From my representative, Adam Putnam (Fl-12), via email:

This is an historic time in our nation’s economic history and we face unprecedented challenges – ones that are posing a real threat to our nation’s economic underpinnings. As negotiations remain underway throughout the weekend on a financial rescue plan, I remain committed to ensuring that American taxpayers are safeguarded. Our top priorities are to make certain that Main Street is protected from the irresponsibilities of Wall Street and to restore confidence in our financial system.

It is in no American’s interest to see this crisis continue, economic confidence weaken, or to witness more dominoes fall in our financial sector, endangering pensions, 401(k)s, jobs, access to college tuition and the safest of Americans’ savings vehicles: checking, savings and money market accounts. This would lead to a financial collapse of historic proportions that could generate widespread financial panic that reaches down into every community. We have already seen the largest bank failure in history occur this past week with Washington Mutual.

In crafting legislation, I am working hard to make sure that taxpayers are not exposed to provisions that further prolong the ability of our market to correct themselves. Some are attempting to insert into the current proposal under negotiation provisions that would require labor union representation on Corporate Boards and call for 20 percent of any profits made off this intervention to be funneled to political organizations.

I am working hard to see that these measures are removed and that Congress remains committed to passing legislation that focuses on dealing with the crisis at hand. Now is not the time for partisan politics, and it is my hope that moving forward we will remove such abuse from the process and from bipartisan discussions.

The initial plan proposed by Treasury did not include a number of measures that would ensure sufficient protection of taxpayer exposure, such as adequate congressional oversight or that Wall Street Executives would not benefit from taxpayer funding. As such, I support measures to be included that place limits on executive golden parachutes of companies that participate in Treasury’s proposal, bring forth accountability and stronger provisions relating to congressional oversight and authority, and proper distribution of funding for the Treasury proposal in batches, rather than the blank check requested.

Please know that I am prepared to work around the clock in a bipartisan manner – where all parties have “skin in the game” in order to reach an effective agreement.

I am hopeful that Congress will soon act to pass a plan that will ensure stability in the market place and avoid additional economic downturns. I look forward to updating you throughout the weekend on the progress of this legislative package.

Thank you again for your interest.

–Adam H. Putnam

The paragraph I’ve highlighted above refers to one of the most disturbing aspects of the legislation that some are trying to ram through. You see, that 20% would go to the Housing Trust Fund. What’s the Housing Trust Fund, you ask? Ed Morrissey explains.

One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasn’t a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza:

[...]

The real purpose of section D is to send more funds to La Raza and ACORN through housing welfare, via the slush fund of the HTF. They want to float their political efforts on behalf of Democrats with public money, which was always the purpose behind the HTF. They did the same thing in April in the first bailout bill, se tting aside $100 million in “counseling” that went in large part to ACORN and La Raza, and at least in the former case, providing taxpayer funding for a group facing criminal charges in more than a dozen states for fraud.

Rep. Putnam, thanks for the update. Keep fighting, we’re counting on you.

The whole blogosphere is abuzz with talk about Barack Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright, Bill Kristol’s column, and the dispute over Obama’s attendance.

But has anyone else noticed the irony of his “alibi”? He was speaking to La Raza.

So let me get this straight. He couldn’t be listening to his racist pastor because he was speaking to a racist group. Isn’t that like claiming you couldn’t have robbed the bank because you were busy sticking up the liquor store at the time?