Colorado political leaders lauded the taxpayer protections recently negotiated into the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill, though many still sifting through the details Sunday were reluctant to fully back the politically tricky plan.
Among the praised provisions are rules giving the federal government an ownership stake in the banks it rescues, the addition of a bipartisan oversight board and an approach that would insure some bad debts rather than purchase them outright.
Even so, Congressman Ed Perlmutter, a Democratic member of the House Financial Services Committee, had more questions than answers about the bill’s efficacy and fairness Sunday evening, a day before the House is set to vote on the legislation.
“Does this bill provide the kind of relief that will bring liquidity and credit to the markets? Does it provide enough taxpayer protection?” Perl mutter asked. “None of us are happy with this bill. None of us are happy with this situation.”
House Republicans — including Colorado Reps. Tom Tancredo and Doug Lamborn — moved away from their strident opposition to government intervention, saying they would consider the proposal.
“This new plan is definitely an improvement over the original. However, there are still some serious issues that have not yet been resolved,” Lamborn said through spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen.
Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter’s office said it will take time to review the bill but that it is important to state and local governments that markets retain their liquidity.
Calling the bill “a necessary evil,” Evan Dreyer, spokesman for the Democratic governor, predicted that the prohibitions against “golden parachutes” for bailed-out bank executives will help restore a sense of fairness.
“The CEO issue really is a lightning rod for very good reasons,” Dreyer said. “There’s a lot of anger in this country and in this state right now over what has happened.”
Politically unpopular in any version, the bailout bill has left candidates in tight elections to deal with precarious positions.
Three of the four contenders in congressional races criticized the proposal at first blush. Democratic Rep. Mark Udall, who is running for the Senate, declined through a spokesperson to comment, pending further review of the bill.
His rival for the Senate seat, former Rep. Bob Schaffer, said he remains skeptical that recouped money would ever make it back to individual taxpayers, noting that politicians are using “U.S. taxpayers” and “U.S. Treasury” interchangeably.
“This is an immediate transfer of wealth that debases the dollars currently in circulation with no plan to return it to a taxpayer’s personal bank accounts,” said Schaffer, who said he’s reserving final judgment until he reviews the full bill.
GOP Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and Democratic challenger Betsy Markey issued statements critical of the plan.
Musgrave broke with her caucus in flatly rejecting the bailout bill, but she said she will monitor the situation.
Markey shared her rival’s distaste for spending taxpayer dollars to save “reckless” Wall Street institutions.
“I want to see more concrete protections for families and small businesses,” Markey said in a statement.
Jessica Fender: 303-954-1244 or jfender@denverpost.com.
