Financial Meltdown & Trust

Bailout/Rescue Plan Doesn't Seem to be Helping

Is Meaningful Regulation Missing ?

Financial Return On Our Investment Necessary

Is this a bailout of those on Wall St. who created the financial crisis or is it a rescue plan for Main Street America? The answer depends upon personal perspective based on information we each gather, process and interpret to reach an ultimate conclusion independently. The fact there have been so many financial experts offering conflicting views as to what action is best has not clarified the issues. The pundits state the problem, potential solutions, and possible consequences have not been explained well. Even more critical in creating uncertainty among all of us is the experts general agreement the results of implementing this plan are unknown. What is proving to be the case so far is that the plan has not resulted in a desired positive effect on the financial markets in the U.S. and the world.

I've read news reports, and listened to more than a few knowledgeable financial authorities of differing ideological persuasions explain their point of view. I've engaged in thoughtful debate with friends of varying socio-economic status who have been equally anxious to consider all the angles as best we were capable. I am familiar with young people attempting to sustain a new successful several year old business, raise young children, and maintain their home's mortgage. My own family consists of members a next generation older than that couple who are also striving to prepare for their futures. I have personal knowledge of couples entered into their first medicare-elgibilty retirement years whose financial well-being is paramount now that they're no longer in the work force. Especially vulnerable are some other couple friends and singles already in their retirement years whose financial security is most eminent. Will some of the older people need to return to work and might they encounter that unlawful but still covertly practiced age discrimination?

My Representative, Republican David Dreier, coincidentally the night before the second bailout/rescue vote offered me an opportunity to participate in another of his periodic phone conferences. I have yet, however, to be selected to ask questions and speak directly with him. His votes have not often reflected my point of view, but I value hearing his perspective. I sometimes let his office aides know by phone, letter or email my own opinion that I expect him to seriously consider whether contrary to or supportive of his position.

During his exchange with constituents in this phone conference I informally judged 80% to 90% of those who spoke had the same reaction I did of outrage – outrage that we were being asked to underwrite the excesses of Wall Street, the failure of government to regulate the violators of sound business practices and provide carte blanche authority to one government official for dispersing 700 billion dollars. He said he agreed with our concerns, but was convinced there was too much at stake for each of us, our country and the world financial markets, so he "held his nose" and voted for the first bill. Before this conference call I had reached that same conclusion as he had stated when it came to a vote on that bill. My Democratic Senators, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer also voted for the bill.

The other night Warren Buffett appeared on The Charlie Rose Show on PBS-TV making a similar case for a "yes" vote on this revised bill. I do respect Buffett, but I realize he has his own business perspective and agenda though it does seem to be one supportive of Main Street Americans. I did conclude, nevertheless, that everything considered I was not willing to gamble the financial condition of this country against the unknown of what might be our future if this revised bill did not pass. I left a message for Rep. Dreier that I hoped he would vote "yes" on this revised bill, too, as he did. Expectedly my Senators Feinstein and Boxer would again vote their support.

I continue to feel a crisis of trust toward current governing figures but now even far greater than any I've ever felt before in my lifetime toward any other administration. Congressional persons and those occupying the executive branch of our government from both of our major political parties have not only failed to serve the American people well as they pledged to do, but they have betrayed us for too many years.

Whose opinion on how to act do we trust to resolve the financial debacle our country is experiencing? Originally I thought U. S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was that person by default but then I was quite repelled by the original bailout plan he proposed. What a power grab to rival that of what the current executive branch has been doing these past years. The constant admonitions by officials urging fast action to endorse this plan had me questioning whether or not this tactic might just be rushing us to action saying time was of the essence in classic sales closing pressure tactics. I also knew that approach almost always raises a red flag of caution to not get stampeded into what might likely be a questionable investment. Common sense suggested to me that both the original plan and the revised bailout/rescue plan saddling 700 billion dollars of debt risk on to all citizens was tantamount to rape of the American people. Despite all that, right or wrong, I over-rode my hesitations and was willing to accept that revised bailout/rescue plan.

Friday night 10/10/08 I listened to George Soros interviewed extensively on Bill Moyers Journal PBS television program. Soros basically said this rescue plan was already too late to be effective, so I wonder what are we doing? We can't rescind this plan now, but I believe we need to keep up the pressure on our Representatives and Senators to see that items I mentioned in my previous post are adopted in new bills if need be to ensure their implementation. I'm especially concerned that regulations are strengthened, if need be, but definitely strongly enforced in the financial world, including banking. Also, the Securities Exchange Commission purportedly has long fought off regulation to their and our detriment it seems. Specific approval and accountability beyond "oversight" needs to be required for the distribution of my portion of the $700 billion tax dollars and I'm just not sure that will effectively be done.

I want those same 700 billion tax dollars and any new amounts appropriated rewarded with earnings repaid at an interest rate that any such high risk investment would generate. The principle, of course, must also be reimbursed to our U. S. Treasury. Perhaps we should even charge the financial market the same usury rates they've forced us to pay for many years which our state and federal government officials have permitted. All the financial groups who benefit from loans, cash infusions and/or purchases of their bad debts are monetarily, morally and ethically indebted to all U. S. citizens.

The very least the financial markets and banks can do is to dedicate themselves to making our investment in them profitable for all of us.

The Devil is in the Language

REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR -- WORLD WAR II -- THE FREEDOMS FOR WHICH SO MANY DIED


More Than "Just Words"

...words that could be used to take rights from American citizens.


"Thought Crime" bill S1959 Could Steal Citizens Rights


I wrote my Congressman, David Dreier, in the House of Representatives expressing my distress that he had voted for this bill that has the potential for violating individual citizen's rights (mine and yours) at the whim of our government and asked him why he did so. This was the crux of his reply:

"As you know, H.R. 1955 amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism. This legislation directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a grant program to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. H.R. 1955 also directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. On October 23, H.R. 1955 passed the House by a vote of 404 to 6, and now awaits its consideration in the Senate."

I already knew what the bill does when I wrote him. Does he know what all it does? How do I interpret his reply? He read the bill, and didn't mind there was wording that could take away my rights? Or, maybe he just skimmed the bill, got the gist of it, and didn't bother reading a lot of those pesky incidental little words? Or, perhaps he didn't even read the bill, so didn't really know what it said other than those four sentences he wrote that I quoted above.

Well, words matter! Some of the words in the "Thought Crime Bill" were recently the center of focus in comment dialogues at the "Time Goes By" blog. You can access these various references listed in Ronni Bennett's post there titled "Thought Crime Bill Index" HERE.

One reader, Brian, commented, citing the following as being a safeguard written in the bill to protect our rights:

"Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents." (From HR1955/S1959)

Another reader, Pamela, responded:

"Note use of the word "should" instead of "shall". I worked for years in a highly regulated industry, and the difference between these two words is significant, in the world of regulatory verbiage. I'm sure the words were carefully chosen. SHOULD means preferable but not mandatory. SHALL is the word used when nothing less is ever acceptable."

So, reads to me like our rights are protected if our government wants to, but they don't have to do so. That's not good enough for me.

Then, Brian's comment later was:

"this act _creates a commission_. Admittedly, I'd be more comfortable if the clause I cited use the word "shall" instead of "should," (as Pamela notes) but I see nothing so worrying here."

Commission? Commission?? Does anyone remember the instances of "Commissions" of this proposed type and the damage they can do? What immediately comes to my mind are memories of The McCarthy Era and the witch hunts that ruined so many lives. Read one such story HERE.

The "Thought Crime Bill Index" lists "Thought Crime Bill Video." I quote Ronni Bennett from her post there:

"This is the first terrorism-related legislation that specifically targets U.S. citizens and the vagueness of the wording is a dangerous threat to the First Amendment and to each of us in ways that have not been attempted before in the United States. The definitions in the bill hold the frightening keys to the undermining of our most basic liberty - to speak freely [bolding is mine]:

“VIOLENT RADICALIZATION - The term ‘violent radicalization' means process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change."

"The difficulties here are that “extremist belief system” means anything the government wants it to mean as does the word “facilitating.”

“HOMEGROWN TERRORISM - The term 'homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

"Again, this refers not just to violence, but to thought and speech for any undefined “political or social objectives”. In other words, it could mean universal healthcare, equal rights, abortion or anything at all about which you or I might want to make our views known that the government objects to. And, it establishes U.S. citizens as the targets of this legislation.

“IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term ‘ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.”

"This repeats legislative intolerance of speech and thought.(bolding is mine)

"The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism and Prevention Act does not establish penalties for these thought crimes; it “only” establishes a commission to study them. But it tells us where the thinking in Washington is heading.

"The Commission is required to send a report about its findings to the Congress and president every six months for a year and a half. As disturbing as the bill itself is, so is the additional requirement that there be a “a public version” of the reports – that is, something different from what Congress sees." She adds, "Even with only a commission at this point, there is no way to understand the bill except as a warning of what is to come..."

"Please read the entire bill. It is not lengthy and there is more in it to be concerned about.." as Ronni urges.

What mainstream media sources have you seen mention this bill? Shouldn't they be bringing this to the attention of the American people? Isn't that the job of the press to help protect our rights, or at least acquaint us to the possibility these rights could be under assault? I sent a letter to the Editor of the Los Angeles Times because I haven't seen mention of the bill in their paper and they haven't printed my letter, either. Someone please write and tell me there was an article in the Times and I just overlooked it.

My Senator Barbara Boxer responded to a letter I sent her, but didn't indicate how she would vote. I have yet to hear anything from my Senator Diane Feinstein. My Representative, David Dreier, has already voted against my interests and yours. How are your Senators going to vote? Have you told them how you want them to vote on your behalf?

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, S1959, awaits a vote in the U.S. Senate very soon this month. Passage means the next step is for the President's signature. There is no reason to believe he won't sign the amendment.

Again, I urge everyone to read this bill HERE.

The devil is in the wording and we should be very concerned about the rights that all those Senators who vote for this bill could be taking from each American citizen. All but six of our House Representatives have already betrayed us.