Rohrabacher calls bailout a reward for special interests

After days of debate and a retooling in the U.S. Senate, the $700 billion financial bailout package passed the House of Representatives 263-171 on its second try Friday, and President Bush promptly signed it into law.

But local politicians remain split on its merits, in ways that appear to cross over party lines.

U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who voted against the package in both its original and final forms, released a statement excoriating its passage and saying the bill had been railroaded through Congress.

“Viable alternatives that did not require an enormous expansion of government or the taxpayers to shoulder the $700 billion cost of Wall Street’s irresponsibility were not permitted to be introduced or debated as part of the process,” Rohrabacher said in his statement. “The changes made by the Senate do nothing to address the root causes nor does the bill ensure we will not face another financial crisis a few months from now.”

Rohrabacher called the bill a reward for special interests.

“The bottom line is this bill takes money from people who acted responsibly and gives it to those who acted irresponsibly and that is not only unfair, but will lead to serious long term economic consequences.”

Rohrabacher’s Democratic challenger, Huntington Beach Mayor Debbie Cook, had been skeptical of some of the features of the proposed bailout and said she was further angered by some of the additions to it in the Senate. But she ultimately said she would have reluctantly voted yes if she were in Congress.

“Hopefully it’ll slow the hemorrhaging, but I don’t think it’s going to stop us from a serious recession,” Cook said. “This is not the way I would do it, but something absolutely had to be done.”

Still, Cook said, a provision added to the bill in the Senate that cut taxes on children’s archery supplies enraged her nearly enough to change her mind.

“It made me angry that they would mix somebody’s bow and arrow business into this huge crisis that we face,” Cook said. “It could have been enough to throw me over the edge—in a time of crisis, that they would still be looking for how to put pork into a bill.”

But one congressional district further down the coast, it was the Republican congressman, Rep. John Campbell, who supported the bill, while his Democratic challenger Steve Young was firmly against it.

“I wouldn’t say that I or anyone else who voted for it is happy, but we are relieved,” said Campbell, who represents Newport Beach. “I think that this will go a long way towards stabilizing our markets, so that they begin to operate or function rationally again.”

MICHAEL ALEXANDER may be reached at (714) 966-4618 or at michael.alexander@latimes.com.