Congressman Tom Graves (R-GA-9) was one of 35 recipients of the “Defender of Economic Freedom Award” from the Club for Growth:
The Club for Growth, one of the nation’s leading free-market advocacy organizations with over 55,000 members, announced that U.S. Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA-09) has earned the annual Defender of Economic Freedom award. The award honors Members of Congress who have an exceptional, consistent voting record on economic growth issues.
Rep. Graves, one of just thirty-five members of Congress to receive the award, said, “I appreciate the Club for Growth’s support in the fight for lower taxes, spending cuts, and smaller government. This last year in Congress has reaffirmed my belief that we’ll create jobs and stabilize the economy by getting the government out of the way and passing pro-growth policies that encourage the private sector to expand.”
Said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola, “With his score of 96, and a lifetime score of 96, Congressman Graves has demonstrated that he is on the side of economic freedom not just at election time, but every time. The Club for Growth values Members of Congress who stand on principle over political expediency. The people of Georgia are lucky to have strong, pro-growth representation in Congress.”
To see the Club for Growth’s 2010 scorecard for all members of Congress, visit: www.ClubforGrowth.org/projects
The Club for Growth’s rating is derived from each lawmaker’s voting record on pro-growth policies and takes into account the organization’s policy goals. Every member of Congress is rated on a scale of 0-100, with 100 indicating the best rating on issues pertaining to economic growth and freedom. The Club for Growth’s policy goals include lowering the marginal tax rates, cutting and limiting government spending, repealing the death tax, and regulation reform, among other issues.
Congratulations, Congressman Graves. You’re doing a great job representing Georgia values in Washington.
{ 4 comments }
Like his votes but not sure of his values. Prior to gushing all over someone shouldn’t those little dark clouds be cleared ? The FDIC said in April it would decide in 30-60 days if it would pursue a $2 mil. lawsuit while Graves office had no comment. Still in limbo ?
Amen and amen.
The FDIC stated that it would decide whether to pursue the lawsuit ALREADY filed against Graves and Rogers. It didn’t say that it had some grounds to overfile another suit. I’d wager that they will start looking at what has been spent on the litigation, the capacity of the borrowers to repay, and the prospective cost, and the case will get settled. Graves and Roger don’t have the personal net worth or the income to ever repay the full amount of the loan.
http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/archives/49339/
Making a bad deal and going broke in it doesn’t mean that someone is dishonest or has poor values. A heck of a lot of good people have done it, and particularly recently.
The transferring of assets was definitely bad timing and was the catalyst of a fraudulent transfer allegation, but t BCB did not pursue it that vigorously. They never added the transferees as defendants, which is essential to setting them aside. A plaintiff can still get damages against the transferor without the transferee present, but that is generally not considered complete relief when voiding transfers is what really is needed.
Oddly, BCB never got a receiver appointed by the court to take over the property and collect all the money. The bank left it in control of the patsy that took it over and allowed him to take money from the guests and then it stopped accepting the checks that he remitted for payment. In my experience in litigation with hotel defaults and litigation, the bank always sends in a new management company and demands consent for a receiver before then moving the court for it. The note and deed to secure debt typically provide a lot of rights to a lender to take such actions
” Graves and Roger don’t have the personal net worth or the income to ever repay the full amount of the loan.”
Might not be able to write a check but over time & liquidation…..betcha they could handle a big hunk of it.
Obviously there is a lot of contractual legal manueverings beyond my ability to grasp but, to me, when the handshake & sigs on a personal guarantee of a loan take place, absent some fraud on the part of the loaner, the money is owed and the guarantors have basic responsibilities to the bank & the collateral until released.
Comments on this entry are closed.