norma156 member for 31 weeks 1 day Send a message

BeautyMark, among other bloggers, has complained in this forum about corruption in government. In the last twenty four hours we have witnessed instances of corruption, large and small, that I haven't seen in American government since Nixon lied about being in Cambodia.

Please, everyone, this is complicated stuff, but so important to our futures.

Consider the following:

Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and the White House have apparently signed off on a $700 million bailout package for Wall Street. The centerpiece of the package is to BUY toxic securities from failing companies.

Where does it say in the Constitution or anywhere else that our government should be in the business of BUYING stakes in an industrial sector??? Where?

I might go along with this if it was the only way. But it's not. Many astute observers offer other proposals for the crisis, including the relatively simple one of changing the way these securities are valued.

Currently, they're valued on what's called "marked to market." In the housing industry, this is an accounting term that values an asset at what it would fetch in the open market on that day.

So, if you have a $150,000 house and in today's market, you could get only $80,000 or $90,000 for it, under "marked to market" your asset is worth only the lower amount.

The proposed change, a rolling three-month average, would more fairly value an asset. MORE IMPORTANT, it would immediately relieve the pressure from these failing Wall Street firms. No reason for a bailout. No reason for a permanent place for Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer at the microphone...by itself a reason to support the proposal.

Is the accounting change a no-brainer? Yes. Is it fairer to homeowners? Obviously, yes. The accounting board could accomplish this with a stroke of a pen.

But, do we hear any of these geniuses talking about it? No. They're in such a hurry to pass this package, they won't consider an alternative.

But what else does the package contain, apart from this enormous commitment of taxpayer money?

Under a little noticed provision, the language of the bill directs that future profits (assuming housing values rise) be directed to various non-for-profit foundations, including ACORN, the controversial foundation involving Barrack Obama and the 1960s terrorist Bill Ayers. (Believe me, this makes the Bridge to Nowhere look like lint on the overcoat of life.)

In other words, future profits, intended to pay taxpayers back for this enormous commitment directs money instead to politically favored organizations.

The pols figure we're such schmucks that we wouldn't notice. I guess they're right because Obama's picked up five points in the polls today.

Does this make you mad? It should. I'm furious.