I believe both the Bush and Obama administrations did not follow proper counsel to restoring our nation’s financial stability.  That is why I opposed both the initial stimulus bailout authorization predicated upon toxic assets and the second bailout proposal which provided the $700 billion to underwrite losses in banks and financial institutions. 

Rather than that approach, I recommended that the government back financial institution transactions and allow them to purchase either guarantees or insurance for a premium and allow them to set values for the toxic assets that they held for sale.

As Chairman of the House subcommittee on aviation when the airline industry collapsed, I established a minimal loan guarantee program which limited taxpayer exposure and that provided financial stability to the faltering industry.   That program was successful with all loans being paid and the fees generating more than a billion dollars in revenue for the taxpayer.

As predicted both administrations mishandled the large bailout program.  While some banks and financial institutions gobbled up other institutions, others paid significant bonuses and compensation while toxic assets remained a problem in many institution’s portfolios.  Artificial subsidization of banks, financial institutions and businesses unfortunately are difficult to control and end up causing as many problems with the real market.

The same situation exists with automobile industry and government sponsored bailouts. Providing $38 billion loans to one automobile manufacturer is not an appropriate course of action in my opinion.  Though the intent to supposedly save jobs is well meaning, it is hoped the auto industry will sort out their problems without direct government interventions.  Ford and numerous other auto manufacturers have and will continue to survive without government bailouts.