We (our nation and our world) need three things, which are intertwined:
Commitment to the Truth:
Truth has a very high value; we should recognize this fact. Truth multiplies the power of groups, because individuals can rely on the information they receive from others without the inefficiency of questioning the motives of others. With truthful communications, groups can operate as a single organism, collecting and processing information no single individual could collect and process alone.
Truth is more than facts, and more than a collection of facts. Our presidential campaigns bombard us with huge numbers of facts in attempts to convince us to vote for their candidates. They purport to tell us the Truth, but they carefully lead us away from facts that might weaken their candidates' positions. We should not stand for this. The time before elections should be a nationwide discussion about what is True, with every side willing to concede points (where warranted) to others in a quest to determine where we are and where we should go.
This discussion necessarily requires that we accept that people can honestly disagree about important issues. In fact, Truth is subjective. What I feel is True may not be what you feel is True. What I feel is True today may not be what I felt was True yesterday, or tomorrow. But what is important is that when we interact with other people, we communicate Truthfully about what we know and what we feel. And the fact that our own knowledge and feelings change over time should help us understand that someone else's differing perception of Truth doesn't make them evil, or even a bad person; they're just different. If we can convince them that our perception of Truth is superior to their perception, great. But if they manage to convince us, we need to admit it. In few cases will either perception be either fully correct or fully incorrect; the full Truth lies outside either perception, waiting to be more fully uncovered.
The object is not to define a static, objective Truth that all can agree on; the important thing is that all parties be committed to the search, and honest in communicating what they find.
The second thing we need is Faith. We need Faith that Truth is our friend. Too often we are afraid to tell the Truth, or know the Truth, or seek the Truth, for fear of the consequences. Faith is the confidence that we'll be OK without depending on the status quo. My wife, a statistician, is fond of saying the most important factor in predicting whether you'll be alive tomorrow is whether you're alive today. The reason you're alive today is that, overall, the things that led you to where you are now have kept you alive. You have a lifelong record of survival. There are any number of things in your past that could have led to your demise, but you have avoided them all. That's a high recommendation for keeping on doing what you're doing.
This thing about committing yourself to Truth is pretty threatening. You got to where you are based on a set of assumptions (which may have change quite a bit through the years) about what is important, what is True, what's, what's wrong, what's OK, and what's not OK. And when these assumptions are challenged, you have a choice: you can either be open to change, or you can defend them. It's often safer to defend them. Change is a threat to your survival, because what you perceive before you change has been successful in keeping you alive. That's why Faith is important. You have to have Faith in the Truth in order to seek Truth. And you can't be committed to Truth without seeking it.
Trust is the third component to this triad. We need to trust others. If we're confident others are committed to Truth, trusting them is simple. And that's another reason for being committed to Truth ourselves; others need to be able to trust US.
Trusting doesn't require us to accept as fact everything anyone else tells us. If someone tells me that Vitamin C can prevent cancer, I, frankly, wouldn't believe it. But I should be able to trust that the other person believes that it does. And I don't necessarily need to get into a discussion with that person about whether it's true; that discussion may not be worth my time. But I, and we as a society, shouldn't condone people saying that Vitamin C prevents cancer if they don't actually believe it themselves. But I think we tolerate this time type of misrepresentation all the time, in others, and in ourselves. And we shouldn't.
When I criticize toleration of behavior, I want to be clear about the danger of branding people as 'bad'. I believe we're all a mixture of admirable ("good") and inadmirable ("bad") qualities, and the distribution of these qualities in us change with time. The fact that I lied once, or perhaps lied a lot, doesn't make me an incorrigible liar from that point on. A person who is untrustworthy at one time, or about one thing, isn't necessarily untrustworthy about everything, or even that one thing all the time. Who among us hasn't learned from a mistake?
We shouldn't tolerate dishonesty, but we need to be willing to risk loss by sometimes erring on the side of trusting too much, rather than playing it safe and never trusting anyone who has let us (or others) down in the past. This is another example of how Faith is important in our lives.
So there you have it: We need a commitment to Truth, because that allows groups to function efficiently and cooperatively. We need Faith that this commitment to Truth will benefit us all in the end. And we need Trust to take advantage of the benefits Truth provides.
So ends my first post on my Philosophy.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
So far, good news on the value of the dollar...
A brief followup on the 9/29/08 post:
The dollar has risen in value in the past 2 weeks. Only 9/29/08 it was worth 0.695362 euros; by 10/10/08 it had climbed to 0.742335 euros, which is as high as it has been since the first part of 2007.
But we should still pay close attention to the value of the dollar. When it drops, expect interest rates to climb. And, with a 10 Trillion dollar debt, high interest rates will be devestating to our federal budget.
One other note: the current economic crisis has caused people to seek the security of Treasury notes and bonds, which has the effect of reducing the interest rate the government pays to borrow money. So it creates a short-term advantage to the federal budget. But it also means that money is less available to commercial operations (can you say 'credit crunch'?) so it's not a long-term solution.
The dollar has risen in value in the past 2 weeks. Only 9/29/08 it was worth 0.695362 euros; by 10/10/08 it had climbed to 0.742335 euros, which is as high as it has been since the first part of 2007.
But we should still pay close attention to the value of the dollar. When it drops, expect interest rates to climb. And, with a 10 Trillion dollar debt, high interest rates will be devestating to our federal budget.
One other note: the current economic crisis has caused people to seek the security of Treasury notes and bonds, which has the effect of reducing the interest rate the government pays to borrow money. So it creates a short-term advantage to the federal budget. But it also means that money is less available to commercial operations (can you say 'credit crunch'?) so it's not a long-term solution.
Kitchen table conversations
The presidential candidates and pundits refer to families getting together for conversations 'around the kitchen table' to figure out how they can cut back on expenditures. But the solution to our current economic crisis really involves raising a different subject in these family conversations: "How can we help be part of the solution to the problem?"
Recent generations have been taught to think of individuals and families as 'consumers'. When you go to work, either as an employee or a businessperson, you're considered a producer, but as soon as you get home, you're merely considered 'a consumer'. This unhelpful dichotomy needs to change. People at home do more than consume, and they have an important role to play when they're not consuming. (The idea that they are literally 'nothing if not consumers' is extremely dangerous, since overconsumption is a key cause of most of the problems the world faces.)
Back to the kitchen table conversation: This should not be presented as a negative thing: "What do we have to give up?", but rather as a more general, and possibly positive "What do we do in this situation?" This can include cutting back consumption, but can also include "What can we do to help?" Patriotism is love of country, and when someone or something you love is in trouble, you look for ways to help, even if these actions require sacrifice. Knowing you are part of the solution can be far more rewarding than hedonistic consuming. People and families can endure much more hardship when they consider themselves helping to build (or rebuild) something important. Our leaders need to enlist the power of American families and citizens to contribute something other than taxes to our society. And leaders should not consider tax breaks the only way to solicit this response.
I'm really thinking about one particular way American families can assist in the economic recovery: 'buy American' or, better yet, 'buy local'. Money spend on domestic products is more likely to stay in the domestic economy than money spent on foreign goods. Money that stays in the domestic economy helps business after business (and thus employee after employee) keep going, and that's what we need.
I realize that American goods are generally significantly more expensive than foreign goods, and therefore 'buying American' necessarily means people can't buy as much as they could if they bought cheaper foreign goods. But there is a significant psychological advantage to viewing the issue as making a positive decision to make things better, rather than a negative decision just to reduce expenditures in order to survive.
We really lost an opportunity last Spring to make this point at the time the 'economic stimulus' checks went out. People should have been encouraged to consider how long their money would stay in the domestic economy when using this windfall income.
One last point: there are somethings national leaders really can't say. I suspect the President can't say 'buy American' because other countries would react negatively. "Protectionism" is a dirty word. Other countries rely on the American market consuming what is produced overseas, and they wouldn't like to hear American leaders interfering with this process.
But at some point citizens need to take care of their own countries. We are not sheep that are led entirely by government tax policies. Democracies are based upon citizen participation, and participation is not just a matter of voting whenever elections occur. Yes, we are "consumers", and we are "voters", but we are not just these things. Our nation's future depends on people adopting a broader view of themselves and each other.
Recent generations have been taught to think of individuals and families as 'consumers'. When you go to work, either as an employee or a businessperson, you're considered a producer, but as soon as you get home, you're merely considered 'a consumer'. This unhelpful dichotomy needs to change. People at home do more than consume, and they have an important role to play when they're not consuming. (The idea that they are literally 'nothing if not consumers' is extremely dangerous, since overconsumption is a key cause of most of the problems the world faces.)
Back to the kitchen table conversation: This should not be presented as a negative thing: "What do we have to give up?", but rather as a more general, and possibly positive "What do we do in this situation?" This can include cutting back consumption, but can also include "What can we do to help?" Patriotism is love of country, and when someone or something you love is in trouble, you look for ways to help, even if these actions require sacrifice. Knowing you are part of the solution can be far more rewarding than hedonistic consuming. People and families can endure much more hardship when they consider themselves helping to build (or rebuild) something important. Our leaders need to enlist the power of American families and citizens to contribute something other than taxes to our society. And leaders should not consider tax breaks the only way to solicit this response.
I'm really thinking about one particular way American families can assist in the economic recovery: 'buy American' or, better yet, 'buy local'. Money spend on domestic products is more likely to stay in the domestic economy than money spent on foreign goods. Money that stays in the domestic economy helps business after business (and thus employee after employee) keep going, and that's what we need.
I realize that American goods are generally significantly more expensive than foreign goods, and therefore 'buying American' necessarily means people can't buy as much as they could if they bought cheaper foreign goods. But there is a significant psychological advantage to viewing the issue as making a positive decision to make things better, rather than a negative decision just to reduce expenditures in order to survive.
We really lost an opportunity last Spring to make this point at the time the 'economic stimulus' checks went out. People should have been encouraged to consider how long their money would stay in the domestic economy when using this windfall income.
One last point: there are somethings national leaders really can't say. I suspect the President can't say 'buy American' because other countries would react negatively. "Protectionism" is a dirty word. Other countries rely on the American market consuming what is produced overseas, and they wouldn't like to hear American leaders interfering with this process.
But at some point citizens need to take care of their own countries. We are not sheep that are led entirely by government tax policies. Democracies are based upon citizen participation, and participation is not just a matter of voting whenever elections occur. Yes, we are "consumers", and we are "voters", but we are not just these things. Our nation's future depends on people adopting a broader view of themselves and each other.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Watch the exchange rate
There was an annoucement today (Monday, 9/29/2008) about the Federal Reserve:
"The Fed announced it had expanded existing currency swap arrangements with other central banks by $US330 billion ($A398.67 billion) to $US620 billion ($A749.02 billion). The Fed also said it would increase the amount available via its term auction facility (TAF) by $US300 billion ($A362.43 billion) to $US450 billion ($A543.64 billion)."
I can't say I understand what it means, but it sounds pretty important to me. Does this increase the money supply? If so, wouldn't adding hundreds of billions of dollars reduce the value of the dollar? Remember, with a $10 Trillion federal debt, inflation is our mortal enemy.
I'm going to be watching the value of the dollar more than the stock market. If the dollar starts declining significantly in value, we're in trouble.
A link I found to track the dollar against the Euro is:
http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/EUR/graph120.html
"The Fed announced it had expanded existing currency swap arrangements with other central banks by $US330 billion ($A398.67 billion) to $US620 billion ($A749.02 billion). The Fed also said it would increase the amount available via its term auction facility (TAF) by $US300 billion ($A362.43 billion) to $US450 billion ($A543.64 billion)."
I can't say I understand what it means, but it sounds pretty important to me. Does this increase the money supply? If so, wouldn't adding hundreds of billions of dollars reduce the value of the dollar? Remember, with a $10 Trillion federal debt, inflation is our mortal enemy.
I'm going to be watching the value of the dollar more than the stock market. If the dollar starts declining significantly in value, we're in trouble.
A link I found to track the dollar against the Euro is:
http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/EUR/graph120.html
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Jim Lehrer's valient attempt...
In last Friday night's debate, moderator Jim Lehrer tried to get a straight answer to an important question. He really tried. I can't remember a moderator being more persistent in asking the same question over and over again. But, in my opinion, he never got a satisfactory answer. I suspect that if one of the candidates had answered straightforwardly, that candidate might reduced his chances for election significantly. But I'll hold my analysis to my next post. First, here's what happened. (You can read the full transcript of the debate at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/ , if you want to check my summary.)
Lehrer started off by asking both candidates:
"As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?"
After the initial responses, he followed up with:
"But if I hear the two of you correctly neither one of you is suggesting any major changes in what you want to do as president as a result of the financial bailout? Is that what you're saying?"
Lehrer still wasn't satisified. He persisted:
"What I'm trying to get at this is this. Excuse me if I may, senator. Trying to get at that you all -- one of you is going to be the president of the United States come January. At the -- in the middle of a huge financial crisis that is yet to be resolved. And what I'm trying to get at is how this is going to affect you not in very specific -- small ways but in major ways and the approach to take as to the presidency."
He even tried a fourth time:
"Before we go to another lead question. Let me figure out a way to ask the same question in a slightly different way here. Are you -- are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country as president of the United States beyond the kinds of things that you have already -- I mean, is it a major move? Is it going to have a major affect?"
Obama dodged the question entirely, first stating "it's hard to anticipate right now what the budget is going to look like next year." and then talking about programs he felt were too important not to fund. ("We can't shortchange those things.")
McCain, at least, said he would eliminate ethanol subsidies and 'cost-plus' governmental contracts, and $15 Billion in one type of Medicare subsidy. When pushed, he added "How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs."
Obama acknowledged "there's no doubt that as president I'm go doing have to make some tough decisions", but wouldn't get more specific.
We're being told by our leadership in Washington that without unprecedented, massive government intervention our nation and the world will almost certainly fall into an economic malaise that will rival the Great Depression of the 1930s. The cost to avoid this catastrophe is equivalent to one quarter of the current federal annual budget. But even this price doesn't eliminate the problem; it merely postpones it, or pushes it to another arena where it will once again emerge, probably sooner than later. Spending freezes and $15 Billion here and there are not a solution. I was disappointed that neither candidate was man enough to tell the American people the truth.
Lehrer started off by asking both candidates:
"As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?"
After the initial responses, he followed up with:
"But if I hear the two of you correctly neither one of you is suggesting any major changes in what you want to do as president as a result of the financial bailout? Is that what you're saying?"
Lehrer still wasn't satisified. He persisted:
"What I'm trying to get at this is this. Excuse me if I may, senator. Trying to get at that you all -- one of you is going to be the president of the United States come January. At the -- in the middle of a huge financial crisis that is yet to be resolved. And what I'm trying to get at is how this is going to affect you not in very specific -- small ways but in major ways and the approach to take as to the presidency."
He even tried a fourth time:
"Before we go to another lead question. Let me figure out a way to ask the same question in a slightly different way here. Are you -- are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country as president of the United States beyond the kinds of things that you have already -- I mean, is it a major move? Is it going to have a major affect?"
Obama dodged the question entirely, first stating "it's hard to anticipate right now what the budget is going to look like next year." and then talking about programs he felt were too important not to fund. ("We can't shortchange those things.")
McCain, at least, said he would eliminate ethanol subsidies and 'cost-plus' governmental contracts, and $15 Billion in one type of Medicare subsidy. When pushed, he added "How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs."
Obama acknowledged "there's no doubt that as president I'm go doing have to make some tough decisions", but wouldn't get more specific.
We're being told by our leadership in Washington that without unprecedented, massive government intervention our nation and the world will almost certainly fall into an economic malaise that will rival the Great Depression of the 1930s. The cost to avoid this catastrophe is equivalent to one quarter of the current federal annual budget. But even this price doesn't eliminate the problem; it merely postpones it, or pushes it to another arena where it will once again emerge, probably sooner than later. Spending freezes and $15 Billion here and there are not a solution. I was disappointed that neither candidate was man enough to tell the American people the truth.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Somthing smells fishy here
Is this $700 Billion bailout a Republican plan, or not?
The stated need for it comes from the (Republican) Treasury Secretary. The (Republican) President says it is vital to the nation's interests. The current plan has been 'hammered out' as a bipartisan effort in Congressional committee meetings. It seemed like a compromise had been reached; the Democrats had pushed through modifications to what was originally an awful, dangerous Republican proposal.
But then John McCain flies in. He goes to a high-profile meeting at the White House, and suddenly the Republican caucus has 'serious concerns' about this plan, and thinks it is 'too big'. According to newspaper accounts, McCain doesn't take a stand either way.
It seems the Republicans are playing both ends of issue: It's their proposal, and they're objecting to it. They're the ones saying that we need it, and they're the ones saying it's not a good idea. John McCain is saying he's going to provide leadership, and he's not taking a stand.
I suspect that McCain will soon 'demand' some minor changes, and will be presented as twisting Republican arms to achieve a 'compromise'. This will burnish his credentials as a 'maverick' who's 'not afraid to take on his own party for the good of the nation'. It sounds like a callous political ploy to increase his appeal to independent voters.
Lost in all this is the question of whether the $700 Billion bailout is really necessary, and really a good idea. If the Republicans are willing to play politics with it, is it really that urgent? And are they working to position it as a Democratic proposal to start us 'down the road to Socialism'? The events of the past day could be a sideshow to distract us from the real issues, and provide the Republicans with their cake ($700 Billion to bailout businesses from very profitable, bad business decisions) and eat it too (complain about 'liberal Democrats' and big government.) Watch out!
The stated need for it comes from the (Republican) Treasury Secretary. The (Republican) President says it is vital to the nation's interests. The current plan has been 'hammered out' as a bipartisan effort in Congressional committee meetings. It seemed like a compromise had been reached; the Democrats had pushed through modifications to what was originally an awful, dangerous Republican proposal.
But then John McCain flies in. He goes to a high-profile meeting at the White House, and suddenly the Republican caucus has 'serious concerns' about this plan, and thinks it is 'too big'. According to newspaper accounts, McCain doesn't take a stand either way.
It seems the Republicans are playing both ends of issue: It's their proposal, and they're objecting to it. They're the ones saying that we need it, and they're the ones saying it's not a good idea. John McCain is saying he's going to provide leadership, and he's not taking a stand.
I suspect that McCain will soon 'demand' some minor changes, and will be presented as twisting Republican arms to achieve a 'compromise'. This will burnish his credentials as a 'maverick' who's 'not afraid to take on his own party for the good of the nation'. It sounds like a callous political ploy to increase his appeal to independent voters.
Lost in all this is the question of whether the $700 Billion bailout is really necessary, and really a good idea. If the Republicans are willing to play politics with it, is it really that urgent? And are they working to position it as a Democratic proposal to start us 'down the road to Socialism'? The events of the past day could be a sideshow to distract us from the real issues, and provide the Republicans with their cake ($700 Billion to bailout businesses from very profitable, bad business decisions) and eat it too (complain about 'liberal Democrats' and big government.) Watch out!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
No magic bullet - Costs of $700 Billion
People shouldn't think that this $700 Billion bailout bill will solve all our problems. Last week we were told that the economy was in grave danger of locking up and causing a financial disaster similar in size to the Great Depression of the 1930s, and that this $700 Billion bailout bill was our only hope of avoiding it. If it doesn't work, apparently we're in big trouble. But if it DOES work, I'm concerned that people will say: "Whew, we dodged THAT bullet!", and then go back to business as usual. But can't be like that. I'm waiting for our leaders to tell us the truth: unless we as a nation voluntarily make drastic, uncomfortable changes, there will be some other crisis in the on the same scale in the near future which we WON'T be able to avoid, even for $700 Billion.
Consider the ongoing cost of this $700 Billion package. Of course the government has to borrow the money. Even at 1% interest, this is $7 Billion a year, or $23 per person per year. So, just to cover the interest (at this low rate), taxes on a family of four would need to rise by almost $100 per year, forever. Interest rates on government bonds are low right now, because investors want the 'safety' of government bonds compared to the uncertainty of stocks right now. But if interest rates rise, the ongoing cost of the bailout increases, too. Say interest rates go to 5%. Then the burden per four-person family goes to $460 per year. And that's just for the bailout itself!
Part of the draft bailout bill was raising the ceiling on the national debt to $11.3 Trillion. At 1% interest, that's $113 Billion per year, or $1500 per family of four, per year. That's just to pay the interest on the debt. And if the interest rate rises to 5%, the figure goes to $7500 per family, per year, just to pay the INTEREST on the federal debt, before providing ANY government services.
But you might ask "why all the doom and gloom? The Treasury doesn't have to pay anything like 5% on bonds." Here's the big reason: inflation causes interest rates to rise, and the simplest way to cause inflation is to print a lot of new currency with nothing to back it up. And we're about to 'print up' about $700 Billion in new currency.
So the cost of the $700 Billion bailout plan will clearly push us closer to the disaster we face with higher interest rates. Even if the bailout does what it's supposed to do, we're in trouble.
Consider the ongoing cost of this $700 Billion package. Of course the government has to borrow the money. Even at 1% interest, this is $7 Billion a year, or $23 per person per year. So, just to cover the interest (at this low rate), taxes on a family of four would need to rise by almost $100 per year, forever. Interest rates on government bonds are low right now, because investors want the 'safety' of government bonds compared to the uncertainty of stocks right now. But if interest rates rise, the ongoing cost of the bailout increases, too. Say interest rates go to 5%. Then the burden per four-person family goes to $460 per year. And that's just for the bailout itself!
Part of the draft bailout bill was raising the ceiling on the national debt to $11.3 Trillion. At 1% interest, that's $113 Billion per year, or $1500 per family of four, per year. That's just to pay the interest on the debt. And if the interest rate rises to 5%, the figure goes to $7500 per family, per year, just to pay the INTEREST on the federal debt, before providing ANY government services.
But you might ask "why all the doom and gloom? The Treasury doesn't have to pay anything like 5% on bonds." Here's the big reason: inflation causes interest rates to rise, and the simplest way to cause inflation is to print a lot of new currency with nothing to back it up. And we're about to 'print up' about $700 Billion in new currency.
So the cost of the $700 Billion bailout plan will clearly push us closer to the disaster we face with higher interest rates. Even if the bailout does what it's supposed to do, we're in trouble.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Delegation of authority - sound familiar?
The $700 Billion bailout bill, at least the original version (and the only version I've yet to find on the web) basically says that Congress will delegate authority and responsibility for use of up to this money (equivalent to more than one-quarter of last year's total federal budget!) to the Treasury secretary, to use as he sees fit.
I'm don't want to suggest that the government shouldn't act quickly and dramatically, but this sounds eerily familiar. The Constitution gives the power of the purse to the Legislature, and this bill delegates that power to the Treasury secretary, at least to the tune of $700 Billion. The idea is that the secretary needs authority to take action without a bunch of bureaucratic approval. There's an almost direct analogy to 2002, when Congress, who the Constitution gives the authority and responsibility of declaring war, gave the President the authority to act in whatever way he saw fit, up to and including the authority to take military action against Iraq.
Could someone please tell me why we should have absolute faith in any single person's ability to lead us out of this mess? And even if it's necessary to have a single leader, a czar, so to speak, and Henry Paulson is the right guy, the truth is that he's a short timer. We don't know who the next president is going to be, much less the next Treasury Secretary.
2 years is too long for Congress to let someone have that much power and control over that much money. At the very least it should be for a shorter term and require periodic renewal of the authority. And the actual text of the bill needs to be available for citizen review (at least for a few days) before Congress votes. $700 Billion dollars ($2300 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.) cannot be taken lightly.
I'm don't want to suggest that the government shouldn't act quickly and dramatically, but this sounds eerily familiar. The Constitution gives the power of the purse to the Legislature, and this bill delegates that power to the Treasury secretary, at least to the tune of $700 Billion. The idea is that the secretary needs authority to take action without a bunch of bureaucratic approval. There's an almost direct analogy to 2002, when Congress, who the Constitution gives the authority and responsibility of declaring war, gave the President the authority to act in whatever way he saw fit, up to and including the authority to take military action against Iraq.
Could someone please tell me why we should have absolute faith in any single person's ability to lead us out of this mess? And even if it's necessary to have a single leader, a czar, so to speak, and Henry Paulson is the right guy, the truth is that he's a short timer. We don't know who the next president is going to be, much less the next Treasury Secretary.
2 years is too long for Congress to let someone have that much power and control over that much money. At the very least it should be for a shorter term and require periodic renewal of the authority. And the actual text of the bill needs to be available for citizen review (at least for a few days) before Congress votes. $700 Billion dollars ($2300 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.) cannot be taken lightly.
$700 Billion bailout needs scrutiny
Every American should read the actual text of the proposed bailout bill. The first draft, published Saturday by the New York Times, was less than a thousand words. It gives unprecedented authority to the Secretary of the Treasury. Citizens should have first-hand knowlege of what it being discussed.
$700 Billion (the amount specified in the draft bill) is more than one-fourth of the annual federal budget. It is equivalent to $2,300 for every man, woman, and child in the country. Before giving the Secretary control over this much money we should educate ourselves about what we're about to do. The draft is only two pages long. Read it!
Here's a link to the (original) draft from Saturday, September 20th. This is already out of date, but I haven't found an updated version.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html
$700 Billion (the amount specified in the draft bill) is more than one-fourth of the annual federal budget. It is equivalent to $2,300 for every man, woman, and child in the country. Before giving the Secretary control over this much money we should educate ourselves about what we're about to do. The draft is only two pages long. Read it!
Here's a link to the (original) draft from Saturday, September 20th. This is already out of date, but I haven't found an updated version.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
