – so that big US emitterswill not need to try so hard. It gives emission permits away, and tells utilities to rebate the windfall to consumers, so their electricity bills do not go up. It creates a vastly complicated apparatus, a playground for special interests and rent-seekers, a minefield of unintended consequences – and the bottom line for all that is business as usual.

This is one very large black mark for Dutch.

UPDATE: Looks like Dutch probably didn't even read the bill .

The auto bailout: an open letter to my congressman & U.S. senators

To: Representative Ruppersberger, Senator Cardin & Senator Mikulski
Re: Congressional hearings on the auto industry bailout

Dear Dutch, Ben and Barbara,

Please vote against any auto company bailout.

The recent congressional testimony of the GM, Ford and Chrysler CEOs and the UAW president have been unimpressive and uninformative. It's been over 30 years since their wake-up call in the 1970s. They've had plenty of time and been given too many chances -- and they have always fallen short .

I've owned two GM cars in the past 15 years and most recently a Ford. With the Ford, I've dealt with too many major repairs, innumerable fit-and-finish problems, and six or eight recalls. My mechanic tells me (over and over), "Never buy a Ford again."

Management at GM, Ford and Chrysler will not make the necessary changes unless they are forced by bankruptcy. This is clear from the CEOs' choice of transport on their visit to DC two or three weeks ago. The US Congress is the last group of people who should be telling car manufacturers which technologies to choose, how many brands they should have, and so on. Such micro-management of an industry by Congress is a disastrous recipe for market dislocations, waste and environmental problems.

Nor will the United Auto Workers make necessary changes without bankruptcy. This is clear from a recent tidbit form Mickey Kaus: despite President Gettelfinger's vague claims of union concessions, the UAW "did not discuss wage and benefit concessions for active employees".

I trust the bankruptcy process to fix the auto industry most quickly and with the least amount of pain. I do not trust current management or union leadership to make changes other than slow and painful ones. If GM is allowed to go bankrupt, the Warren Buffetts of the world will step up, provide funds, and push for quick sensible changes.

Baltimore Sun would put "significant conditions" on auto aid

Amazingly, today's editorial -- "Conditional auto aid" -- makes no mention of union work rules or executive abuses. Here are the conditions they do mention:

Congress should name an experienced, respected executive to monitor GM's performance, and GM's leaders should move quickly to reshape the company. If they falter or courts interfere, federal aid should end.

Some of the steps that GM should take are obvious, such as reducing their brands to increase efficiency and cut costs. Health benefits for retirees, to be financed from an $80 billion trust fund established by the company and run by the UAW, also should be pared back.

The Sun's editorial board might try reading Ryan Grim of Politico to get some ideas:

"Emergency assistance to the automobile industry would be conditioned on executive compensation restrictions, a prohibition on golden parachutes, rigorous independent oversight, and other taxpayer protections

UPDATE: Congressman Ruppersberger talked yesterday about the bailout/rescue on the Ron Smith show. For audio, of Dutch, see the six links on the side.

UPDATE:Brian Faughnan at RedState intuits another purpose for the bailout: to protect the flow of UAW union dues. And Bill Hobbs thinks Congress should stop trying to run the car companies and start fixing laws that handcuff them:

why not figure out how to reform the tax and regulatory structure so that Ford, for example, could make money producing and selling that 65-mpg car here?

Dutch Ruppersberger on the credit crisis & bailout

As of Friday 10-10-08 here's the full text of his statement:

The Financial Rescue Package

Many of my constituents have contacted my office to express their views on this legislation. I reviewed their comments and I respect the fact that they took the time to make me aware of their position.

I voted for this legislation because inaction would seriously threaten the economy for middle-class families in my district. I do not support everything in this bill, but it is necessary because it will allow our local banks to continue lending money to families and small businesses.

Our national economy is experiencing serious financial problems. As demonstrated by the recent dramatic fall in stock prices, the largest one-day point drop in the Dow-Jones Industrial Average in our nation’s history, this situation is an emergency. Congress had to take immediate action.

Let me stress that this is not a "bail out of Wall Street." The bill Congress approved is very different from what the Administration proposed. It is focused on helping American families, the communities we all live in, and the local businesses we all rely upon. Any investment of federal tax dollars in financial assets of these firms will give the taxpayers an equity share and a chance to recover these tax dollars in
future profits. Both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional
Budget Office forecast the total cost of this action will be significantly less
than the amounts discussed in the media.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act provides $250 billion in initial funds now, with an additional $450 billion available if approved by Congress next year. The EESA protects American taxpayers by: Requiring that the President propose legislation to raise revenue from the financial industry in order to offset any net losses to the taxpayers. This step is to ensure that American taxpayers and future generations are not left with this debt.

Increasing the limit for federal deposit insurance from $100,000 per account to $250,000. FDIC insurance protects Americans’ checking and savings accounts if a bank becomes insolvent, and this provision was vital to give confidence to every family that their savings and their retirement funds are safe.

Permitting the Treasury Department to take an ownership share in any company that participates in the program. The ownership share would allow the government to receive a portion of the future increased value of these assets if they were to become profitable after the government bought troubled assets. This gives taxpayers an equity share in the participating companies with a chance to repay the emergency funding from appreciated assets.

Providing tax relief to over 22 million Americans by fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), keeping it from impacting middle-class families.

Helping Americans keep their homes and to avoid foreclosure. It requires that firms participating in the plan help families who are behind in their mortgage payments renegotiate the terms of their loans to make them more affordable.

Requiring Congress to exercise constant oversight over the bailout funds to make sure that the money is accounted for and spent wisely. This oversight will allow for the development of responsible regulations to prevent this situation from occurring again.

Limiting compensation packages of the executives of these companies. No golden parachutes. The executives that created this problem should not be rewarded with taxpayer dollars.

The initial plan called for billions to secure failing financial institutions, administered at the discretion of the Treasury Secretary without oversight or accountability. That was a bad plan, and we worked to secure tough, real-time oversight of the process. This new package goes beyond just shoring up the economy. It provides a clear path to help homeowners stay in their homes, helps business owners get access to desperately needed capital, unfreeze the credit markets, and it starts much needed reforms of the financial sector so that we are never in this economic situation again.

Unemployment in the United States is at a seven-year high, energy prices are at historic highs, and already burdened Americans are seeing the collapse of major U.S. financial institutions. I have spoken to economists and business managers from across the political system, and they agree that Congress had to act quickly to stabilize our economy.

History gives us guidance about the right approach in a crisis like this. At the start of the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover chose to stand aside while the financial system collapsed. We cannot stand aside and allow this crisis to harm Americans' homes, savings accounts, and retirement investments.
I believe the alternative to this bill--to do nothing--would have devastating consequences for our economy that would bring great harm to every community in America. If we let our financial sector fail, all American businesses would suffer greatly. The failure and collapse of these companies would hurt the availability of all lines of credit, so that commercial banks would not be able to lend money for a home, college loan, or small business investment.

We all have the right to know how we got here, why this rescue plan is important, and how we are going to transparently and responsibly move out of this financial crisis. One of the main reasons that we are in the crisis is the lack of proper safeguards and regulations of the financial services industry, regulations which were removed by this Administration over many years. I will fight to make sure that this plan puts the average person first, protects American taxpayers by allowing them to share in the profits and recover assets, and includes strict accountability and oversight. We also need to understand how we got into this situation. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Congress’s investigative body, is already planning hearings in the coming weeks to investigate the root causes of this crisis and hold people responsible.

I certainly hope that we begin to see the economy improve as a result of this action. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you have any questions or comments.

A suggestion for my Congressman, Dutch Ruppersberger

[UPDATE: D'oh! My mistake. Apologies to Dutch. Congressman Ruppersberger did have a statement on his website. I looked on the left side of the website unders "Issues" and didn't see the "Top Issues" section on the right. ]

Dear Dutch,

I've checked your website a few times in the past week and found nothing about the credit crisis or the bailout. I'd like to hear your take on the crisis and an explanation of your vote on the bailout. Your constituents deserve an update from you, pronto.

Regards,

Dave

p.s. Here's your website as of Wed. 10-8-08. The two lead items are (1) the changeover to digital TV and (2) a trip you took four months ago.