Mud Slings and Wooden Arrows

This is October 2, 2008. The United States is on the precipice of, well, something. Nobody seems to know exactly what it is, but that is nothing new in American culture and politics. But I am sure that today you, like many others, are either transfixed by the prospect of the upcoming VEEP debate and/or scared to death about what happens next with the financial crisis. All I really know is this:

Re: the VEEP debate. Either Palin will finally and completely reveal herself as the single most unqualified person in the history of the country to hold high office, thereby irreversibly dooming the Republican campaign, or she will turn on her feminine charm (snake oil?) and seduce America once again (here, have an apple), thereby throwing the entire race into another cocked hat between now and the election. (Perhaps she will give everyone in America a sugar-laden sno-cone, to stave off the hunger pangs of the financial crisis) After reading everything I can get my hands on (I guess like the way Sarah reads newspapers: "All of um"), that is the best summarization I can manage about the nature of the debate , right now. Mostly, I just want her to GO AWAY! I have no more energy molecules to waste on her. Please, someone make it STOP! In the meantime, "I'll just hafta git back to ya." Gawd help us.

Re: The financial crisis. I am completely convinced the politicians (who are not economists) know absolutely nothing about what it is wrong or how to fix it. And with Dubya and Paulson leading the fray, it is clearly a case of the blind leading the blind ( Two MBA's in the same room is never a good thing: look at Wall Street). And the economists (who do what is going on and how to fix it) are largely being ignored by the politicians (who don't know...never mind. You know how that sentence ends). And these economists say that the bail-out/rescue/buy-in/relief effort bill is all wrong and misses the boat. In fact, in terms what America needs, long term, as well as any real for real help to come to Main Street (have you ever met a politician OR an economist on Main Street? I haven't), this bill not only misses the boat, it misses the dock, the shore and even the north American continent (parts of it do reach China, however).

Last night, the Senate (you elected 'em!) passed a version of this non-helpful legislation by a whopping 75% margin ( this just two days after the House rejected something like it by a similar margin: we are politically schizoid) . To no one's surprise, even in the midst of our darkest hour, it is packed chock full of earmarks and pork. The media pundits have said that these add-ons and taxation rule changes and FDIC modifications "sweeten" the bill enough for it to be passed by the House. The economists (whom the politicians don't listen to) say that despite all of this bombast and rhetoric (from the politicians who don't know what's wrong or how to fix it...there I said it again), that the Congress is saddling each American with an additional debt of around $2200.00. According to the politicians (who don't know..oops, sorry), we will get this back some day. Well, probably never in my (your) lifetime. Trust them. They are your friends. However, when you do get it back, it will be in Chinese currency.

This morning, that silly and irrelevant man pretending to be the President of the United States, met with some "business advisors" (Wall St. guys?) and then went on television to plead rather pathetically that the Congress should act quickly (that would be novel) because, "London Bridge is falling down, falling down". The only thing missing was the music. If you missed it, you missed nothing, because his oratory was simply "naw-some". That is to say. it was a combination of nauseous and awesomely bad. He didn't help. He should have been out walking Barney or riding his bike: either activity would have been as useful (he probably thinks he was offering his "contributoriness"). Lame ducks should never quack in public.

But the capper, here, may well be this: in his daily NYT op ed, Professor Krugman (Princeton and all that, one of those economists that politicians don't listen to) declared that this was not a good bill but it was the only one we had and we should do it...but he didn't like it. He then pointed out that one of the earmark/pork barrel/bill stuffers was a section that addressed special tax efforts on behalf of the makers of "certain kinds of wooden arrows, made for children".

If you can find something, anything more irrelevant or more absurd to attach to this landmark (boat-sinking?) legislation (which the economists say isn't going to work, anyway), then please tell me what it is. If the House has the gall, in the face of the huge public outcry against such an action, to pass this bill, then I submit to you that it simply won't matter whether Sarah Palin ends the evening looking like a pile of moose droppings on the snow, or comes off like the second coming of Mary Magdelene, speaking in tongues. We will all only have big government bags full of wooden nickels...er arrows... to show for it all. Somehow, I don't think that was what anybody had thought of as the perfect "rapture". Have a nice day and be careful what you do with your arrows.


Life goes on in Texas

Financial Black Ops for Main Street

Today, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of (but not for) the House of Representatives (a group who obviously represents someone other than you and I), said that this gigantic, enormous, emergency (hurry up and pass this, before somebody notices) $700B Congressional bailout plan was:
"not a bailout. It's a buy-in".

If so, before I (we) start to feel better about this, I have a few questions (and so should you!). But before you even stop to consider the fact that the Congress has NEVER, EVER moved this fast, at any time in our history, you might review the following:

If it's not a "bail out", why is everyone carrying water buckets to and from Wall Street, and why are they filled with tax money?

If it's not a "bail out", why are the people carrying the buckets all taxpayers, while the people on Wall Street are looking smilingly out the windows, waiting for the buckets?

If it's not a "bail out", why are all the buckets coming back empty for the next five years?

If it is a "buy-in", who asked me (you) if I (we) wanted to buy in in the first place? Did I miss something?

If you were offered a chance to "buy-in", would you buy-in without a contract and some safeguards? "What's in your wallet?"

If you were offered a chance to buy in, would you do it with the Federal government as your partner? With George Bush as the CFO? With a contract written by government lawyers?(Put another way, how far are you prepared to bend over?)

If you were offered a chance to buy in, would you let Bernanke and Paulson be the brokers of record ?(remember that their lawyer was Roberto Gonzales...and he got fired)

Just in case someone might ask, would you like to have the option NOT to buy in? I don't hear Ms. Pelosi or the "Representatives" offering that one. (I thought I voted for these people. YOU?)

If this is not a "bail out", why are we so worried about the ship sinking? And if it is sinking, why hasn't someone looked for the leaks? Can anyone spell "Cause and Effect"? There must be"fault" lines here, somewhere.

And whether or not it is a "bail out" or a "buy in", why are the Chinese all smiling?

I think Ms. Pelosi is neglecting to tell us (lying through her teeth, maybe?) that this "buy-in" of Wall Street Real Estate is really like having us "buy-in" to beachfront property in Arizona. But that would explain two things:

It's probably why John McCain has awoken and is suddenly so keenly interested, as well as why we always talk about Wall Street as "swimming" in money.

WTF!?

Life goes on in Texas.