TARP

It's no surprise when a republican runs around blasting government spending and regulations when trying to score points with taxpayers, but can you get any more hypocritical than Dave Spence?

I guess Spence completely forgot about the $40 million bailout that his bank received while he served on the board and has subsequently refused to pay back.  Let's not forget that when pressed on the issue, Spence has repeatedly refused to give a straight answer why his bank hasn't repaid the taxpayer dollars, even after pouring $2 million into his own campaign fund. 

Granted, Spence remembered his failed bank's bailout just a few days ago, saying “I don’t know what the system would have done without it,” while giving an interview to KTVI.

Additionally, Spence has previously praised TARP, referring to it as an "extra cushion of capital" and allowing banks to avoid disaster.  I wonder what his answer to taxpayers would be who are left holding the bag of his failed bank's bailout which they refuse to pay back.

I just want to get this straight: government needs to get off the back of the private sector UNLESS it's Dave Spence's bank receiving tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds that they will refuse to pay back.  Ok.  Makes sense now.

I ask because the Star's Midwest Democracy Project is still telling voters that Roy Blunt would have voted against the TARP bailout Roy Blunt voted for.   An enormous "not actually true" asterisk seems in order. 

A new story in The Beacon presents the following claim from the Roy Blunt campaign as fact:

Blunt acknowledges that he voted for the first half of the bailout, passed by Congress while Bush was still in office. But Blunt voted against the second half, approved after Democrat Barack Obama took office as president.

This is a false concoction.  Roy Blunt voted for a $700 billion bank bailout plan. It's, like, a fact.

Only months later did Blunt support a "largely symbolic vote" (those are the AP's words) concerning a portion of the $700B he had already voted to authorize. Recall that the Associated Press' analysis of Blunt's election year maneuvering began with the following sentence. 

Before he was against it, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt was for a 2008 bill authorizing up to $700 billion to shore up banks and other troubled financial institutions.

He supported the $700B bill.  It's, like, a fact. 

It is also a fact Roy Blunt has been deceitful concerning his role in passing the TARP legislation -- this isn't a matter of opinion.  He told the Kansas City Star that he would have voted against the bill he was universally credited with helping pass, for crying out loud.  If you look at the Star's "Midwest Democracy Project" today, they still have Blunt's ridiculous claim that he opposed the bill up for all the world to see

Missourinet's Bob Priddy today advises readers to stay away from unnamed websites he doesn't think they're mature or smart enough to handle, because only Missourinet and the Associated Press have the capacity to provide useful and insightful information to Missourians. (I'm paraphrasing here -- he doesn't really say which sites are on his pre-approved list.)  

Priddy points to David Lieb's analysis of Roy Blunt's "parsing" of his 2008 TARP vote (discussed in this space here), and asserts the piece "is a clear illustration of how hard it is to sort out what major candidates stand for or have stood for."

I'm not sure what's hard to sort out on this subject at all.  Roy Blunt voted 'yes.' 

The Associated Press has yet another article today exposing Roy Blunt's absurd election-year claim that he didn't support the $700B TARP bailout: "Before he was against it, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt was for a 2008 bill authorizing up to $700 billion to shore up banks and other troubled financial institutions. In fact, Blunt helped negotiate its details and -- as House Republican whip -- helped round up enough votes to ensure its passage."

AP reporter David Lieb describes Blunt's recent TARP lies in the most charitable way possible: "Blunt is carefully parsing his past support," he writes, because he voted for a "symbolic" resolution concerning some of the $700B months after helping shepherd through the very real bill.

'Parsing' might be the right word for Blunt's maneuvering if he hadn't lied to the KC Star when he said he would not "have voted to bail out the country’s banks." It also might have been the right word if Blunt spokesman Rich Chrismer had not "flatly rejected" criticisms from Robin Carnahan and Chuck Purgason regarding Blunt's vote for a $700 billion bailout plan.  Former Governor Matt Blunt even got in on the act, parroting Chrismer's assertion that Carnahan is "not telling the truth" when she makes the heretofore noncontroversial observation that Blunt voted for a $700B bailout.

'Parsing' might also be the right word if we didn't see stories like the following published yesterday -- the same day Lieb published his analysis.

The goal of the Blunt campaign isn't to 'parse' Blunt's record -- their goal is have voters believe things that aren't true.  You could read any newspaper article written since October 2008 explaining Blunt's vote, or you check out the talking points distributed by Congressional Republicans in January 2009.

Responding to a question about his leadership in passing the $700 billion bank bailout in 2008, Congressman Roy Blunt told listeners of KMOX' Hancock and Kelley show this afternoon, "I'm prepared to stand on what I voted for, and you should explain it fairly."

That Roy Blunt is willing to 'stand on what he voted for' in the 2008 TARP package is as ridiculous as his claims that he didn't vote for the bill and that it wasn't actually a $700 billion bailout.

Two weeks ago, Congressman Roy Blunt told the Kansas City Star that he would not have voted for the 2008 TARP bailout, even though he was instrumental in the construction and passage of the legislation as a leader for the House GOP Caucus. Crazy, right?  Blunt and his campaign have also worked to give the false impression that he hadn't voted for a $700 billion bailout, but some smaller sum that he finds more politically palatable in 2010. It's incredibly easy to demonstrate that this is false, but why let the facts get in the way of some serious damage control? 

A person can reasonably argue both sides of the TARP debate. What a person can't reasonably say is that the 2008 vote was not a $700B bailout -- but that's what spokesman Rich Chrismer insisted to the Sedalia Democrat late last week.

When is a bailout not a bailout?

Rich Chrismer, communications director for the Blunt campaign, flatly rejected criticisms from Carnahan and Purgason that Blunt voted for a $700 billion bailout plan, noting “the first bill only provided for $350 billion, otherwise a second vote would not have been necessary.”

This is...rather obviously false .  You could read any newspaper article written since October 2008.  Or you check out the talking points distributed by Congressional Republicans in January 2009.

Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Roy Blunt prepare for TV interviews during the 2008 TARP negotiations

ABC News isn't anyway.

Will the Real Mr. Bailout Please Stand Up?

It has been two years since Lawmakers from both parties held their noses and voted for the $700 billion TARP program with the aim of rescuing Wall Street and the nation’s economy...

As the Republican Whip in 2008, Blunt was involved in the painful process of rounding up enough votes to pass the TARP bill through the House. It took him two tries to get enough Republicans, paired with Democrats, to pass the bill.

Roy Blunt writes some fiction for The Star: "In his response to a question 'Would you have voted to bail out the country’s banks? Why?' GOP Senate candidate Blunt answered 'no.' Blunt, of course, did vote for the TARP program in October 2008."

Perhaps the question should have been worded, Did any GOPer have "a more important role two years ago in negotiating with Democratic leaders over the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and shepherding it into law" than you?

Roy Blunt would rather you just completely forgot headlines and stories like this:

Speaking with Missourinet's Brent Martin and other reporters late last week, Blunt defended his lead role passing the $700 billion TARP bailout in late 2008, but tried to give the impression that he only voted for a $350 billion bill. "The only part of that that I voted for was the part that made the short term investment in the economy," he said before suggesting that he only voted for "the first 250 [billion]" in October 2008.  Listen:

This might sound nice in 2010, but it ignores the actual record from 2008.  For instance, this was the caption from a 10/4/08 Washington Times story on Blunt's arm-twisting efforts:

Rep. Roy Blunt thanks Rep. Joe Knollenberg over the phone for switching his vote on the $700 billion bailout plan to a "Yes" in Washington Friday. Nearly five dozen lawmakers changed their votes.

In an interview with Reboot Congress, Chuck Purgason hammers Roy Blunt for his vote and leadership in passing the TARP bailout in 2008. Blunt was the top negotiator for House Republicans on the legislation, and led the arm- twisting effort to convince fellow GOPers to reverse their votes on the bill.

"The first step we need to do is make sure something like that does never happen again and vote out the people that thought that was good policy," Purgason says.

Responding to Roy Blunt's recent grandstanding about wall street firms receiving early H1N1 vaccine shipments, the Post-Dispatch today welcomes Blunt's newfound interest in the special treatment received by the folks on Wall Street.

Whatever the reason, we welcome Mr. Blunt to the populist outrage front. Mr. Blunt was in Congress throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s when, during both Republican and Democratic administrations, the banks got everything they asked for, subsequently wrecking the economy. Mr. Blunt has been a reliable pro-banking industry vote, from repealing the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 to refusing to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages in 2009.

Read More »

Share

• Tweet Widget
• Google Plus One
• Facebook Like

The Beacon's Jo Mannies has a new story about a Chuck Purgason campaign stop in St. Louis County last night, at which Purgason argued that his true fiscal conservative credentials make him the better candidate to emerge from the GOP primary. Mannies:

Sporting his trademark bolo tie, silk vest and a flip chart, Purgason mesmerized about 50 fellow conservatives who showed up at the Midwest Music Conservatory in Clarkson Valley. It was among the first campaign forays to this side of the state by the GOP state senator from Caulfield, Mo. (He noted later that he was in town two weeks ago for some radio appearances.)

His message was dire. Purgason declared that -- nationally -- the Republican Party is "the last hope'' to turn around the nation's troubled economy and halt the federal government's rising debt.

But he also asserted that some Republicans in Congress have contributed to the country's current money problems -- notably his unnamed primary opponent, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

 "My opponent was in (House) leadership when this occurred,'' Purgason said.

Bond is worried that TARP banks are "chaffing under the stigma" of having taken TARP money.  I don't remember the banks "chaffing" when they took the taxpayer money, do you?

(via The Hill)

American Rights at Work is running a new ad highlighting the corporations that have received bailout money but refuse to support the Employee Free Choice Act.

From Hotline On Call:

"The public and lawmakers alike need to know that the special interests opposing the Employee Free Choice Act are the same ones who caused this economic meltdown," said American Rights at Work executive director Mary Beth Maxwell. "This new ad sends a resolute message that now is the time to help workers to bargain for a better life. The Employee Free Choice Act is urgently needed to create fairness in this economy."

There should be no limit on executive compensation at companies receiving TARP money.

Details here.