Posts

First, let me apologize again for yet another political post. This time I want to write about the 1.2 trillion dollar ($1,200,000,000,000) bail-out deal which is being paraded around before the necessary legislation for it, or something very much like it, is inevitably passed. More specifically the post is about Obama's ultimate reaction to it. This should give us a pretty good insight into what of politician he is, and we might expect from President Barack Obama.

Before I go any further let's try to put this figure, 1.2 trillion dollars, into perspective.

• Bush's proposed 2009 Federal Budget calls for 3.1 trillion dollars (not considering this bail-out of course). So the bail-out represents an amount nearly 40% of the total US Federal budget for 2009.

• The proposed 2009 budget is the first spending plan in history to top $3 trillion dollars. So, 1.2 trillion represents a considerably larger proportion of the total US Federal budget for all years prior to the proposed 2009 budget.

• 1.2 trillion exceeds the total Federal Budget through 1993, when the budget was 1.154 trillion dollars. (The 1994 budget was 1.258 trillion.)

• The proposed 2009 budget of 3.1 trillion dollars includes a $407 billion dollar deficit for the fiscal year. In other words, we're already broke.

• A 1.2 trillion dollar bail-out would triple the budget deficit.

• The total outstanding US National Debt is approx. 9.851 trillion dollars at the moment (increasing at a rate of roughly 2.3 billion dollars a day).

• A 1.2 trillion dollar bail-out roughly equal to 12% of the total U.S National Debt.

• The proposed bail-out would push the debt above 11 trillion dollars.

You should be asking yourself, why are we talking about these sorts of numbers without discussing where the money is coming from. More to the point, you should be asking the politicians and the candidates this question.

Where did the number come from?

Here is a quote you have probably seen already. In response to the question of what the original $700 billion dollar number represents, a Treasury official had this to say:

It's not based on any particular data point, we just wanted to choose a really large number.

In regards to guarantees about the appropriate use of this money we have this already infamous passage from the proposal

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

That's pretty astonishing.

What we are talking about here is legislation which is essentially the economic equivalent of the Patriot Act. Just like the Patriot Act the government is doing its best to scare us into supporting, or at least accepting, something which will have a profound long term impact before taking the time to appreciate the gravity of what's being proposed.

There is no doubt that the original proposal will not be allowed unaltered. However, it is exceedingly likely that something very much like it will be enacted, with some guarantees of oversight and accountability. The trouble is that oversight and accountability are essentially meaningless except to counteract some irrevocable action before it is begun. There is no way to un-spend 1.2 trillion dollars, and the fact that some bureaucrat may eventually be held accountable is utterly insignificant.

Let's remember that both Obama and McCain voted for the PATRIOT Act in a situation very similar to this one. That's pretty disappointing. Apparently we don't have the choice of voting for a candidate who values liberty over the pretense of security. Let's put aside all of the biased rhetoric and hear what Obama has to say about his position on the PATRIOT Act and the PATRIOT Act reauthorizations.

I don't know about you but that truth doesn't sound very hopeful to me. I prefer my political posturing more like:

"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Ben Franklin

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
- Patrick Henry

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our country men."
- Samual Adams

This proposed bail-out will impact nearly everything Obama has promised his supporters. If he falls in line now to satisfy his obligations to the party, campaign contributors, or even a nervous constituency, then we should be concerned that the real possibility that it will be more of the same politics for the next 4 years regardless of who wins the election. Now would be a great time for one or both of the candidates to demonstrate their commitment to accountability. I would like to see one of them volunteer to be held personally accountable in the case that the bail-out fails to achieve it's intended effect, and especially if there is some misdoing or impropriety with regard to the money. If I borrowed a large sum of money I would expect to be responsible for the debt. If my employer spend a large sum of money based on my judgement and recommendation and the money was lost or the investment proved to be unwise, I would expect to lose my job over it. Why do we not hold our elected officials to the same standards when we're talking about 1.2 trillion dollars?