Crisis exposes Seals' lack of judgment

I am very disappointed to hear that Dan Seals supports financial meltdown. When asked to comment on the Sept. 29 defeat of the (original) financial rescue bill in the House of Representatives, Seals said the he did not support the bill because "It was too much in favor of the Bush Administration proposal."

What does that even mean?

George Bush will be gone in a little over 100 days. The health of our financial system will not affect him except by way of his legacy, which is trashed anyway. This bill was to ensure that the next president, be it John McCain or Barack Obama, doesn't have to become Franklin Roosevelt version 2.0 and pull the country out of a depression.

The final bill had significant taxpayer protections, including sharp limits on CEO salaries and retirement packages that Mark Kirk fought for. It was not perfect, but it was needed. If anyone doubts that, just look at the stock market. The single biggest point drop in history, $1.2 trillion in equity, erased. That was the cost of Congressional inaction.

Seals' opposition to the rescue bill shows that he clearly is not ready to be a congressman. Times like this require bipartisanship and compromise. Opposing a bill because it is "too much in favor of the Bush Administration" is juvenile, destructive, and dangerous.

Christian Lopez

Mount Prospect