Strange Times Are Here

Whether It’s “change” or “straight talk,” we Americans have been bombarded with messages, which in my most humble opinion could fall under a theme of “we deserve better and we can do better” as Americans.

On one hand, you can agree with a party that intentionally broadened the housing industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s and greatly contributed to the recent mortgage quagmire. On the other hand, you can concede to a party that sees military occupation as a way to extend our duration as a major global player.

While there are inherent differences in the philosophies of our political parties, one thing remains true, and that is the willingness of either party to paint half-truths in an attempt to protect their political existence.

Most recently, we watched a $700 billion bill get shot down by the House of Representatives, and that same political body pass a revised $800 billion bill later that week. This begs the question, what does it cost to get a $700 billion bill passed? Better still, a $700 billion bill that is exempt from civil judicial oversight (drum roll please).

Oozing and dripping of pork fat, the $700 billion bill slithered through with a passing majority vote, only after gaining weight in the revisions process. The bailout grand total to be either printed or borrowed is $800 billion.

While one might assume that a “no” vote was generated from politicians’ extreme desire to do the just thing for the majority of the Americans they represent and the “free market” that we encourage, some more scrupulous declinations were cited: "This legislation is giving us a choice between bankrupting our children and bankrupting a few of these big financial institutions on Wall Street that made bad decisions." (Rep. John Culberson, R-TX.) (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm).

And: "The public isn't getting anything for this, except we're handing money to the same people who basically brought about the problem." (Rep. JimMcDermott, D-WA.) (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008227320_localvote04m.html).

I saw a glimmer of hope on the Monday when the house voted down the bill. I thought to myself that there is still hope that justice knows no tire and that accountability was on the way. Instead, I was disappointed to see the bill gain weight as it was being revised.

So a 23-vote deficit in the House of Representatives on Monday, September 29th turned into a 92-vote majority by Friday, October 3rd, which translated into an additional $100 billion piggy-backed onto this rescue package. That averages out to just over a billion bucks per a “yes” vote not including the heavy lobbying financial benefits. Outstanding negotiations on behalf of the “vote converters!”

Too bad we can’t speculate financially on the voting of our leadership. A $100 billion in pork fat passed in daylight is action we all should get a piece of, unless of course the most recent stimulus package was an attempt to smooch over the American criticisms.

An article by Steven A. Holmes, published on September 30^th, 1999, in the New York Times suggested that a financial bailout might be imminent in the event of an economical downturn because of lax home loan guidelines.

“In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.”

These are strange days when blatant displays of self interested and elitist behavior are preludes to passing self-serving inflated legislation. Further still, it is gross that this predicament, in the article referenced above, practically predicted a bail out should our country fall on challenged economic times.

The article was written in 1999, which means that should Americans get the hypocrisy of the events today in 2008, we admittedly have a nine year, delayed gag reflex. Should this be true, it proves that we need to spend more money on educating our Americans citizens. That means that as early as 1999 our educational system needed a bailout package to boost programs that help with common sense. Frankly, nine years is too long for Americans not to notice that they have something in their mouths.

While the Democrats were engaged in a ménage-à-trois with Freddie and Fannie, Republicans were engaged in fellatio with the bankers and defense contractors. It makes me think of the potential for an already exhausted adage: Amount of initial “bailout”: $700 billion dollars.  Amount to get the bill to pass: an additional $100 billion dollars. Cost to the American citizens trust…priceless.