Two kinds of "bailouts," two kinds of responses

This may sound hypocritical of me, but while I excoriated the bailout for the finance "industry", I'm all in favor of helping out the auto makers. Three real world reasons: 1) The auto industry did not facilitate (or perhaps more accurately, cause) our economic meltdown, so they shouldn't necessarily be held accountable for its effects; 2) it is one of the last actually American industries left standing, employing hundreds of thousands of Americans earning decent wages; and 3) the amount of money involved is so miniscule comparatively that it doesn't engage my natural gag reflex. There are also a couple of political/ideological reasons: 1) The people who are against it are only interested in taking down the last truly strong union--the UAW--that represents workers (there are immensely strong unions in sports and entertainment, but by and large, the main beneficiaries of those unions are fairly wealthy already); and 2) the only people voting against it are Republicans, which these days automatically makes it something any good Democrat/liberal should fight for.
As with the bailout we were forced to swallow for the financiers, I support this only with a few serious reservations. The managers of the Big 3 need to be fired. How far down the decision-making apparati this "restructuring" needs to go depends entirely on how far down we can trace the responsibilities for being stupid. I realize selling SUVs, for a prime example, was a sound business move for an industry needing to hit quarterly revenue targets, but the only reason that's even of any importance is because these companies have become useless at taking any risks whatsoever that might affect the stock prices in the short term. (By the way--all American companies, with a vanishingly small number of exceptions, are useless in those terms. I digress.) We have known for quite a while that our oil-based energy system is in decline, and none of the Big 3 pushed for alternative fuel vehicles until Toyota (and to a lesser extent, Honda) showed them that yes, Virginia, hybrids will sell here in the USA, and in eye-catching volume, with little to no hard sales pitches at all. (When's the last time you can remember seeing a TV ad for a Prius? I can't recall ever seeing one . . .)
I have no problem giving the auto industry help, as long as we the people get something in return, which we are so obviously not getting from the financiers. Whether it be equity in the companies, interest on the loan, a say in how the companies are run, or something equally valuable--perhaps a meaningful restriction on executive salaries?--I don't much care, but we need something. Otherwise, even if we get the current bosses capped, we will run into a "meet the new boss/same as the old boss" syndrome here as well.
To sum up, the finance world may have been "too big" to fail (but even at that we can't figure out how to save it properly; don't get me started!), but the auto industry is definitely too important to fail. It has been the backbone of our workforce as a country for nearly a hundred years, and its salience in that regard has only increased given the evaporation of all our other homegrown manufacturing and knowledge-based businesses since the Reagan era began. We can save it, and we should. It's not that difficult a call, really.

The swindling of America by Republicans, pt. 7843567843567834657836

Smirky's Administration has done it (to us) again! Remember that $700 billion we gave them? Well, now, apparently, they aren't even going to do what they said they were going to do with it, even though that wasn't worth a damn to begin with. Treasury Secretary Paulson just announced that he wouldn't spend the money to buy up mortgage-backed securities as he was authorized, but would instead do, well, nothing, which completely undermines the purpose of strongarming Congress in order to gain their instant approval of this emergency measure.
To be fair, I guess I shouldn't say that Paulson's doing nothing, since he's willing to admit that he is going to "continue to devote bailout funds to restore liquidity to credit markets." What that means, however, is that our tax dollars are going straight into the pockets of the very same high rollers and financial scammers that have been instrumental in creating the mess in the first place--you know, the sociopaths that have been fleecing the country for 8 years, also known as Smirky's "base"? That's right, we are giving $700 billion to the same financial institutions (more likely, the CEOs of said institutions) that screwed us into this swamp.
It's the ultimate con job, and anyone with 1/2 a brain saw this one coming from miles away as soon as Paulson's 3-page plan was presented allowing for no oversight whatsoever. Unfortunately for us, though, this leaves out some of our Congresspeople. Jane Harman:
"My mouth is open," Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) told a television interviewer, comparing Paulson to a football team's quarterback changing the play at the line of scrimmage. "It was a very hard vote for many of us who voted for that package, and now all of a sudden we have an audible and we're spending it on something else." Read: I'm shocked, shocked! to hear a Bush appointee was misleading us. How unprecedented! Moron.
It is possible that Paulson's telling the truth when he says that he's just going to sit on the remainder of the money until Obama comes to town, but if he is, that would be the first time anyone associated with Smirky did so, and in any case, by doing so he gives the lie to that whole, "We need this done now or we're dooooomed!" speech he gave us, doesn't it? Well done, Hank. You can now join Colin Powell in the hall of Smirky's stooges who have sold their souls in order to deceive the American public into giving away everything they have. There won't be anything left by January 20 for Obama to do except turn off the lights on the United States of America's future . . .

White House says bailout is simply a money grab by financiers--or even more sinister

In a press conference today, White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto inadvertently (or with the ultimate in stupid hubris--you make the call!) let us all know that this bailout is really about giving away even more of the taxpayers' money to the financial industry. The money quote:
"You have to remember, these are not all weak or troubled firms that own mortgage-backed securities. A lot of them are very successful banks and investment houses that have done very well, have been responsible, are holding performing assets that have value."
Um, Tony? Why on earth would we need to bail out firms that aren't "weak or troubled" or that have "done very well"? Clearly necessity is not the main criteria under consideration, is it? Perhaps it is instead the final Smirky Administration payoff to the rich?
Even more likely is that the felons are attempting to rig the economy (even worse than they have already, that is) to go 100% in the tank just in time for the Obama Administration to take over. Once again, Democrats will be left with cleaning up Republican disasters, only this time with little or no money to do so without cutting spending on valuable services. Grover Norquist, who famously declared that his goal was to shrink government to the size where he could drown it in a bathtub, would get to have his dream come true; Smirky and the gang are merely creating the new twist of further enriching the wealthy as it dies.
Twisted indeed.

Emails sent to Congresspeople

I sent the following to my Senators and Congressman:

Please take extra care that even with the Dodd (or Frank) amendment attached, this bailout does not screw the American public yet again. I have no problem keeping our financial system in place, but there is no reason whatsoever to enable those who have profited from their malfeasance to continue to live in the manner to which they've become accustomed. If jailtime is an impossible dream, certainly we can attach 100% of their assets in an effort to defray the costs of this bailout. All CEOs, high-ranking officials, and large shareholders of all businesses affected, past and present, should have their lives affected as much as the least of us has been.
I feel morally justified in wishing homelessness on those who have helped create homelessness in others, and bankruptcy on those who have engineered bankruptcy in others. And, given the execrable bankruptcy law passed a couple years ago, that should allow an enjoyably painful existence for years to come for those who truly deserve it.
Thank you,
bryduck
Public Librarian