Three SBA reasons I am voting Collins,

100 percent voting record with NFIB in Congress-

Have assisted small Maine business, and meet with them regularly-

Having a track record of economic development, even in Northern Maine!

Her competition, has never hit anyone of the three!

“NFIB, according to the Allen campaign, is a partisan special-interest group” Yup, its all a plot against Tom!!!

.

Now we know why Collins voted FOR the $850,000,000,000 bailout bill with $150,000,000 of pure pork for vested interests against the advise of 200 top economists including 2 Nobel economic prize winners. She was salivating for the endorsement and sold the rest of us down the sewer. You want her? .. you can buy her cheap.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm

Didn’t Allen vote for that to?

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR SUSAN COLLINS BECAUSE SHE GAVE AWAY 700 BILLION DOLLARS OF **OUR MONEY** AGAINST **OUR WISHES.**

As most of you have probably figured out, the economy is tanking despite the fact that our so-called leaders, like Susan Collins and Tom Allen, have just given away 700 Billion of our dollars.

1. Below is the lousy-excuses-email Susan Collins sent to people on her email list about why she caved on the bailout garbage bill.

2. Below that is the same lousy-excuses-email sent by Tom Allen to his email list.

3. And, finally, the email sent out by Mike Michaud explaining why he voted against the bailout both times.

By the way, I'm a Republican. I am also a small business owner.

1. LOUSY EXCUSES EMAIL SENT BY SUSAN COLLINS REGARDING THE 700B BAILOUT:

Subject: Correspondence Reply from Senator Collins (this is an unattended mailbox - Do not reply)

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:38:33 -0400

From:

Thank you for contacting me about the current financial crisis and my

support for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I

understand your concerns and appreciate hearing from you.

It was critical for the Senate to pass this bipartisan bill to help put

our nation on a path to economic recovery. While I share the anger and

frustration that many of my constituents and colleagues have that this

legislation is even necessary, we must prevent further devastating

consequences to our economy.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 passed the Senate on

October 1, 2008. I joined 73 Senators, including both Presidential

candidates, in voting for legislation to stabilize our financial system

and avoid a full-blown economic crisis that could prompt a severe

recession, millions of lost jobs and devastating declines in the value

of pension funds and personal retirement savings.

Leading economists and financial experts agree that our nation faces a

possible financial disaster and that federal intervention is necessary.

People differ on the best form of the intervention, but the plan passed

by the Senate was crafted in bipartisan fashion with taxpayer protection

as a top priority. The Senate plan includes many of the principles which

I pressed for including strong protections for taxpayers, restrictions

on excessive executive compensation, and tough oversight and

accountability.

The bill provides the Treasury Secretary with $700 billion in authority

to purchase mortgage-related securities and other financial assets in

market-based transactions. The program sunsets on December 31, 2009.

Income to the Treasury will go to pay back the funds that Treasury would

borrow to make the purchases; additional profits would go to pay down

the national debt.

The initial proposal the Treasury Secretary presented to us was deeply

flawed. That is why I pushed for strong taxpayer protections to be

included in the plan, including limitations on excessive compensation

and a ban on golden parachutes for executives of the Wall Street firms

that helped create the current crisis and that now seek Federal

assistance. Those controls and safeguards are part of the bipartisan

package passed by the Senate.

I supported the adoption of an independent Special Inspector General

position to oversee the program. That critical safeguard is part of the

bill, which also establishes a Financial Stability Oversight Board; sets

up a Congressional oversight panel; and requires that if there is a loss

to the taxpayers after five years, then the President must submit a plan

that will recover the loss from the financial industry, not taxpayers.

The bill also requires that a full report on America's financial

regulatory system and recommendations for improvements to reduce the

chance that recent mistakes will be repeated. A large part of the

current financial crisis involves unregulated or weakly regulated areas

like the marketing of exotic mortgage-backed securities and

credit-default swap agreements whose risks were poorly disclosed and

poorly understood.

The financial stabilization bill was combined with a previously passed

bill extending expiring tax provisions. The bill's key provisions

include a measure that protects tens of millions of middle-class

American taxpayers from the unfair "Alternative Minimum Tax," or AMT.

Without this fix, the AMT would increase taxes on an estimated 85,000

Maine families, and 26 million taxpayers nationwide.

The Senate Tax Extenders bill also includes provisions that I authored

which are helpful to taxpayers such as a new $300 tax credit for wood

and wood pellet stoves, and an extension of the $250 Teacher Tax

deduction, which helps offset the costs of classroom supplies that

teachers purchase with their own money.

The Senate bill also provides tax relief for community banks that have

capital losses because they bought federally backed mortgage-related

securities whose dividends were suspended. The tax benefit helps ease

the impact on the banks' ability to make new personal and small business

loans in their community. Forty-eight percent of small businesses are

customers at banks with less than $ 1 billion in assets, and failure to

help community banks could decrease the banks' lending capacity by as

much as $450 billion. This is a key reason why the National Federation

of Independent Business, the nation's leading small business advocacy

association, supported this bill.

As a former Maine financial services regulator, I understand that this

is a very complex problem and that there is plenty of blame for this

crisis to go around. Its roots lie in the past decade of the real-estate

bubble, relaxed lending standards, the greedy traders on Wall Street,

the existence of more than $1 trillion in outstanding subprime

mortgages, the creation of complicated securities tied to mortgages that

were no longer held by the lenders and brokers that originated them, and

the sale of those securities whose risks were poorly disclosed and

poorly understood.

The current upheaval in the financial markets certainly has created

great strain on the lives of families throughout the country as well as

our financial markets. It threatens a terrible recession here and around

the world. The bill, now before the House, reflects a consensus on the

shape of an effective intervention, and it provides robust provisions

for accountability and taxpayer protection. Congress must not adjourn

until this critical work is completed.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I appreciate having the benefit of

your views.

Sincerely,

* *Susan M. Collins

* *United States Senator

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2. LOUSY EXCUSES EMAIL SENT BY TOM ALLEN REGARDING THE 700B BAILOUT:

Subject: Response from Congressman Allen

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:29:54 -0400

From: Rep. Tom Allen

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on H.R. 1424, the

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA). I

appreciate hearing from you.

America is on the brink of the worst financial crisis since

the 1930s. The jobs, homes, prospects for higher education, and

retirement savings of millions of Americans are at risk. Without

appropriate action, we could see massive unemployment rates,

failed businesses, and huge numbers of home foreclosures across

the country. Families may be unable to take out basic home and

car loans, small businesses may not be able to make their payrolls,

and credit card interest rates may soar.

Already we have seen the deterioration of credit availability

throughout our financial system. Concerns about the potential

fallout from problems in the mortgage markets and the overall

weakening economy have led financial institutions large and small

to hoard capital and stop lending to each other and to consumers.

At a local level, we've seen regional and community banks

showing reluctance to lend to small businesses, farmers, and city

and county governments. More than 50 firms have abandoned or

severely cut back their student loan programs because they have

been unable to raise money in the markets. Maine has been unable

to raise $50 million in the bond markets for necessary highway

repairs, some of which were already underway.

The American people are outraged at the need for this

legislation. I share their anger. Mainers from York to Fort Kent

should not be held responsible for the mistakes of greedy

executives on Wall Street and the failure of this Administration

and its allies in Congress to exercise oversight and regulation of

the financial sector. However, I believe that it would be

irresponsible to do nothing and allow our economy to deteriorate

further.

On September 20, President Bush laid out a plan that would

have given the Secretary of the Treasury a blank check without

demanding any accountability from the Administration or

providing taxpayer protections. I was shocked at the amount of

power the Bush plan would have entrusted to one person. This

plan had no oversight, no protections for homeowners facing

foreclosure, and no method for recouping any taxpayer losses. The

original proposal would have benefited the rich and powerful while

ignoring the priorities of the gas station owner in Gorham, the

young couple who just bought their first home in Camden and

countless other hardworking Americans across the nation. I

opposed this plan because I believe it is time to put the middle

class first for a change.

Fortunately, Congress rejected that plan and instead crafted

a measure that will achieve those goals while restoring stability in

the economy to protect the employment, savings, and financial

futures of all Americans.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act:

* Phases in funding for the Treasury to buy assets

from struggling financial firms with additional

funds subject to Congressional approval. The bill

requires Congressional review after the first $350

billion is disbursed.

* Protects taxpayers by requiring companies to

reimburse taxpayers if the companies benefit from

future growth after selling bad assets to the

government.

* Protects homeowners by requiring the Treasury to

modify troubled loans so that people at risk of

foreclosure can stay in their homes. Widespread

foreclosures can decrease surrounding property

values and harm local economies.

* Limits executive compensation for participating

firms and makes sure that executives whose risk

taking and mismanagement created this panic don't

walk away with "golden parachutes."

* Ensures strong oversight of the Treasury's actions

to protect the taxpayers' interests. The EESA

creates four separate oversight entities or processes

that all aim to protect the taxpayers.

* Raises the FDIC insurance cap to $250,000 from

$100,000 to ensure that small businesses are

protected.

Though this legislation is often cited as costing $700

billion, it is likely that the plan's cost will be substantially less as

the Treasury will be reselling the assets purchased with the

funding. It is even possible it will not cost taxpayers anything if

the Treasury is able to sell the assets for a profit. The EESA gives

taxpayers a share of the profits of participating companies, or if a

company fails, taxpayers are first in line to recover assets.

Unfortunately, the Senate attached additional provisions to

this bill that should have been considered on their own merits. I

support and have voted for measures to provide alternative

minimum tax relief to 25 million middle class families and expand

incentives for renewable energy production. However, it was

inappropriate for the Senate to add these provisions and other tax

breaks targeted to niche industries to this bill. The Senate did not

provide sufficient offsets for these measures, increasing the deficit

even further. Our national debt has skyrocketed over the past eight

years, contributing to the situation we are in today, and it is time to

reverse that trend. I am disappointed that these provisions were

attached to this bill.

On Friday, October 3, the President signed H.R. 1424 into

law. This measure passed the Senate by a vote of 74 to 25 and the

House by a vote of 263 to 171; I voted for the bill.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act is only the first

step towards protecting and strengthening our economy. Congress

must modernize our financial regulations to match our 21st century

economy. We must scrutinize the causes of this crisis and change

the way that our financial markets work to ensure that it never

happens again. Those at fault must be held accountable and those

criminally culpable must go to jail. The House is already moving

forward on these tasks with relevant committees holding oversight

hearings in the upcoming weeks.

This bill is not the bill I would have written, and it is far

from perfect. But I believe that failure to pass it would have led to

an economic catastrophe. I will continue to work to require more

transparency in financial markets, to toughen regulation and

oversight, to provide even greater safeguards and to make sure the

economic security of families and small businesses are never

placed at such risk in the future.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please continue to do

so on issues important to you.

Sincerely,

Tom Allen

Member of Congress

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3. EMAIL SENT OUT BY MIKE MICHAUD EXPLAINING WHY HE VOTED *AGAINST* THE 700B BAILOUT - TWICE.

Subject: A Message from Congressman Michaud

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 17:36:12 -0400

From:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the financial crisis. I really appreciate hearing from you. Throughout my time in public service, whether in the Maine Legislature or the U.S. Congress, I have been committed to truly representing the best interests of my constituents. In examining bills, I look beyond the talking points and the politically heated language that all too often poisons Washington. The legislation on the financial markets' bailout was no different.

The Administration's initial three page plan was short on details and amounted to an unacceptable power grab. So, too, was their roll out. What is a travesty, and what panicked the market, was that "the plan" was presented in a way that told Wall Street, the media, every American, and the world that this was the only way to go. It was sold as a do or die choice, which artificially created an unnecessary panic. It was a terrible process that created a near impossible environment for any serious consideration of other plans and ideas on how to address our market's credit woes.

I agree that it was necessary for Congress to act swiftly to address the problems of the credit markets. But, I also thought that it was crucial that we get it right. The two proposals that we ultimately voted on in Congress were not just unfortunate, they were deeply flawed.

In the end, Congress did little to change the original White House plan. Instead, leaders in Congress backed a proposal that asked the American taxpayer, who did nothing to contribute to the current credit crunch, to shoulder the burden of the credit crisis by forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to bailout Wall Street firms who got us into this mess in the first place. Congress then actually compounded the failures of the Administration's handling of this crisis by not allowing amendments on one of the most significant bills ever voted on in the history of the Congress.

In fact, congressional leaders blocked proposals that I believed would have improved the bill. For example, Congress should see if the Treasury Department plan is working to help the credit markets before putting the full $700 billion on the line. One proposal that would accomplish this would have limited the Treasury Department's spending authority to $250 billion. Treasury Secretary Paulson himself said that he could probably only spend about $50 billion each month. Limiting the authorized amount would reduce taxpayer exposure and allow Congress more time to seriously consider the most responsible way forward. I think that this proposal makes a lot of sense, especially when you consider what a Treasury Department spokesperson said when asked where they came up with the $700 billion amount: "It's not based on any particular data point." Unbelievably, the spokesperson went on to say that they "just wanted to choose a really large number."

In addition to the spending amount, we should address the problem of foreclosures, which is at the heart of the current crisis. The provisions in the bill to help homeowners are extremely weak. When you read the fine print, you find language that encourages, rather than mandates, help for homeowners. Unfortunately proposals to force the Administration to use all their powers to help struggling homeowners were rejected. It was unfortunate that these proposals were brushed aside in favor of the Bush Administration's original framework.

I ultimately voted against the bill for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I believe the bill provides a meaningless check on the White House's ability to spend the full $700 billion. Though the bill divided spending authority into parts, Congress has no real say in how the money is spent. More specifically, unless Congress passes, by veto proof majorities in both chambers, a resolution disapproving the Administration's request to spend more, the White House is free to spend. When it is $700 billion of the taxpayers' money put on the line, there should be serious accountability provisions included.

The provisions to pay taxpayers back are little more than fantasy. The legislation merely requires that a future president propose a bill five years from now to pay for the losses incurred by the taxpayers. If repaying the taxpayer was important, there should have been an ironclad repayment provision written into the text of this bill. I do not have faith that Congress, five years from now, will vote to pass a multi-billion dollar tax increase on Wall Street.

As you read the text of the final bill, it actually recognizes the severe impact this plan will have on future generations. The bill includes a provision that raises our current debt ceiling to an astonishing $11.3 trillion. The bill even allows for the bailing out of foreign investors, with no guarantee of reinvestment in the United States. Maine taxpayers deserve better.

Unfortunately, when the House initially rejected the plan, the Senate's answer was to add new spending and tax breaks into the bill, including tax extenders to make wooden arrows for children and excise tax relief for rum from Puerto Rico. These tax extenders are outrageous to include in a bill that was supposed to be devoted to addressing the credit crisis.

While I strongly support the tax cuts to help the middle class, the Senate did not even attempt to offset the new provisions' costs. The sweeteners added to the bill will cost the taxpayers just over $100 billion on top of the $700 billion they are going to pay for the bailout.

At the end of the day, because the Senate bill did nothing to address the original concerns I had with the House bill, I voted against it. This was not a vote that I took lightly. Over the past two weeks I sought out financial experts, economists, regulators, and banks - at both at the national and state level - to get their analysis. While they were in agreement that action must be taken, they were not convinced that the White House plan was what should be done. In my heart, I hope that it works. But I cannot place my principles on a shelf, hold my nose and vote for such a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation.

Thank you again for sharing your views with me. In addition, I also provide occasional email updates on a range of issues affecting people in Maine. If you would like to receive this information, please visit my website at http://michaud.house.gov/email_newsletter.asp and sign up for my email newsletter. I appreciate the opportunity to represent you.

With warmest regards,

Michael H. Michaud

Member of Congress

I also received a copy of that Email from Sen. Collins. I guess she has had enough and can't think rational. Too many pots on the fire I guess. She was brought up in an economic environment that fostered nothing but small business and has no concept of what it could be like to have Maine join the rest of the United States in providing good paying jobs with benefits and solid retirement programs.

NO MATTER WHAT - IF YOU BELIEVE IN FREE ENTERPRISE, SMALL BUSINESS AND GUN OWNERSHIP YOU MUST VOTE FOR REPUBLICAN SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES-TO PROTECT YOUR OWN INTERESTS