Our Responsibility
Cross-posted at the Huffington Post
The Obama era began in earnest last week, with bold action such as closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and promising to end torture. In its very first days, the new administration has begun to lift the veil of secrecysurrounding executive branch operations, and has made great strides forward on fundamental challenges such as energy and the environment, and above all the national economic crisis left in the wake of the Bush Presidency. While great challenges and much hard work remain, the way forward is bright and clear.
As we proceed, however, the question remains how best to respond to the severe challenge posed to our constitutional structure, and to our national honor, by the Bush administration's actions, and in particular its national security programs. Faced with a record of widespread warrantless surveillance inside the United States, brutal interrogation policies condemned by the administration's own head of the Guantanamo Bay military commissions as torture, and flawed rendition practices that resulted in innocent men being abducted and handed to other countries to face barbaric abuse, what actions will we take to meet our commitment to the rule of law and reclaim our standing as a moral leader among nations?
I have previously explained my view that a full review of the record must be conducted by an experienced and independent prosecutor, and should focus on the senior policymakers and lawyers who ordered and approved these actions. Others, such as my fellow Michigander Senator Carl Levin, have suggested similar measures. This approach is compelled in my opinion by the basic notion that, if crimes were committed, those responsible should be held accountable - after all, is there any principle of American freedom more fundamental than the rule that no person is above the law? If this independent review concludes that the Bush Administration's legal constructs make prosecution impossible for some, so be it, but the matter should be given a proper look before such judgments are made one way or the other.
Some commentators - including even those firmly opposed to criminal investigation - support the creation of an independent Commission with appropriate clearances and subpoena power to review the existing record, make policy recommendations, and publish an authoritative account of these events. I have introduced a bill in the House that would create such a commission, and I believe this sort of public accounting is critical as well.
There remain those, however, who would have us simply move on.Some fear the consequences of a true accounting, or worry that taking time to reckon with the sins of the past will hinder us in meeting the challenges of the future. Others argue that the facts are already known, and further review will accomplish little. Often, the call for further review of the Bush administration's actions is dismissed as partisan payback, kicking an unpopular President when he's down.
I could not disagree more with these views. As a practical matter, I do not believe that empowering a commission or an independent prosecutor would burden the Congress or the executive or would hinder our efforts to meet the challenges of the day. To the contrary, allowing outside review of these matters by qualified independent experts will free us and President Obama to focus our efforts where they are most needed - on solving the problems before us and improving the lives of the American people.
Nor do I agree that the relevant facts are already known. While disparate investigations by Committees of congress, private organizations, and the press have uncovered many important facts, no single investigation has had access to the full range of information regarding the Bush administration's interrelated programs on surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition. The existence of a substantially developed factual record will simplify the work to come, but cannot replace it. Furthermore, much of this information, such as the Central Intelligence Agency's 2004 Inspector General report on interrogation, remains highly classified and hidden from the American people. An independent review is needed to determine the maximum information that can be publicly released.
Finally, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that further review will cause our intelligence services to retreat into a dangerous "cycle of timidity." A properly conducted investigation will help set appropriate boundaries for future behavior, consistent with our fundamental values and the command of our laws. Have we really become so fearful that expecting our government to use its power within the boundaries of law is deemed unreasonably "timid"?
This argument has another flaw. For all the worry of "cycles of timidity," is there no countervailing concern for "cycles of aggression," or "cycles of lawlessness"? In an era where detainees have been held in limbo for years based on flawed or non-existent evidence, where we have waterboarded prisoners, deprived them of sleep, and subjected them to unconscionable degradations and abuse, and where our most powerful technologies have been turned inward to spy on Americans and within the United States, without court order or warrant and in apparent violation of a clear federal statute, is our greatest fear really that our national security services may be unduly timid?
To me, the bottom line is this: If we move on now without fully documenting what occurred, without acknowledging the betrayal of our values, and without determining whether or not any laws have been broken, we cannot help but validate all that has gone on before. If we look at the Bush record and conclude that the book should simply be closed, we will be tacitly approving both the documented abuses and the additional misdeeds we will have chosen to leave uncovered.
That is why there is nothing partisan about the call for further review. In the end, these acts were not taken by George Bush, or by John Yoo, or even by Dick Cheney - they were taken by the United States of America. By all of us. There is no avoiding the responsibility we all bear for what has been done, and for what we choose to do next.
Our country has never been perfect. This would not be the first time we were forced to take a hard look at difficult choices made in times of peril. But when we have done so before, it has made us stronger, both by improving our policies and our practices and, more fundamentally, by strengthening our moral core and by breathing new life into the principles of our founding.
The responsible way forward requires us to look back as we go.
This is the letter I promised ten days ago.
Thanks to the Chairman for his time.
I typed this letter up Thursday. I put it in this box, Senator Merkleys' box, Senator Wydens' box, and Representative DeFazios' box on Friday. Saturday it goes to Bandon City Councilor Claussen, the Bandon police and to Sheriff Jackson. And the Press, of course.
In preface, I point out things could, and should, be going better than this. I ask that you review the situation and consider what you might do to improve it. I do believe improvement is needed, and perhaps you are more clever than I.
Try to keep in mind this is not fiction.
Here is the letter - two and a half pages.
It's Nine o'clock. I am supposed to be in Court. Thirty miles from here. Because the Police took my car. Again. Be there, that is, if I want to talk to the judge. But I have done this once before. I know the rules. I know the only thing I can do today is make an appointment to come back in a few weeks. Then, if I plead Guilty, and only if I plead Guilty, then I can talk to the judge.
About what, I cannot imagine. Golf, perhaps. Nothing about law, certainly, for pleading Guilty settles that. And I intend not to plead Guilty. If I cannot plead Not Guilty, then I will not plead at all. Perhaps the Court will be provoked, perhaps enough to ask me to show cause why I should not be held in contempt. This is precisely my intention.
Addressing first the current instance, I am charged with driving without license, registration and insurance. Unmentioned is cause to have pulled me over to discover these facts. There is good reason for failing to so mention, for there is no cause. Absent cause, the stop was unlawful, the evidence arising inadmissible under the "fruit of the poison tree" rubric, the case unsustainable, and therefor the case must be dismissed. But this does not serve my purpose. The basic problem would remain, were I to "win" in this manner. The basic problem being that while I have been a resident of Oregon since 1998, my license clearly states on the face that it was issued in 1993.
Lets start there, instead of here, and work back to now, chronologically.
I was making a right, behind a windowless Ford van. I'm doing about 15, just starting to turn, when around the rear corner of the van a bicyclist pops. He is going FAST. His shoulder brushes against the van. He strives valiantly to wind up under my wheels. Literally throws his life at me. Had I failed to catch it, that would have been a bad day.
But I put those Michelins on that Lancia. I rebuilt those brakes, including the calipers, the master cylinder and the proportioning valve that controlled rear wheel lockup. I replaced those struts and picked the springs I put on them. I replaced those ball joints, bushings and bearings. In sum, I had put that new suspension under that seventeen year old car. This made the car very responsive to the driver, in a way you simply cannot appreciate if you have not yourself driven a Lancia.
And had I not been driving it defensively that would not likely have mattered. But I do drive defensively. Always. And I did not blink. Nor did I take time to clutch. I simply slammed the brake. So it did matter. The car stopped instantly, nose down - tail high. Technically perfect. The bicyclist did not even notice. But a passing policewoman did. And somehow managed herself to avoid hitting anyone as she zigzagged thru traffic to paint my bumper red and blue.
I never learned why she arrested me. Perhaps saying, "Ma'am, stopping IS yielding." is an arrestable offense. Perhaps instead it was her first day on the beat, shown by the inability to successfully operate her handcuffs. Next morning I am turned loose without an explanation and without my car. 1800 miles on the Greyhound later, I finally get to talk to the judge. He throws the "Failure to yield" OUT and reduces the "No Insurance" to $50.
Here is where the trouble starts. Had I just paid the $50, that would have been that. But Instead I said, "Waitaminute, Your honor! This has cost me my car. That has cost me my job. And that in turn has cost me my home. And I've come down here three times on the bus to show you the respect you hope for. I have already been hammered economically. And I have been to Jail. Does Your Honor really think I deserve another hit in the wallet?" His Honor thought it over and came to see my point. But it seems my little speech bored the Clerk to sleep, for I left thinking I had one deal while the Clerk wrote down another. Naturally, having been told I didn't have to, I didn't pay. And IF notice was sent, it was sent to my former address. So I didn't learn a license had been issued me, PRE-REVOKED, for five years. And that was a rough day.
On March 10, 1998, at one in the morning, I and my friend Mr.Richards were booked into the Marion County Correctional Facility. I was prisoner number 10555516. Mr.Richards was either #15 or #17. We were both stripped and issued matching kevlar aprons. We were both put in the same suicide cell. And we were both denied our medicines. He was taking nine. And nearly died. But I was taking Paxil.
Paxil is an antidepressant. It acts upon a feature of the synapse to up-regulate the level of a certain neurotransmitter called Serotonin. A neurotransmitter is any of more than thirty different chemicals used by nerve cells to move information from one to the next. Altering the level of any of them can have effects either positive or negative. It should be very obvious that if medicine alters a neurotransmitter to achieve a positive effect, then the removal of that medicine achieves the opposite. Let's not suppose I didn't mention this at the time.
As always, things vary from one person to the next, for any number of reasons. Paxil is no different. Nor is the effect on a person if it is taken way, suddenlike. Some few experience no ill effect at all. Some few die. In between, anything is possible. But my sympathy lies with those who die, for having been there, having seen it, I know it to be the most excruciating form of execution since fire. Neurotransmitters, after all, carry messages between nerve cells. Nerve cells being what a mind is made of and what a body is controlled through. Stopping those messages divides the mind into tiny and completely separate fragments and leaves the body to do as it will, unregulated, and unconnected, neither to the atomized and dissolved mind nor to itself. Those who die are first intellectually disassembled and then their uncontrolled bodies fail. As mine nearly did.
To make short work of it, my injuries included an assortment of pulled tendons and partially detached muscles, two broken ribs, a dislocated sternum and massive damage and necrosis to the cartilage throughout the rib cage, caused by a constricted blood supply caused by a complete lock down of all the voluntary muscles until the available energy was used up three days later. Note carefully that each pair of ribs originate between the vertebrae, and so this necessarily includes that. Note also this mentions not the intellectual, psychiatric and personality facets of the matter. Which are significant. But which, if history is the guide, are likely to be called threatening in order to "Justify" an extreme but convenient reaction. Convenient for the perpetrators. I had to move. To Oregon.
Five years later I was stopped by a cop. I must really be quite a public menace if it takes five years to notice me. I wonder if I should mention the change of address I filed with the Post Office and Social Security. It's not like I was hiding out. It IS like I was recovering quietly. And Waiting, as I still am, for my complaint to the Department of Justice to be investigated.
I thought it interesting that Officer Bob Webb, though a polite and respectful man, employed as Officer Bruce Feneran had the same method of investigating without cause. Coming up with cause in the course of investigation is the opposite of having cause in hand when starting one, and the difference is the fourth amendment. I mean, why does a cop follow someone around? If he has cause for a pullover, then he should make the stop. If he has no cause, then he has no cause. Either way, there is no cause to follow...looking for cause. At least Officer Bob Webb found something real. A burned out plate light. About as fiddling as things get, but real. It has nothing to do with driving, or safety, but it stands to this day as the only positive suggestion an Oregon Cop has given me while I sat behind the wheel. A'course, the next thing he did was tow my car. But it could have been worse. I have talked things over with Sheriff Jackson, about medicine in Jail. He won't say, one way or the other.
On this occasion the Court elected to play "Three Monkeys". So I bought a Dead Dodge. Resurrected it Four times. Covered 25,000 miles before giving it up for worthless. Replaced it with a Cherokee. Drove that for a year. Lost it January first, providing me the opportunity to address the Court yet again, and because of mutual experience, to speak to it a bit differently. This time there is an audience. "See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil" is not an option. And this time we have tape.
In referring to the tape, the Court will note I asked the Officer for cause. And I received it. So I may address it. Here. Now.
1/ Excess speed in a parking lot.
A completely empty parking lot may be treated exactly like any other slice of asphalt in town. The unregulated speed limit in an incorporated area is 25mph. I did not exceed. There is no violation. There is no cause.
2/ Failure to use turn signal.
When the road turns and I follow it there is no requirement to signal. There is no violation. There is no cause.
Nothing else was cited as cause, but two things should have been. Expired Tabs. And the reason the officers made a U-turn adjacent to the football field stands in order to follow me a mile before the pullover. If they had reason to pull a u-turn, then they had cause to pull me over, but did not do so before coming up with two Non-reasons to cite as cause and they cited nothing else. The Non-reasons demonstrate that the desire was to pull me over absent cause. The assumption being that a badge lends credibility to the ridicules. The twin assumption being that nothing will actually change if the case gets dismissed. The triplet being that I would play by rules that say I always lose.
I am done losing. And I do hope no one minds. I want my License back. And I want the Cops in this State to quit following folks around trying to come up with a reason to support a pullover they have already decided to make. It is really very simple, the training requirement is: If he ain't speeding or weaving let him go his way, even if he's juggling cats on a unicycle. Being a cop is about being ready. It is not about being busy. And it has nothing to do with impunity.
Now, if we could please wrap this matter up? It has been fifteen years.
Thank you.
kertis.engle@gmail.com
The Chairman might ask if, seeing as I have paid no fines in this State, ever, how is it I was not arrested January 1st? Is something special going on? It just might be an interesting question.
Civillian control of the military
It is SO gratifying to have an actually intelligent man in the Whitehouse. A man with a passing familiarity with history, as opposed to a passing familiarity with classic war films. A man who would likely be able to explain the lesson of the hammer ; that he who holds it tends to see every problem as a nail. A Man able to critique the fallacy of fighting to honor the dead. A fallacy well explicated by John McCrae in his poem, which follows.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That marks our place; and in the sky
The Larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the Guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands We throw
The torch; be it yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
At the risk of the very, very obvious, I point out that Mr. McCrae was not dead. He merely spoke for them...words of his own choice...that those who heeded would join the dead...by virtue of failing to think for themselves...and therefor repeating mindlessly the very obvious mistakes of the preceding season. The not quite so obvious is, those wise enough to see through it are to be attacked as UNPATRIOTIC by those more easily taken in. What is obvious only to those who actually study is, that had LLoyd George lead rather than followed the Generals, the disaster that led to the penning of this poem would not have occurred. The Western Front would have been redeployed into a Holding Action while Germany slowly starved from the blockade. Instead, because the generals decided while the politicians kept thier hands clean, the British Army hurled itself repeatedly upon the strongest of the German positions for the very weakest of reasons : the simple lack of a better idea.
While I am not sanguine regarding current operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palestine...noting that a bomb costs the same as a Kenworth and wondering if the Kenworth might not be a more effective thing to drop on someone who dislikes us...I am very pleased the President is in command. Rather than on a leash.
Here is the next shoe to drop.
I appreciate this forum.
Frosted Flake
An Open Letter to Congress
Please distribute freely.
To whom it may concern.
As you know, there’s been an inordinate amount of time and energy already expended on the economic situation we face today. I shall not bother describing it to you at any significant length since I assume you already have enough information to know the dire financial and economic situation; both of the economy and of government debt.
What stands out as unusual with this economy is the deflation in the face of the hundreds of billions of extra dollars printed and auctioned off in the past 18 months. Deflation so profound, in fact, that The Federal Reserve slashed their target short-term lending rate to a range of 0.0 percent to 0.25 percent. Any further reduction is not possible without entering into the absurdity of actually paying institutions to borrow money. And yet, despite their best efforts, deflation still continues as if their efforts have little effect on it.
But this very fact presents us with an extraordinary opportunity to simultaneously resolve the financial crisis, prevent what could potentially be the next financial crisis, and kick start economic recovery; all in a manner that increases federal debt only a fraction as much as would traditional methods dictate.
For the sake of saving valuable time, I shall first present the two solutions and then establish the supporting background information and rationalization. I hope you find the ideas presented worthy of reading the article fully and perhaps of further intellectual pursuit. I propose two dovetailed Federal programs.
Proposal one is a Federal budget designed to encourage companies of all sizes to build factories in America, and to employ Americans, making products here in America. This seems simple enough, but it is only the start of long process of preventing up to approximately 40 billion dollars per month from leaving our economy indefinitely.
Buying American is no longer an easy matter since little of our manufacturing remains after many decades of industrial decline. I propose a Federally funded program of rebuilding these lost factories throughout America.
The current trade deficit is about $40 billion per month.(1) So, if we were to adopt protectionist trade to the extreme, that is to say, all imports and exports were completely shut down. The American economy would gain a net $40 billion per month (480 billion ollars per year). Protectionist policies did not work in the 1930s mainly because, according to Don Boudreaux(2), America had a net trade surplus for most of the decade. That is, we exported more than we imported.
I am not proposing we shut down the borders to trade tomorrow. Nor do I advocate such extreme measures. This extreme example was to illustrate a point. The conditions today are the opposite of what they were in the 1930s. Today, America would be the obvious beneficiaries of trade protectionistic policies whereas the same policies harmed us then. Or so it may seem at first glance.
In the 1930s, we also had a large manufacturing base that produced more than we consumed. Today, the opposite is true. We have not the manufacturing capacity to replace that which we import today. This means that if we were to just implement protectionist policies, we would end up with all sorts of scarcities of many common items. Obviously, we cannot simply cancel NAFTA and impose tariffs without undue consequence. We need to invest in rebuilding our manufacturing base first. Only once we have our own manufacturing can we implement protectionist policies without unintended consequences Thus, a combination of manufacturing investment and then protectionism would reduce our trade deficit and stop money from leaving the Nation’s economy. While this would be worth only $40 or so billion dollars per month at the most, it might go a long way towards putting Americans back to work and rebuilding the American economy and restoring the American dream. It also has a long term benefit of extra tax revenue and employment. Since we will merely replace imports with domestic products, we can restart the economy without significantly disrupting supplies of any goods so prices will not increase significantly; nor should there be any significant inflationary pressure.
Yes, American made products are generally more expensive than imports; which is why those jobs were moved overseas in the first place. But now we know that excessive job loss within our own country reduces overall demand in an unsustainable manner. Without jobs, people don’t buy. Without purchases, there is no demand and we enter into a classic Keynesian downward spiral.
Further consider that since oil imports are a significant part of the deficit, this program dovetails nicely with the Presidents desire to research, design, and build alternative energy production to replace oil imports. The benefits of replacing foreign oil to both the economy and to national security are already well known and clearly delineated elsewhere and need not be repeated here.
This program was inspired by a common mischaracterization of the New Deal policies recently disseminated in various media outlets. A number of people claim that FDRs policies made the Great Depression worse. That they prolonged the depression, and that only the demand created by the war made economic recovery possible.
While technically correct, I've found it to be a mischaracterization of truth. FDRs policies were quintessentially Keynesian. However, I read that Keynes himself had written a series of scathing letters to FDR, one of which was an open letter published in the New York Times (3). Make no mistake; these letters amounted to an excoriation of FDR at the time. But it's not because Keynes thought so badly of his policies, but rather because he thought FDRs programs did not spend enough! History, in fact, proved Keynes right. The economy did not truly recover until the exorbitant expenses of WWII increased demand enough to lift us out of the depression. So, technically the critics of FDRs policies are correct. But not for the reason his modern day critics intimate. FDRs critics intimate that his policies, (QED, Keynesian economic theory itself) were somehow fundamentally flawed.
FDRs policies did prolong the depression, but not because of any fundamental flaw in the policies. Rather as Keynes himself pointed out, they failed because they did not go far enough. They were not big enough, and he did not spend enough to properly stimulate demand. Today’s critics would have us think that since a drop of medicine did not save the patient, no amount of medicine would have. But this bit of sophistry is proven wrong by the fact that WWII did stimulate demand enough to pull us out of the depression.
This leads to an inevitable conclusion; that President Obama’s economic stimulus package is far too little and inappropriately directed to have much effect on the economy as it does not increase demand on the necessarily gargantuan scale demanded. History is about to repeat itself as President Obama is about to make the same blunder as President Roosevelt had. But this time around, there's no Keynes to berate President Obama or to point out the mistake. What is necessary would be to calculate the ratio of the war effort spending to the size of the economy before WWII, and then multiply that by the size of the economy today to determine the necessary spending required to appropriately stimulate today’s economy.
Without doing the math, I already know that's a lot of money to be dumping on the Economy. But as I said earlier, Keynes himself berated FDR because his "New Deal" programs did not spend enough money to do a proper job of it. That it was the demands of the war that got everything going again. So we know that stimulating demand in a little way does not work, but stimulating demand in a very big way does. That's the reason we need to use so much money on the economy. But not just to a few. A few will not increase demand like the many can.
I find it curious that many economists and capitalists seem to be blind to the obvious fact that a wealthy few either cannot, or will not, increase demand as much as the masses do when given the same amount of money. Giving a half trillion dollars to a wealthy few will not increase demand nearly as much as giving the same amount to millions of others struggling to make ends meet. Given that today’s’ economy is noted for declining prices, increasing inventories, and rampant layoffs, I shall assume that it is safe to say our economic problems are not driven by any lack of supply production capacity. This obviates the conclusion that any attempts to increase supply production capacity will not improve matters. Thus, without anyone capable of buying their product or service, no company will expand or hire or recall any workers no matter how much money stuffed into their pockets. Therefore, corporate tax cuts will do nothing to improve the economic conditions we face today. Trickle down , or supply side, economics works for supply side problems, but the problems today are on the demand side; not the supply side.
The sheer enormity of spending this proposal represents may cause most to balk. Fortunately, the second proposal may mitigate, but not eliminate, the need for such immense spending.
The second proposal is much more unorthodox.
The economy is in the midst of a classic Keynesian downward spiral of demand destruction, deflation, and increasing layoffs which are fueling further demand destruction. We also know that layoffs are increasing both loan defaults and increasing credit card debt. We are already hearing suggestions that credit card defaults will be the next wave to hit an already beleagered financial industry. There is a way of ameliorating this, however, without incurring heavy Federal debt nor interfering with the capitalist markets. I propose that Congress directs the IRS to issue checks to every taxpayer in the amount of $3000.00 to $6000.00, tax free, no strings attached, to spend as they so desire. Furthermore, Congress should direct the Federal Reserve Bank to honor those checks without issuing any debt upon the Government. In other words, Congress should direct the Federal Reserve bank to issue that money directly to the taxpayer without holding auction or charging any interest on it.
This will deposit approximately $700 billion dollars directly onto main street. This will dilute the dollar and cause long term inflationary pressures – especially once the multiplier effect is applied. However, the economy is already experiencing such deflationary pressure that the Fed has already had to set a key interest rate at or near zero. They cannot go much further without entering into absurdity. Although this may seem like a very large check to many taxpayers, but as Keynes pointed out in his letter to FDR, a very large amount of money is necessary to successfully mitigate the demand destruction that is driving the economy into its downward spiral. Although the actual amount should be better calculated by experts in the field, the amount should be calculated with Keynes’s admonition in mind.
The reason why the Bush tax cuts and stimulus plan did not work was the same reason why FDRs fiscal policies failed to lift the country out of the depression; it was too little to be effective. In addition, the Federal Government was inappropriately held responsible for the repayment of that money. Since those rebates paid the taxpayer at the expense of the government, it amounted to a zero net increase in the money supply while saddling an already overburdened institution with even more debt. What is needed is to significantly increase the money supply and put that extra money directly into the hands of those most likely to increase demand without further burdening the Federal government with more debt obligations
A lot of people will spend it, which will increase demand and help the economy directly. A lot of people will use it to pay down mortgage debt. This should help to dramatically reduce foreclosures and stabilize those loans underlying the toxic debt held by financial institutions. Many will use it to pay down their credit card debt, which will help to prevent what could become the next misfortune of the financial industry. Only those few who will save or invest it will not contribute to the economic recovery.
Already, the Federal Reserve has been straining to foresee any signs of future inflation, only to find further signs of deflation. Interest rates are already at or near historic lows. As the economy recovers, future inflation can be dealt with using the standard methods of raising interest rates and recalling money from the system. Thus, future inflation should not be a significant concern.
In Conclusion;
A combination of these two programs, each metered appropriately, should resolve the whole of the economic problems we face today without an inappropriate level of Government intervention or saddling the Government with an inordinate burden of debt. These two programs should resolve these problems at the root, rather than ameliorating the symptoms like the previous TARP program does, by significantly reducing mortgage and credit card defaults, stimulating demand, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and reducing the trade deficit. This should put us on the road to economic recovery, further improve our national security and improve our nation’s long term economic viability.
Thank you for your time.
Jay D Lechnyr
Armada Michigan.
(1) http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/tradn......
(2) http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/12/if_trade_surpl......
(3) http://newdeal.feri.org/misc/keynes2.htm
Very Interesting Comment, Jay
That hits the nail, squarely. The Republicans want to give to the fatcats. They always do. The Reverse Robin Hood Theory. As Jay points out, this will do nothing for the economy, Becuse...dmn this keyboard...Because giving to the rich will BYPASS the economy, by giving the money to those who will wind up with the money AFTER THE POOR SPEND IT if it is given to them...IF it is.
Today I have been listning to a plan to give EVERY HOME BUYER a tax credit of 15 Grand...to "stimulate buying homes. Who would be doing that? Obviously, those who CAN, as opposed to the Rest of us. This way, those who have, get. While those who must sell their homes at a loss get government help to sign their deal with the Devil...I mean Slumlord...I mean Fatcat...yeah,that's what I mean. QUI BONO? 'Taint me. Or you.
Now if this were restricted to a (ONE) primary residence that would be different. But it is just the same as always. Feed the horse, so the sparrow can look throught the poop for his meal, if there is one.
I suggested before and do so now again, that ALL mortgages be Forcibly renegotiated to the same low rate. You pick it. This will free up a serious chunk of change for each homeowner to spend somewhere else, every month, WITHOUT the government writing him/her a check. This way, those left holding the bag will be the Stockholders of the Banks which have screwed us all (for $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$'s) and in doing so, have threatened the stability of the world economy.
Let those who have squeezed the Golden Goose, in quest of an extra egg, pay the veternarian.
Not intending to detract or distract from Mr. Lechnyrs' valuable points.
FF
I agree with you FF
Providing a tax cut to first time home buyers does nothing to raise the much needed down payment. Indeed, it's the lack of savings that is preventing Americans from buying their first home. The need for a down payment is the primary obstacle to obtaining a mortgage and a home. A tax cut incentive does nothing to surmount the rising financial requirements of obtaining the neccessary mortgage. This tax incentive must have been written by someone who has never collected a days worth of unemployment because it is so out of touch with reality.
Last year, a person with a 700 credit rating and 10% down could purchase a home. Today, that same person needs at least 20%. No amount of after the fact tax incentives will help people obtain that down payment.
But put a $5000 check in their hands, however...
Look, Congress is alrady looking to spend even more than my second proposal. But the manner of the spending is not going to increase demand nearly as much. And my proposal will not increase the federal deficit one penny!
John, Rove's not coming...
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...