Revenue, Economy and the Union

I have to say I am finding reading these to be very interesting. Seeing how some of the things they said correlate to our country today is amazing. Timeless principles of government.

Letter 12 – The Utility of the Union in Respect to Revenue

This letter deals obviously with streams of revenue for the country both with taxes and with trade. – “A nation cannot long exist without revenue.”

Commerce is the most useful, productive source of income and has such become important in political arenas. All craftsmen and laborers look forward to the reward that comes from the purchase of their created items. It is suggested that as commerce flourishes, land value rises. We know that is true.

“The ability of a country to pay its taxes must always be proportioned in a great degree to the quantity of money in circulation and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce must render the payment of taxes easier and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury. Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty.”

If the states remained smaller Confederacies there would be competition within them in the issue of lowering duties levied to other countries. As a United States we would only guarding one territory for trade – the Atlantic. This would allow us to patrol our own shores and make sure that there were no rogue operators seeking to interfere with trade.

This line sounds curiously like a Fair Tax precursor – “Personal estate, from the difficulty of tracing it, cannot be subjected to large contributions by any other means than by taxes on consumption.”

Letter 13 – Advantage of the Union in Respect To Economy in Government

This is a shorter letter, dealing with costs of Government. If the states are united into one Union there will only be one civil budget to operate. If they remain individuals states/countries then the expenses would be unnecessarily multiplied. As each group would necessitate a government on the same scale as the one being proposed for the Union. On size and population of the smaller entities alone it would be easy to see how they would struggle to compete with larger states. “Nothing can be more evident than that the thirteen states will be able to support a national government better than one half, or one third, or any number less than the whole.” – With that said, I am sure they never had ANY idea we would get ourselves into the economic mess that our government now is.

Letter 14 – Objections to the Proposed Constitution from Extent of Territory Answered

We open here with again alluding to the differences between a democracy and a republic and confusion that complicates this. “In a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their represetnatives and agents. A democracy covers one small spot . A republic can cover a large region.” The limitations of a democracy are that it assembles in one spot. That has easily been done with all the 13 states being in attendance at gatherings. With all the mathematical calculations of the states at the time, the territory was about as large as some European countries, not even much larger than Germany. Poland, France, Spain, Great Britian all with sizes comparable or inferior still have to travel as far for their governmental meetings.

Here is an intersting tidbit – “First, It is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charge with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdicition is limited. Subordinate governments retain due authority and activity.”

Second, “the immediate object of the Constitution is to secure the union of the thirteen primitive states, and to add to them other states.”

Third, “intercourse through the Union will be facilitated by new improvements – roads, travel accommodations, navigation on water, canals.”

Fourth, “and more important is that as almost every State will on one side or other be a frontier.” Even if it would be difficult to get their representatives to the seat of the national government they would find it more troublesome to try and defend themselves against intruders.” As one Union there would be great benefit and great reward.

Country in crisis – strategy for disaster

The market keeps failing. Stocks keep dropping. Confidence is down. The bailouts, spending, stimulus, etc. that are supposed to be helping are having the exact opposite effect and things are getting worse.

But the question comes . . . Is this all being done on purpose? Is the economy being manipulated to in effect create a society even more dependent upon social programs and big government? I do not usually buy into conspiracy theory, but when there is logical reasoning behind them I think they should be at least looked into.

There is a strategy known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy that forces political change through orchestrated crisis. It was proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target done by capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s. They hired George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.

The huge expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO’s Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani also credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all. Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for “an effort at economic sabotage.”

(which by the way – a perception of lifetime entitlement is enough to make me crazy. Welfare was never meant to be the sole supporter of the family or individual. It was supposed to be a temporary measure to get people back on their feet. This is a HUGE pet peeve of mine.)

Then in 1982 the voting rights wing of the movement got traction. Guess what group that is? ACORN. Along with ProjectVote and Human SERVE. Known as one of the most radical groups in the country ACORN states their purpose as,”the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low-and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country. Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote.”

ACORN has been involved in numerous charges of voter fraud. Their strategy follows the pattern of Cloward-Piven. Link from American Thinker.

• 1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
• 2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
• 3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.

There is also cause to wonder if this strategy also contributed to the current mortgage crisis as well. The mortgage crisis has some blame falling back as far as the Carter administration. It began with theCommunity Reinvestment Act(CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter’s answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers.

Stan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post: In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of “redlining”-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation

Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront.

New York Post article – A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.” That lender’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit.”

I wish I were smart enough to come up with all this information. But instead I used these sources:

Cloward-Piven Strategy

Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis by James Simpson

Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption

Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy

Obama, Voter Fraud & Mortgage Meltdown

A letter from the boss

I got this email today from a friend and thought it was worth passing along . . .

A Letter From The Boss

To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn’t pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.

However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.

First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Cadillac outside. You’ve seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I’m sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.

However, what you don’t see is the back story.

I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was
converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn’t have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom’s for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn’t look like it was birthed in the 70’s. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don’t. There is no “off” button for me.

When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe
this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden — the nice house, the Cadillac, the vacations… you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I’ve made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who
didn’t. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.

Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I’ve paid is steep and not without wounds.

Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don’t pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my “stimulus” check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check?

Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.

The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you’d quit and you wouldn’t work here. I mean, why should you? That’s nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.

Here is what many of you don’t understand … to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn’t need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don’t defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you?

Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it.
Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.

So where am I going with all this?

It’s quite simple.

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child’s future.
Frankly, it isn’t my problem any more.

Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I’m done. I’m done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be
destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

So, if you lose your job, it won’t be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this
country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about….

Signed,

Your boss

A Bit of Joe and Campaign Spending – what an excess

So I just don’t buy the “I am one of you” stuff that Obama tries to perpetuate. He is not your average middle class guy. He lives in a house he paid $1.6 million for. (ok, i know that in california that is still a shack – but in most of the rest of the country that is a big ole nice house)

And just in case you were wondering here are the specs on the house. It is not tiny.

This 3-story, 96-yr-old Georgian is close to the hustle and bustle of Chicago’s South Side. But with 4 fireplaces and a 1,000-bottle wine cellar, you may never want to leave. Sold for $1.65 million in 2005. Upgrade your property when your next-door buddy (before his felony trial, of course) sells you part of his plot!

Will not even touch on the next-door neighbor bit.

So now for relating to the middle class on income- In 2000 the Obama’s income was about $240,000.  By 2006 they were up to a whopping $984,000. Not forgetting in 2005 they passed $1.6 million.

And they don’t appear to be the most charitable as far as their giving of their vast income goes. The max they gave through 2006 was about 6% of their income. So he is not really going out of his way to give to the middle class or to those less fortunate.

So I am not sure I buy that he is really in touch with his constituents. I think he is just as out of touch with reality as you can possibly be. Don’t you just wonder what he would actually think had he been left to form his own opinions?

On the whole Joe the Plumber mess. Just because he got stuck saying something that now the democrats have to cover for.

Barack actually said this,
“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

Nice. So he has not really been spreading his wealth around, but he wants to make sure that the rest of us do. Frankly I would like to spend the next four years just skating through comfortably and hold off on becoming considered “wealthy” until government understands that people who work hard for their money and earn it will share with others. At a higher percentage point than Obama and his family do. Because they will appreciate what it took for them to get there. I don’t understand why it is okay and considered “the right thing to do” to give hand outs to people who are capabale of working and providing for their families. (I understand there are always exceptions to the rule)

But back to Joe, this is my favorite description of the ridiculous assertion by some democrats that Joe the Plumber was a plant.

Ace says………

TEN YEAR REPUBLICAN SCHEME PUTS COVERT “GOPERATIVE” JOE THE PLUMBER IN EXACT HOUSE WHOSE DOOR BARACK OBAMA WAS DESTINED TO KNOCK UPON

I got news for you: Whatever door Obama knocked on, Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher (aka Agent X-88 Delta) would answer. Agent X-88 (and his “son,” the midget French acrobat/psychic assassin “Joey”) lived in all the houses in the neighborhood, each connected to the rest by a series of underground tunnels.

Now on to my campaign spending rant.

He has raised a massive $650 million dollars. What is that about? That is more than both candidates spent combined in the last election! What an indulgent waste. He went back on his pledge to take public financing which McCain stuck with. Combine that with the deep pockets of Hollywood, who are by nature fanatic liberals totally out of touch with reality, and there is no way for McCain to combat that. And frankly he should not have to.

Why does it feel like the vote is for sale?

That whoever can spend the most, sell the most, be the celebrity is going to win?

This is not just a popularity contest. If we were voting for Mr. America that might be one thing. But this is for the president. It is not a game show. Why not actually focus on issues instead of trying to outspend each other and put on a bigger “show”. McCain will never be able to outspend you Mr. Obama and frankly I am glad for that. I would actually be more bothered if my candidate were spending as much as you.

With our country in hard economic times I find it disturbing that you are choosing to use this money to do such ridiculous things like putting ads in video games, buying prime time space the week before the election, etc.

I could come up with some more useful things you could do with $650 million dollars to help your base. The “hurting middle class”. And if you have this thing as wrapped up as your pundits like to think you do, then why are you going to the obscene lengths that you are to spend more money? And take more money from those who are hurting? You don’t need any more money to promote yourself. Give it back. That would show more character than keeping it and squandering it on ads that are unnecessary.

Explanation of US Economic System

This video offers a great explanation of how the Economic system works.

Boxer Response – Better than Eshoo

So today the email response (again, I know it is a stock letter) came from Barbara Boxer. I post this just to be in contrast to the Eshoo letter. While I may not agree with Barbara Boxer on many views, I respect and appreciate her response.

Unlike the Eshoo email, Boxer does not show partisanship in her response. She is respectful and appears to have crafted her response for all constituents. So kudos out to Barbara Boxer. Even though I still am not happy with the bill, I appreciate your respect and consideration.

Dear Mr. and Mrs. xxxxx:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the financial rescue legislation (H.R.1424). I appreciate hearing from you on this critical issue.

The fundamentals of our economy have been shaken, and Americans are deeply concerned. When Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke placed an urgent phone call a few weeks ago to Congress to say we needed emergency action to prevent a major financial meltdown, I expected they would come forward with a plan that was targeted and reasonable, with appropriate oversight and taxpayer protections.

Unfortunately, what they brought us was a $700 billion blank check, which they asked us to sign with no questions asked. This plan contained no oversight, no taxpayer equity, and no control over CEO pay. I strongly opposed this proposal – and thanks to your phone calls, e-mails, and letters, Congress stopped it in its tracks.

The Senate made major improvements designed to strengthen our economy and protect our taxpayers. Instead of a blank check, the Senate plan included significant Congressional oversight, equity for taxpayers, curbs on executive compensation, an increase in FDIC insurance protection for bank depositors, middle-class tax relief, and job-creating tax incentives for renewable energy. The bill passed the Senate by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 74-25 and the House by a vote of 263-171.

These were very important changes. But let me be honest: There were still aspects of this package that I didn’t like. I preferred the government acquiring more equity instead of toxic assets. I wanted the package to be put forward in smaller installments and to include more checks and balances to make sure it would work.

For me, the deciding factor in my Yes vote was information I received from the State of California. I was told by the Treasurer’s office that without access to credit, which is the goal of this legislation, California wouldn’t be able to sell voter-approved highway, school, and water bonds that are desperately needed for our economy and the creation of good-paying new jobs. In addition, I was told by the Governor’s office, that without action, our state might be forced to withhold funds for law enforcement, schools, and other needed services. This would bring our state to its knees and many middle-class families would be in deep trouble. Small businesses are beginning to tell me they cannot get lines of credit to meet payroll, as well.

Rest assured, I will continue to speak out forcefully about the failures that led us to this place and keep working with my colleagues to strengthen confidence in our markets, protect the American taxpayers, and enact regulatory reform to ensure that we don’t end up in this mess again.

Again, thank you for writing to me about this very important matter. Even though you may feel frustrated with the outcome of the legislation that passed, your voice absolutely resulted in the enactment of a better bill. Feel free to contact me again about any issue of importance to you.

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

It passed.

It will be interesting to see what happens now. Lawmakers voted 263-171 to pass the bill. Whether their speculation about the economy and what this bill will offer is correct or if they are lemmings just giving into peer pressure and jumping off the proverbial bridge because their friends did. Apparently the Dow jumped with news of the passing. But only time will tell what all the fallout from this will be.

Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid

I am almost embarrassed to admit it, but the first time I heard anyone talking about drinking kool-aid in a negative context, aside from the obvious fact that it is not really healthy in any way and super high in sugar, I had no idea what they were talking about.

So I had to ask, and then I did some reading online. The phrase Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid or phrases that are similar to that are referring to a religious cult led by Jim Jones. He convinced them all to kill themselves at the same time by drinking kool-aid laced with potassium cyanide. Really smart. I do believe that there are causes worth dying for, like our countries freedom. I am a strong supporter of our armed forces. But would you really let a crazy guy just convince you to kill yourself. Hopefully not.

So it basically boils down to forming your own ideas and opinions based on research that you, yourself have done. If you choose to base your decisions and opinions only on what other people tell you should be done without coming to terms with why you believe it is true or correct basically makes you a sheep, a blind follower. Everyone should have something that they believe in and feel strongly about. Hopefully your convictions are about important issues and topics, not just about what type of coffee (Non-fat Mocha) or soda you like to drink (Coke Zero).

I love country music. Country music seems to have a song to explain all points in life. Songs about love, babies, marriage, death, divorce, patriotism, addiction, you name it. The songs make you think, since you can actually understand the lyrics when you hear the songs it makes it easier. The chorus of one song that I can think of explains it well:

Aaron Tippin – You’ve Got to Stand for Something

You’ve got to stand for something, Or you’ll fall for anything
You’ve got to be your own man, Not a puppet on a string
Never compromise what’s right, Uphold your family name
You’ve got to stand for something, Or you’ll fall for anything

I have a hard time believing that all our representatives are standing for what they know is right. It generally takes more courage to do the unpopular thing than to go with the flow. I know McCain is known as a Maverick for challenging things and taking a stand against the unpopular, most of the time. He did vote yes to this bill and I am curious as to why.

I believe that our Congressmen and women from both parties are proving just how much kool-aid they drink. The Relief Bill that they voted on last night contains some of the most blatant and flagrant pork ever. They were all in on it. The original Paulson plan that was presented was a 3-page document. No I did not agree with it. The House bill that did not pass on Monday had grown to a 106-page document. Still I do not agree with it. Finally yesterday the bill had grown to an absurd 451-page document laden with special interest and lobbyist stuff. Something about wooden arrows for children? Money apparently can buy votes. What is that about?

I still disagree with the basic premise of the bill in the first place.

The government is going to be buying the home loans of people who bought houses they should never have bought.

The blame does not lie solely with the banker, lender, agent, (or President Bush – its not like he cosigned on the loan) the great American public was purchasing beyond their financial means. The market needs to be corrected but not by the government buying out your mortgage so you can pay them back and stay in your home.

If we are going to play that game I would like to buy a million dollar home please. I can qualify for the loan, can I really handle that mortgage, not really. Since I live in California it is basically buying me a shack anyway. And then since I will be having such a hard time paying my mortgage I would like the government to buy my loan and I’ll just pay them back. They are doing it for everyone else. Maybe they will buy me a car too.

Just because you can qualify for a loan does not mean you should get it. People got so starry eyed at keeping up with the Joneses’ that they lost sight of their own actual circumstances. If you can’t be happy with what you have and what you can comfortably afford than you will never be happy with anything.

I really feel that instead of backing the mortgages we should have them insured under the FHA program. That makes much more sense and does not carry the same economic weight of buying the loans.

The market has corrected itself from Monday’s hit. I believe that policies and practices need to change and the market will correct itself.

I give kudos and respect to the few men and women who did not vote for this legislation. I ultimately wonder if it will pass in the House. I hope all these Representatives know what they are doing.  It will remain to be seen what will happen but I hope since we can see how corrupt Washington has gotten that all incumbents will be replaced for not listening to their constituents. After all we are the ones who gave them that power. If they are going to choose not to represent our interests then maybe we should replace them with someone who will.

On another note, in listening to the Congressmen talking on the news last night, it makes you wonder if they know something they are not telling us about the economy or if they are just believing what someone else is telling him and drinking gallons of tainted kool-aid.

Hot and Bothered

I know I said I would let Anna Eshoo off the hook for her initial comments about the “cowboy” stuff. But she came back again, stronger this time. I do not appreciate her lack of respect for all her constituents.

Here is what she said . . . (just the highlighted nasty part, the rest was pretty much the same as the first)

Each of us is outraged about the circumstances that have brought our financial system to near collapse. In my view, this is confirmation that the Bush Administration’s economic policies are a complete failure. They’ve practiced “cowboy capitalism”, saying the markets must be allowed to run free, but instead have allowed Wall Street to run wild with no accountability, no transparency and no effective enforcement or regulations to protect the American taxpayer.

And then here is my response, because I could not just let it go.

Frankly I find your blatant disrespect and ignorance as to where blame lies to be reprehensible.
I am new to California and am a registered Republican.
I contacted you as you are still the voice of my area in Congress.
I truly wish you could have found a bipartisan voice in your tone. Bush is not solely responsible for any situation. You all have just as much responsibility and blame and there is plenty of evidence to prove that.
I find your willingness to openly accuse only this administration shows just how petty the party has become. I personally am glad the bill did not pass as written.
I would have respected you and even your decision to support this legislation if you had not resorted to such blatant name calling and obvious disrespect for your constituents that are Republicans.
Last time I checked you represented the whole area not just the Democrats and you owe us that.

So there. Well, at least I took the time to exercise my right to free speech. I know that her political views differ from mine. I get that. But what happened to simple respect. She represents far more that just that simplistic viewpoint and in sending out such a letter – to me – she has offended me and who knows how many others. We all can guess that I would not be voting for her anyway when she is up for re-election but I want to know what happened being polite and respectful.

And last time I checked cowboys were pretty efficient in getting things done and making sure they were sufficiently compensated. So maybe that is not such a bad term

The New Deal

So it is not really that but they need to come up with either a new plan or let the market correct itself. Historically the market will correct itself, given time. I am not advocating that we get into a situation like the Great Depression or anything but I don’t believe in big government either, and that is where we are heading with this bill.

I believe it did not pass for a plethora of reasons but the biggest is because Congress is scared. They are scared to make the wrong decision especially since it will trickle down to their presidential candidate. Democrats can’t fully support it because if they are wrong it will hose them and the same for Republicans. Although, Republicans are generally more concerned with limiting government while the Democratic party wants to grow government. But they are all scared of losing their jobs too. They are getting record numbers of letters and emails from their constituents. Heck, I sent a letter to all my representatives – and they are all Democrats. Here is her response, which I know is a form letter, but they have a form letter for this. They are getting slammed from both parties.

Dear Mrs. xxxxx,

Thank you for contacting me about the unprecedented financial crisis in our country. Over 2,000 constituents have shared their views with me about the crisis and I certainly value yours.

As of today (Saturday evening September 27th) negotiations between House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, as well as Treasury Secretary Paulson continue. As soon as the final bill is drafted, I will post it on my website (www.eshoo.house.gov/) with a summary, and I will of course let you know whether I vote for or against the final package.

Each of us is outraged about the circumstances that have brought our financial system to near collapse. In my view, the Administration has practiced “cowboy capitalism”, saying the markets must be allowed to run free, but they instead let Wall Street run wild without accountability, without transparency and without enforcement or regulations to protect the American taxpayer.

The following describes what President Bush and Secretary Paulson presented to Congress on Monday, September 22nd.

o Requested Congress to approve a $700 billion bailout, with the Treasury Secretary empowered to set the rules for all transactions

o No safeguards, No transparency, No accountability, and No oversight. The President’s plan was rejected.

As I see it, there are three elements we need to build into legislation #1 Reinvest in troubled financial markets to stabilize our economy and insulate Main Street from Wall Street. #2 Reimburse the taxpayer through ownership shares and asset recovery as the plan begins to work. #3 Reform how business is done on Wall Street including the prohibition of golden parachutes.

The following are elements which I’m hopeful the legislation will include:

o Ensure That Taxpayers Have an Equity Share in Any Profits

oGive taxpayers an ownership stake and profit sharing of participating companies.

oPut taxpayers first in line to recover assets if a participating company fails.

oAllow the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local government, and small banks that serve low and middle-income families.

o Strong Independent Oversight and Transparency

oEstablish four separate independent oversight entities or processes to protect the taxpayer including:

w Establishment of an independent bipartisan board to provide oversight, review and accountability of taxpayer funds.

w A Government Accountability Office presence at Treasury to oversee the program and conduct audits to ensure strong internal controls, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

w An independent Inspector General to monitor the Treasury Secretary’s decisions.

w Have all transactions posted online for the public.

o Staging of Funds

oFunding for the rescue program should occur in stages (not all up front) and condition future payments on Congressional review.

o Limits on Golden Parachutes

oRestrict CEO and executive compensation for participating companies.

w No multi-million dollar golden parachutes

w Recover bonuses paid based on promised gains that later turned out to be false or inaccurate.

o Home Foreclosures

oAllow the government to change the terms of mortgages to help reduce the 2 million projected foreclosures in the next year.

o

o Protection of School District and City/County Investments

oAssist school districts, cities and counties who had investments in failed institutions.

As I continue my work representing you, I’m mindful of the profound responsibility I have to you and my solemn obligation to do my utmost to protect the taxpayer and help bring our country through the largest financial crisis in the history of the world.

I believe if we do nothing, our ability to obtain a home mortgage, a car loan, a loan for small businesses, or even a credit card will become highly difficult or impossible. Even more financial institutions could fail and millions could lose their savings, thousands of jobs could be lost, and large parts of our economy could cease to function. The repercussions would be far greater than the cost of a financial rescue program.

Let me know what you think. I value what my constituents say to me because I always benefit from your ideas.
Sincerely,
Anna G. Eshoo
Member of Congress

While I found her obvious partisanship in the first paragraph calling out “Cowboy Economics” I decided to let it slide for now. For now. I don’t assign blame to any one group since I think there is plenty of blame to go around. Just to pass some blame around here is a post to an article about Fannie Mae, note the publish date – 1999.

Will be interesting to see what happens, but I do appreciate and respect the fact that congress is trying to do what we want. I will be anxiously waiting to see what happens.