A Bipartisan Drama: Resuscitating a Dying Republic
By: BJ Lawson
First, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, Democrat from Ohio:
Next, Rep. Michael Burgess, Republican from Texas:
The rule of law and process of good government are taking a beating this weekend.
I’ve reviewed the “Discussion Draft” of bailout legislation, available here.
Any Representatives or Senators feeling pressured to accept this power grab by our Treasury and Federal Reserve need to understand that they are negotiating with terrorists. It was my recollection that we do not negotiate with terrorists.
Again, what should we do?
First, we should embrace every effort to restore transparency, trust, and the rule of law to our capital markets.
But we must also remember that we are at a critical inflection point, and the banking institutions hold all the cards. Bernanke and Paulson are predicting terrible things if we do not bail out the banks at our expense. Their predictions are well on their way to becoming self-fulfilling prophecy, since the banks ultimately control access to credit.
Many have documented why the bailout plan is unlikely to work as proposed. It is time for principled leaders in Congress to go on offense. So Paulson wants $700 billion to buy toxic assets, “restore confidence”, and get banks lending again?
Why not just round up to $1 trillion, but issue it in United States Notes directly from the Treasury, instead of Federal Reserve Notes?
What’s a United States Note? That’s debt-free currency printed by our Treasury that carries the same legal tender status as the private debt money issued by the Federal Reserve. Except our government doesn’t need to borrow from foreign lenders or the Federal Reserve to put it into circulation. We’d just create it, and exchange this debt-free paper money for the banks’ toxic assets.
Sound odd? It’s not unprecedented — check out how Lincoln funded the Civil War when foreign lenders were only offering financing at usurious interest rates. That’s how U.S. Notes were born, at which time they were given the popular name “greenbacks”. They circulated alongside Federal Reserve Notes from 1913 until 1971.
It’s basically a way to be “helpful” and go along with what the Fed and Treasury are suggesting, but make them play by our rules. In other words, “Sure, we’ll give you the money you’re asking for, but we’re absolutely not going to pay you interest for the privilege of bailing you out.”
Put it this way — having Congress empower the Treasury to issue our nation’s own fiat currency is more Constitutional than delegating the issuance of our currency to a private central bank where all money is created through the people and our government(s) taking on debt.
We’ve used public money to preserve the union before, maybe it’s time to try again.
I think Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) would agree:
Key quote:
“Why aren’t we helping homeowners directly with their debt burden? Why aren’t we helping American families faced with bankruptcy. Why aren’t we reducing debt for Main Street instead of Wall Street? Isn’t it time for fundamental change in our debt-based monetary system, so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks?“
September 29th, 2008 at 4:54 am
I think that Dennis Kucinich is somewhat off the mark, but it’s a milestone to hear a liberal Democrat calling for an end to the Federal Reserve. If others on the left realize that the Fed is in fact the worst of the crimes that Morgan and Rockefeller ever perpetrated on this country, and not some benevolent bureaucracy that prudently manages the money supply, aloof from petty politics (as their propaganda insists), then we just might kill the third central bank in this country.
To make this appeal to Democrats, we should emphasize the warnings that Thomas Jefferson, the founder of their party left us about the dangers of letting banks gain power.
-jcr
September 29th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Great videos, BJ. Keep ‘em comin’!
September 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Take a look at the voting record today. You’ll see representative David Price voted FOR the failed $700B bailout bill. Last week I wrote him an email saying that if he supported this or any other bailouts I would vote against him in November. Looks like I’ll have to hold up my end of the bargain.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I have been trying to get to David Price’s website (http://price.house.gov) and it seems like the webserver is swamped. Hopefully it’s because there are millions of people like me outraged by their reps who voted for this bill, all trying to get to house.gov to express their anger. Anyone know the phone number for his washington office? I need to warn him that if this bill comes up again, and he votes for it again, that I will fire him in November.
September 29th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Looks like our boy David Price voted in favor of the bailout. VOTE HIM OUT OF OFFICE!
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml
September 29th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Bj - Price voted for this bill.
It might help you to use this as a main issue in your campaign against him.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:49 am
So, what else is on David Price’s record of public disservice?
He voted to rob the people to reimburse incompetent speculators
He voted for the unconstitutional and unconscionable “PATRIOT” act
He voted to shirk his duty as a member of the congress, and delegate the power to declare war to the president
Any others spring to mind?
-jcr
September 30th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I, too, emailed David Price, along with Elizabeth Dole, and Richard Burr requesting that they vote against the bailout. I wasn’t planning on voting for Price, but this seals it. Here is the response I got from David Price:
Thank you for contacting me about our country’s financial crisis and the proposed recovery legislation. Today the House defeated this legislation, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, by a vote of 205 to 228, despite my support.
Like you, I do not have any interest in “bailing out” Wall Street firms and business leaders who have speculated recklessly, endangered our country’s consumers and homebuyers, and resisted regulation that would protect the public interest. My concern is for Main Street - for the people depending on a sound economy and the availability of credit to buy a house or car, to run their business and meet payroll, and to save for college and retirement.
Like it or not, we are all in this together, and the entire economy is threatened as we teeter on the edge of a 1929-style meltdown. Today Wachovia Bank, a North Carolina mainstay, collapsed. But this goes much deeper than bank failures. Last week, the City of Raleigh could not find a buyer for a $300 million bond, and Wake County cancelled its planned $472 million bond issue for school construction, Wake Tech, libraries, and open space acquisition. Both have AAA bond ratings.
Although President Bush lacks the credibility to be of much help, I take the dire warnings of economic analysts very seriously, particularly in light of everything that has happened in the last few weeks. But I could not support Secretary Paulson’s request for a blank check for $700 billion to purchase mortgage-backed securities and stabilize the markets.
I thus became part of the intensive discussions over the last ten days to rewrite the Treasury plan in several critical respects. The legislation which came before us today would:
o Provide strict independent oversight and accountability for all activities
undertaken by the US Treasury
o Release the $700 billion in installments, with multiple reviews along the way
o Make certain that the entire $700 billion is recaptured by the Treasury and
thus by the American taxpayer, by requiring that taxpayers share in any
profits resulting from the government’s help and providing for assessment
of the financial industry for any remaining losses
o Forbid “golden parachutes” and limit other compensation for executives
of participating financial institutions.
o Require the government to work with participating institutions and loan
servicers to help deserving homeowners negotiate reasonable repayment
terms and stay in their homes
The defeat of the bill prolongs and perhaps deepens the crisis. Coordinating with the Senate, the House will need to return within days to try again. Perhaps the economic situation will then lead some members to reconsider. Perhaps the bill can be changed in ways that attract a majority; I certainly have a list of improvements I would like to see. But considering the members who voted “no,” I will want to scrutinize carefully any changes designed to attract them.
I am committed over the next few days to continue working to avert financial collapse and get the best possible deal for America ’s taxpayers and homeowners. I welcome and share your concern about this situation and will be glad to hear from you at any time.
He definitely doesn’t get my vote.
- John
October 1st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
[...] A Bipartisan Drama: Resuscitating a Dying Republic [...]