U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy, D-5th District, said Wednesday any economic rescue package he votes for must have strict protections for the taxpayer including strong restrictions on pay of CEOs who participate in the program.
"There needs to be a strong, bi-partisan oversight board that directs and regulates this program," he said.
Fresh from a financial services committee hearing with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, Murphy spoke to reporters by telephone from Washington. He reviewed the economic recovery plan currently before Congress and gave it a thumbs down.
This is a VERY smart move by the Congressman. There is NO WAY in hell ANY Congressman should give the President a 700 billion dollars for a bailout without any conditions, which is echoed in Murphy's remarks.
While negotiations continue, the Congressman stressed provisions he believes must be in the recovery plan: taxpayer protections, a return on future profits of rescued companies for the taxpayer and limits on executive compensation for leaders of companies who benefit from this plan.
Murphy said Paulson and Bernanke's economic rescue package was met with skepticism by House members.
"Both [men] have done a pretty terrible job of explaining the rationale for their bill and the parameters surrounding it," Murphy said. "No doubt Republicans and Democrats need to come together, but the lack of willingness by the President and the [Treasury] Secretary to put into the bill real taxpayer protection is troubling to many of us."
About accountability, Murphy said, "We need to put real regulations on people originating mortgages in a way that we haven't done. The subprime mortgage market was the Wild Wild West of Wall Street. We need to put basic underwriting criteria through regulation that applies to prime and subprime mortgages. For example, we need a requirement for all lenders making loans that the borrower has a reasonable ability to repay the loan."
Murphy added that "we also need to do a much better job of flagging the subprime exposure of secondary investors. Legislation moving through the House would define prime and subprime loans so investors can better judge how much exposure they'll have."
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
