To the Members of Congress Concerning the Bailout Proposal
You're falling for a ruse. You were suckered once before. It was called Iraq; this time, it's the financial services industry. You're being told, once again, that disaster is right around the corner if you do not give the President and his people the authority to act right away.
You're still thinking that the wording of your legislation will somehow put reins on how the "crisis" is managed. This was what you thought the last time, when you handed President George W. Bush what he interpreted as the authority to wage a full-scale war that has now lasted more than five long, costly years. The disaster of your thinking, both then and now, is swallowing the predicate assumption that the Administration is telling you what the real crisis is.
You have grave, important, reputable people within the Administration not only telling you the crisis is real, but also telling you what constitutes the crisis. You have outside experts telling you the crisis is real. You have news media outlets telling you the crisis is real.
That's exactly what happened the last time; and just like last time, you'll eventually find out what you probably already know: it isn't any more real this time than it was when then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice threatened a "mushroom cloud," Vice President Dick Cheney misrepresented aluminum rocket tubes as uranium centrifuge parts, and George W. Bush used a forged document as evidence that Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. It isn't any more real this time than it was when Colin Powell disgraced himself before the United Nations by repeating lies and Rice famously claimed "Nobody could have imagined" crazed jihadists would use planes to ram buildings when she and Bush were told exactly that this kind of attack was imminent.
It isn't any more real this time than it was when we committed ourselves to a war in a nation that had not hurt us but would, over the next five-and-a-half years, drink the blood of over four thousand of our soldiers and suck the life from our credibility among the nations of the world.
Now, five-and-a-half years later, we are still mired in an occupation that cannot be brought to a close. Even the Democratic candidate for President, Barack Obama, who once talked about something close to immediate withdrawal, now describes a 16-month timetable. Moreover, whenever we leave, the cost of the war will continue. By the estimate of Nobel Prize-winning economist Alfred Stiglitz, the final tab will be as much as three trillion dollars, of which the U.S. has spent to date less than a fourth.
With all that, the terror network that actually, successfully attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, still exists; and in the theatre of war where we are engaging that enemy and its allies, we are losing. The forces of the Taliban allies of al-Qa'ida control the majority of the physical territory of Afghanistan, they have turned the country into a vertical opium monopoly larger than any other on earth, and they are using the neighboring nation of Pakistan as a staging ground for recruitment, training, and the projection of power into battle theatres of their choosing inside Afghanistan.
And just like last time, as you commit this nation to a war against a false crisis, the war that should be foughtthe only war that should be fought right nowfor American families losing their homes, their creditworthiness, their jobs, their opportunities, and their futures will be addressed like an ugly stepchild while the false threat will just keep billowing into a black hole gorging on the treasure of this nation.
Last time, Iraq was the battleground that caused us to ignore the theatre of engagement where the jihadists actually were; this time, the financial services industry will be the theatre of engagement that will cause us to ignore the crisis of American citizens losing their homes, their jobs, and their futures.
You refused last time to see the manipulation and fabrication of "evidence" being poured at you by men and women who had, themselves, failed to secure the homeland, and you're doing it again: Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke allowed the growth rate of the kind of money huge financial institutions use to go completely out of control while the Federal Reserve held the growth rate of the kind of money that average Americans use at nearly zero. That created a liquidity crisis that forced millions upon millions of Americans into a debilitating spiral of unpayable indebtedness as they went to the banking system that was awash in money the Fed had been letting grow out of control. The financial services sector thus took advantage of this widening disparity between cash available in the economy of regular people and the claims on cash flow they were surrendering to the financial services companies.
Banks, investment houses, and all manner of other top-notch institutions had a veritable cornucopia of risks on which they could build an intangible asset empire of derivatives against which they could offer hedges on the very mortgages and other loans they were making to everyday people trying to hold onto their lifestyles and their pursuit of the American dream. There was nothing wrong with Americans doing this: that was the great promise of the last half of the 20th Century, a country where people could become prosperous, live in their own homes, and see to it that their children grew up to have the same and maybe even better.
Look hard at what the reality is. Do you really think that dream is still attainable for tens of millions of Americans? How do you think those kids whose parents have lost their homes are going to grow up?
And then there's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who was at one time, himself, a part of that very industry he now demands of you that the American taxpayers bail out. This is the Secretary of the Treasury for an Administration that took the country from growing budget surpluses at the end of the Clinton Administration to year after year of staggering federal budget deficits, which made the United States of America a massive borrower in global credit markets, finally creating a severe squeeze that first crowded out borrowing for private investment and is now doing the same to household consumption. (This was shown in Part Four of my series, "The Economics of Wreckage": the numbers are right there. Go look at them if you think any long-term good came out of a government that had no sense whatsoever of fiscal discipline.)
This bailout, just like the war in Iraq, will end up costing huge multiples of what you think right now it will, and that's because you have no idea what's going to come out of the woodwork once the program is underway. Just like in Iraq, where forces of mayhem long held at bay became everyday nightmares for American troops, bad investments, bad paper, and bad decisions long held in the background of financial statements will all of a sudden start billowing forth, and your $700 billion bailout will become a running nightmare of one round of extra funding after another, with a few of your colleagues finally demanding an immediate end to it while the rest of you know very well that it cannot end until it's all over and the United States is simply burned out. Just like Iraq.
And here you are, preening yourselves before the media, wiping the sweat off your brow, proudly displaying your "compromise" bailout bill for which the majority in Congress will vote in favor and the crisis monger in the White House will approve.
Good for you.
Now, stop. You've let everyone know you can be whipped into hysteria. You've let everyone know that you learned nothing from the Iraq debacle.
Now, let everyone know there's some reason not to throw you out of Congress. Show the citizens of this countrythe real citizens, not the corporationsthat you have a modicum of fear in you for their wrath.
Stop now. For the sake of this nation, just walk away from this bailout. For once in your collective lives as representatives of We the People, stand up to the fear mongering from those who know no other means by which to govern.
For once in your collective lives as the co-equal, legislative branch of the federal government, seize the moment and take back this country from those who would once again gut it of treasure for the benefit of the few.
Vote no on the bailout legislation, and tell the Bush Administration and its financial services industry beggars to stand down and go quietly into the bleak night of their failures.
Vote no on this bailout package.
The Dark Wraith has spoken.
Comments
Wrote trog69:
Wrote Progressive Traditionalist:
Good morning, Dark Wraith.
Thank you for posting this. Thank you very much.
I had recently taken much the same view on a thread elsewhere, a lone dissenter to the bailout. Everyone else was more concerned with an opportunity to impose regulation.
I've always been one of a mind to question a view if it should become too predominant or fashionable. I find fashion to be of little substance.
Then again, there's a bit of contrarian in me, a part that struggles to see the other side.
Anyway, my position was that any and all bailouts should necessarily be avoided; no changing horses mid-stream. Even were this to cause mass starvation and armed revolt, it should be avoided nevertheless.
Only then will the market be able to work. Anything less than suffering the fullness of the consequences would be failure.
When charting a course for catastrophe, it should be no surprise when catastrophe is sighted from the crow's nest.
Like Robin Hood splitting the arrow, we have nailed the mark. What room have we to complain?
The system should be allowed to work, even unto its awful end.
For without that awful end, we will never, as a people, learn to desire differently.
And that is our goal: to learn to desire differently.
Without that awful end, our learning will never be complete, our desire will ever be half-hearted.
We, as a people, need to learn to desire a thing in its completeness, and not in its parts.
I was thinking maybe I'm just an ass.
Now I find myself in good company. Most excellent company, I should say.
But thank you for this post. It is quite timely.
Wrote Minstrel Boy:
paging citizen robespierre...
call for citizen robespierre...
Wrote BlondeSense:
Robespierre just knocked on my door asking me to sign a petition!
Wrote Moody Blue:
Well, well, well. It got voted down.
Roll Call: 228 to 205
(I'm surprised, actually.)
Wrote Moody Blue:
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008:
Note: According to the House Majority Leader, H.R.3997 will be used as the vehicle for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. See documents on the House Financial Services Committee website and H.Res.1517 on the House Rules Committee website.
More info at D.U.
Wrote Minstrel Boy:
i would have answered robespierre's knock on the door, but i was busy in the barn beating my plowshares back into swords, pruning hooks back into spears and other such chores.
i think that there's still enough heat in the forge to pound out a decent guillotine blade.
even if there isn't i can rustle up the scrap for a few of them.
for now, just pounding the mad living fuck outta hot steel is making me happy.
Wrote trog69:
Gonna be a damned long swim to Bastillamo.
Wrote konagod:
Right on, Dark Wraith.
Yesterday I left a comment for Jon Swift in which I said the bailout is like trying to remove way too much salt from the cake batter after the cake is already in the oven.
We're gonna have to eat it or throw it out and start over. And I for one have reached my sodium quota.
Wrote Anna Van Z:
That was excellent. Did you happen to send it to your legislative hacks?
Wrote Wild Clover:
What I can't figure is this.... Say I had a 100million dollars and lent it out to a bunch of people for some type of collateral that I was pretty sure would not lose value, like say, houses. Say I figured that I'd probably have a 5-10% default rate, but turning around the property wouldn't lose me more than a few grand, and I'd do fine.
Thing being, if I were said business owner and my default rate began to climb, while the market values were dropping, I would have cut my losses by offerring either reduced interest or NO interest to the folks in trouble for some set period, my reasoning being that if I have 100,000 and loan it out, make $5000 in interest on it, then end up selling it for 75,000, I've lost 20 grand. while forgiving interest doesn't lose me a penny of my original investment, I just don't make money. I could not for the life of me figure out why most of the banks did not go for simply refinancing EVERYONE's loans when it first appeared that we were about to glut the market with foreclosures. I obviously missed something either in the economics lessons offerred here, or in common sense 101, because I would think if I asked you which you would rather have at the end of the day...the money you started with, with a small amount extra, or the small amount plus a white elephant ( said white elephant being sellable for much less than the money you paid), you all would tell me you want to make the little profit rather than take a big loss.
Yeah, profits would have been pitiful, lay-offs would have happened in the industry and their stocks would have fallen, but I don't see that we would have had the cascading bankrupts or need for a 700 billion bailout. No business would have lost money, even if they didn't make any (except some of the speculators counting on quick turn arounds and seeing their debt stay steady but the sale price plummett), homeowners would have lost equity temporarily, but it would have come back in the not too distant future. Outside of sheer greed and inability to think outside the box, can anyone tell me WHY this option wasn't taken, or why as a "bailout" the government can't simply says "we lend you 10% of th amount of your bad mortgage paper as capital, you refinance _all_ your loans at 5% fixed (except the ones at better terms). Your profits are 90% ours until the loan is paid back. Your CEO and high officers get salary commeasurate with say, the POTUS and his cabinet plus a profitshare (split up that 10%). Once the loan is paid back, let'em do as they want, within whatever new regulations (if any) come out of this mess.
Edited because I really need to quit posting while braindead, and I do try and show more respect for the english language than faux folksy republican pols.
Add Comments
Log in
Become a Registered Commenter
« Return to the main page.




This blog offers Internet travelers a place where they can discuss economics, finance, politics, and other topics of scholarly and practical interest to thinking people. Your comments are always welcome, and your visits are most appreciated.
Your host of this Weblog is an award-winning college teacher and writer who specializes in economics, finance, mathematics, business administration, computer hardware and software skills, and English grammar and composition. His extensive writings on the history of the English language appeared on About.com in the avatar of the Selig Wraith in the
Send a Secure Message to the Dark Wraith

![Validate my RSS feed [Valid RSS]](http://dark-wraith.com/images/valid-rss.png)




B-But Mr. Haney, I mean Cheney tole us that deficits don't matter.
------------------------
FROM THE NYTimes:
“One of the major reasons that the government helped out in the Bear Stearns situation,” Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. testified at a Senate hearing this week, “was to avoid throwing it into bankruptcy with all the credit-default swaps.”
Mr. Paulson said the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was working to develop protocols for that market to deal with a failure of a big player, and indicated that he did not see a need for legislation.
But Christopher Cox, the S.E.C. chairman, said Congress should act. “Neither the S.E.C. nor any regulator has authority over the C.D.S. market, even to require minimum disclosure to the market,” he testified. “The market is ripe for fraud and manipulation,” he added.
Credit default swaps. How do these affect the rest of the market? How much of this obviously jacked up all out of proportion insurance fraud sytem are we expected to cover anyway? Is this $50 trillion bag of shit being used as leverage to force us to ensure that the biggies don't fail, so that the house of cards doesn't implode?
Dark Wraith, the callous, bought and paid for legislators you've challenged, for once in their miserable existences, to do whatever is the right thing for the good of the citizenry, are too busy trying to maneuver their opponents into holding the bag when it blows up. Even now, they care only for themselves and their benefactors. Foreign banks around the globe are similarly situated, with the luckless former home-owners and those unable to borrow, a problem for...later, if at all.
What a shameful thing we've come to, when we cannot believe anyone in Washington. Bernie Sanders; That's about it.