U. S. LEGISLATOR NEROS FIDDLIN'

Positive reinforcement techniques, which I generally strongly support, do not seem to work well with too many U.S. legislators in recent years, especially presently. We’re way past time for tough love. If we get through this latest financial crisis, unscathed, we need to demand more from our Congresspersons.

Make U. S. Congresspersons pay $$$!

Legislators busy work for “kick the can down the road budgets” earns no pay, no perks!

Congress needs to increase the national debt limit, and stop playing games with the U. S. and world economies!

Then, Congress, get down to business and legislate for the American people, not just corporate America!

If Congress allows the United States to default on our debts August 2, 2011, then we should aggressively reject returning to office all those Congresspersons who are responsible for allowing this to happen.

Those legislators who take the credit worthiness of the United States as a hostage for their own agenda, with unwillingness to compromise, are betraying America’s best interests.

We must communicate unequivocably to Congresspersons that their lack of sincere negotiation and compromise is unacceptable! Compromise does not all happen on one side.

Consider California’s efforts to address severe state financial deficits with an inability of legislators to pass a timely budget, much less a balanced one for many years. Our state government has been suffering from the same malaise as our Federal Government legislative offices during this time of extremely severe financial crisis. Both state and federal legislators have been practicing purely rigid ideological stubbornness, are unwilling to negotiate, compromise and work together.

California has a budget now, though far from perfect for the tastes of either major political party. Perhaps our state is modeling an approach that could be used to motivate U.S. Congresspersons to learn how to prepare balanced budgets on time. The secret may simply be to:

ENFORCE a budget completion time deadline.

REQUIRE a balanced budget.

ESTABLISH consequences that effect Legislators if these criteria are not met.

Legislators’ salaries and all perks, including that wonderful exercise gym and pool, would cease to be free until they get the job done. They can’t prepare just any ole’ budget either, much less “kick the can down the road” on finance issues for future legislators and generations to resolve, as I’ve observed being done on select critical issues during many of my voting years.

Unfortunately, in applying these consequences, the legislators who are effectively performing their functions will suffer along with those who don’t. But...wait a minute...that’s just like what all the rest of us experience in our lives from the undeserved effects of those who don’t appropriately fulfill their responsibilities.

Remember those regulators who didn’t regulate? Remember those bankers who practiced magical banking? What about those Wall Street financial geniuses who are still raking in billions? Then, there all those large corporate covert operators in controlling positions to manipulate, even assert their will, for their own exploitative purposes. We get penalized for them, even though we didn’t do anything wrong. Where are our legislators who act in the best interests of those in the middle class and those with even less income?

Maybe if this consequence process prevails legislators will learn how to refine their time use, tone down their rhetorical grandstanding and minimize their political posturing, though it’s probably too much to expect they’ll ever eliminate that jawboning. Acquiring such skills might actually contribute to enhancing legislators’ ability to expand their professional talents to include negotiating and compromising.

Here’s a bit of state history and what’s happened in California, which is the world’s eighth largest economy. What transpires here has some impact not only on our citizenery but the financial world.

Years ago our legislators began feuding excessively among themselves, usually from the two major political parties ideological perspectives. They were unable to agree on a budget, taking longer each year to formulate one. Often the resulting budget was cobbled together with little relation to reality and a foisting to the future of paying for the present day’s costs. Increasingly legislators seemed never to get around to passing a budget until the last minute, then in recent years, not until long after the prescribed due date of June 15th. Last year we had no budget until October. Taxpayers finally became exceedingly frustrated.

Voters passed an initiative allowing a simple majority vote to pass a budget instead of the higher level of two-thirds vote. No longer would representatives from the dominant political party have to persuade a few from the minority groups to join their opposite number to pass a budget. Thus, voters have eliminated one of the obstacles legislators have cited in the past as a reason why they've been unable to keep this legal obligation to meet a time deadline.

But our state legislators have ignored some of the responsibilities of their job which includes negotiating and compromising on issue positions in order to achieve a budget formulation that would be in California citizens’ best interests. This year to meet the budget submission deadline they whomped up a sham budget that was just numbers monkey business for submission at the eleventh hour, as has so often been the case. Our governor gave fair warning he would not sign such a budget and he did not as their deadline passed.

California legislators were permanently penalized with no salary, no travel and no living expenses for each passing day after the budget submission deadline until a credible state budget was offered and signed. Our State Comptroller said legislators typically earn $95,000 a year plus $142 a day living expenses. For legislators in total, an expected $50,000 a day in savings was expected. Lawmakers generally lost salary and living expenses of about $4,830 over 12 days when California finally had an official budget. Granted these dollars didn't make much of a dent in our deficit, but that wasn't expected. The budget has a lot of shortcomings but it's a start. I look forward to seeing when our California state budget is submitted next year.

I wonder if there is any Congressperson with the courage to introduce a federal late budget penalty bill like California's, much less whether a majority of the Representatives would pass it? Perhaps such a bill would dramatically reinforce the seriousness of our expectations that Congresspersons effectively perform their jobs and that they all become determined to work together.

Taxpayers Loan Financiers -- Update

As I watch what Congress is doing or not doing regarding this rescue plan some of what I wrote before the first vote was ever taken raises even more questions in my mind such as some of the add ons tacked on to this plan. We seem to have a bunch of Neros in Congress fiddling while Rome burns.

Most importantly, a critical vote is scheduled later today, and I, for one, continue to believe this rescue plan needs to be passed in the House. I'm appalled it wasn't passed on the first vote. We should get the names of all those who voted against passage and make a concerted effort to see this is their last term in office.

Fri., 10/03/08 12:13 A.M.

700 Billion Dollar Bailout Loan -- Rescue Plan

(Just added note: with this post Blogger has repeatedly not allowed me to publish which they describe as some sort of HTML code problem. Since I don't even type in any such code nor do I have any links on this post, I don't know what the problem is. If this post publishes it will be a minor miracle as I've been up all night with this, a feat I do not intend to repeat in the future just to publish to my blog.)

A mind-boggling series of political and financial events affecting our country as well as the world have transpired in these United States in the weeks since my last post. Regrettably, ongoing computer Internet connectivity problems I've noted earlier have hampered the ease and frequency of my blogging activity during this time period and continue to do so.

Also, on a personal level an active working younger colleague and friend startlingly learned within this same month-or-less time period she had a serious medical problem. Symptoms she had periodically experienced since the first of the year had repeatedly been undiagnosed. Finally, when the diagnosis was made, but only after frustratingly (to put it mildly,) extenuating circumstances, she was presented with few life choices. At best she could begin treatments maybe extending her life for an unknown short duration, or forego that medical intervention. Ultimately she chose hospice palliative care, but then hastened her own demise by voluntarily restricting food and liquid intake. All of us who cared about her could not quite believe the suddenness of her medical condition, or accept the reality that she left this world eight days later after making that decision and returning home.

During this time I've been able to stay fairly abreast of Presidential campaign activities using the whole media approach by availing myself of print, broadcast and Internet sources as I was able. My stated opinion beginning with my writing here about the Primary election campaign has been that I believe the candidates should restrict their discussion, speeches and debates to their stance on issues such as the economy, social security, health care, foreign affairs and the Iraq/Afghanistan war, though this is not a conclusive or hierarchal list.

I have been aware during this time of some political party introductions of what I consider to be extraneous matters. I believe they should be excluded as major campaign topics. Such topics are often the subject of negative campaign advertisements, and info news exploitation. These include distracting moral issues that should not be election political fodder to be used for fomenting division among voters, nor should they be government dictated legislative mandates.

I strongly believe introduction of emotionally loaded moral issues serve to be distracting. I think such actions are intentionally done to not only seduce a specific voter block group but to foment division within the country – the divide and conquer strategy. Such moral issues are not appropriately the subject of legislation or government dictates and yet some keep trying to make them so. In addition to these issues serving as a tactic to distract voters as was deliberately done in the previous two elections, they prove to be destructive to a forthright, honest, open election process and our democracy. I deliberately do not name these destructive issues here less the mere act of doing so promotes them more and distracts from the point of these thoughts.

Before these weeks we began to experience a deep rumble within the depths of our countries banking system. We became fearful realizing all was not well when a major Federal Reserve takeover of a bank occurred. Some other banks began seeking stronger financial partners. Many banks are still considered potential candidates to become insolvent, thus requiring assistance. We have yet to experience the full impact of this banking and thrift situation. Housing prices decline and decreasing loan availability to purchase a house continues to indicate a weakening market, also.

Simmering much like a volcano's molten lava deep within the much larger U.S. and financial world has been a declaration severe financial difficulties exist that threaten to destabilize International economies everywhere. Suddenly this volcano has exploded with the searing heat of overwhelming debt signaling the virtual collapse of major Wall Street financial firms. Their steaming rocks rain down on frightened investors large and small crushing stock values, financial houses, threatening tidal wave effects within our own nation and around the world.

Our government financial authorities have quickly come to our rescue devising a plan to avert the potential financial disaster but with one caveat. The plan must be adopted immediately, or financially we will all be sucked into a black moneyless hole. This admonition familiarly panders fear as a means to gain our immediate acquiescence to accepting this plan.

Our distress and anxiety levels over this matter are still very high as the days have passed. Still we know the plan has come from an administration known for deliberately, repeatedly lying, while nakedly stealing power and control for the executive branch, upsetting the governing balance our constitution intended to exist between the three branches – Executive, Legislative, Judicial. Why do I mistrust this latest threatening fear tactic?

As I write this, meetings have been in place with efforts to reach an agreement on exactly how this bailout loan for the financial sector will be written. That financial world has long been resistant to the thought they needed regulation and believe they should not be under any sort of meaningful enforceable government control. This same view has long been highly touted by the current administration and Republican Party. The current candidate of that political party seems now to realize financial regulation and enforcement might be needed.

But now their desperate presidential candidate has acted in such an impulsive way as to try and capitalize and politicize this serious financial issue by injecting himself into the process, no doubt to somehow try to somehow take credit for any final plan. Will his President be complicit in trying to facilitate this impression to aid in his election?

I am much more impressed with the thoughtful measured approach of the Democratic Party candidate. I also believe these two candidates should concentrate on debating each other on this and other issues in the remaining five campaign weeks. They'll each have their opportunity to vote on the final agreed upon plan when it comes before the Senate.

Days have passed since that first foreboding warning we must accept the plan first presented within that same day or the next. I don't presume to be a financial expert. Like so many I must depend on minds wiser than mine on this complex financial matter and yet there do seem to be common sense elements about the situation. I hope they keep my best interests in mind and do not squander my tax dollars on the undeserving. I can't avoid thinking that the financial entities wanting my tax money can likely make their admonitions become self-fulfilling prophecies. Would they be so vindictive and greedy for the almighty dollar, they would be willing to sell out our nation, despite what might be in the best interests of our country?

I am pleased some Congresspersons recognize they must stand firm and demand a few basic guarantees the loan plan adopted is not a bailout of these financial entities and individuals who have contributed so much to creating this financial fiasco:

• I don't think it's too much to ask that if I as a taxpayer provide my share of the 700 billion dollars bailout that I should expect to receive financial benefits paid in dollars against this loan as reimbursement for the use of my tax dollars. I think an interest rate similar to what these financiers have charged Main Street American customers such as myself all these years on loans, stock purchases, credit cards, bank fees, etc., would be appropriate.

• I want strict requirements and supervision over the equitable distribution of these loan funds both now and if additional future loan funds are extended.

• I want to see these companies roll back mortgage interest rates and take other specific measures designed to help Main Street Americans avoid foreclosure. The millionaires and billionaires with equally expensive homes do not qualify for this assistance. They likely have plenty of other funds at their disposal, not to mention all the tax rate benefits they've received in recent years the rest of us have not.

• I want to see executives of all the companies who borrow my tax dollars have cap limitations on the monies they receive in salary. Certainly bonuses are not warranted.

• One man alone should not be given the decision-making power of declaring who does and doesn't receive any of this money or even how much. I want language in the loan agreement preventing this blatant stealing of power however well intended.

• I want regulations required and enforced with more than just a statement "oversight" is being provided. I want limitations put in place on how these financial institutions function now and in future years. An overseeing committee convened after the fact of actions taken is not adequate insurance any of these companies will conduct business in an ethical or morally honest manner in the future, given their past history.
  

These items alone are the minimum provisions to which those who want to use my tax monies should have to agree before receiving even one of my hard-earned dollars, or a single one of my pennies either, for that matter.