Hoosier Patriot's Response to Evan Bayh's Letter

I received a letter from Evan Bayh. It made me rather angry. Bayh continues to try to paint himself as a moderate with his words. However, he votes on the far left. Saying one thing and doing another doesn't sit well with me. Below are my comments about his letter.

(Bayh's words are in black. Hoosier Patriot's are in RED. )

Bayh: I opposed the second round of funding for the TARP program.
HP: Only after he voted for the first TARP of $700 Billion

Bayh: The Senate recently considered a $410 billion "omnibus" spending bill to fund the operations of the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year. I opposed this legislation because it called for substantial increases across an array of federal programs—more than twice the rate of inflation. If the federal government held spending steady, taxpayers would save an estimated $250 billion over the next 10 years. That is the right course of action.
HP: But he voted for the $1.3 Trillion Stimulus Package which is estimated to cost $3.3 Trillion in the next 10 years and is the biggest spending bill in history. I guess this is holding spending steady. No fiscally responsible person would have considered voting for that bill. He talks about saving $250 billion over ten years and he votes for a bill that is going to cost $3.3 trillion ($3300 billion) over the same period. Doesn't anyone besides me think this is a problem? Does this make sense to anyone?

Bayh: The omnibus contained nearly eight billion dollars in pork-barrel projects, commonly known as earmarks. I voted to strip out every earmark from the bill. When that effort failed, I urged President Obama to veto the legislation.
HP: Only 1 other Senator voted with him in opposition to the earmarks. Thus he knew it wouldn't pass. On the surface it appears he did the right thing. However I suspect that knowing the bill would fail and that his vote wouldn't impact the outcome, he voted for political reasons. Not because his is opposed to earmarks. Why do I feel that way? BECAUSE HE PERSONALLY PUT $10 MILLION IN EARMARKS IN THE OMNIBUS BILL!! THE VERY SAME BILL HE CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN VETOED BECAUSE EARMARKS WERE ATTACHED.

Bayh: runaway federal spending is the wrong prescription for America's economy in a deepening recession.
HP: Agreed. Then why did he vote for the TARP bill and the Stimulus Package?

Bayh: I work for you.
HP: Let's fire him!!

Bayh: Please keep your letters and emails coming.
HP: Don't worry Senator Bayh, you will be overwhelmed.
________
Here is the complete letter.

March 12, 2009
Dear Friend,
You recently contacted me to voice your concerns about fiscal irresponsibility in Washington, D.C. I am writing you today to let you know that I have heard your concerns—and I share them. Last September, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, our nation's top economic expert, told congressional leaders that if swift action was not taken to stabilize the banking system, millions of Americans would lose their jobs, life savings, and businesses. However, following the first release of federal funding for the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program (known as "TARP"), we saw many reported abuses by major financial institutions and a lack of transparency and accountability for how taxpayer dollars were being spent. As a result, I opposed the second round of funding for the TARP program.The need for greater fiscal responsibility in Washington extends beyond the debate over how to unfreeze the credit markets. The Senate recently considered a $410 billion "omnibus" spending bill to fund the operations of the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year. I opposed this legislation because it called for substantial increases across an array of federal programs—more than twice the rate of inflation. If the federal government held spending steady, taxpayers would save an estimated $250 billion over the next 10 years. That is the right course of action.The omnibus contained nearly eight billion dollars in pork-barrel projects, commonly known as earmarks. I voted to strip out every earmark from the bill. When that effort failed, I urged President Obama to veto the legislation. Last week, I wrote an opinion column in the Wall Street Journal arguing for a return to fiscal sanity in the nation's capital. (To read, click here.) I wrote the article to send a message to Washington that runaway federal spending is the wrong prescription for America's economy in a deepening recession. As you can imagine, my vocal stance against earmarks and spending increases was not popular with many of my Senate colleagues, but I don't work for them—I work for you. In these difficult times, I value your opinions and input more than ever. Washington needs a healthy dose of Hoosier frugality. Please keep your letters and emails coming. Together, we will weather this storm and get our economy moving again.

Sincerely, Evan Bayh
United States Senator