The Wall Street bailout bill is a lot of things -- a giveaway, a heist, a legislative manifestation of crony corruption. But it's structure is pure authoritarian capitalism. Whether you think handing over $700 billion to speculators will help our economy or not (and many economists believe it will hurt it), it is undeniable that this bill vests authoritarian power in the hands of the Treasury Secretary -- and that is a radical departure from the fundamental tenets of our democracy.
What has differentiated America from other countries is our reliance on institutions rather than individuals. When we have faced crises, we have built institutions (think about the alphabet soup agencies out of the New Deal), not czars. That's what democracies do - they build nations of laws and institutions, not cults of personality.
This is clearly changing now. We saw Paul Bremer appointed monarch of Iraq after the invasion and we see Congress about to hand over its power of the purse to Henry Paulson so that he can be the financial despot, free to buy and sell whatever securities he feels like, with almost no oversight.
Perhaps this reflects a wider trend. We have become a country that has one national religion: presidentialism. That's the religion that says the president is an all-powerful deity - and the Oval Office is a position that is the only one that matters. That this outlook is fundamentally undemocratic and offensive to the principles of our Founding Fathers seems completely forgotten. We have embraced czarism with the zeal of cult worshipers -- and now this zeal has global economic forces at its back.
We are trying to economically compete with anti-democratic forces that can make financial decisions without any public input at all. As we saw with the debate over the bailout bill, the transnational corporate elite tell us our democracy and its careful deliberations are hurting our ability to make quick decisions in this global market -- and therefore that democracy must be subverted to the will of capitalism. Thus, a bill is rushed through Congress in a week that hands 5 percent of our entire economy to one man, Hank Paulson...Capitalism is trying to euthanize democracy in the name of economic competitiveness -- and that is going to make this country a very different -- and in my opinion, a much scarier -- one from what it once was.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-murder-of-democracy-a_b_131606...
All presidential campaigns over-promise. But the perception that Obama must radically pare back his ambitious spending proposals--a perception widely shared in Washington--makes several fundamental errors. For one thing, it misunderstands the nature of a Wall Street "bailout"--which, properly constructed, shouldn't seriously deplete federal funds. More important, the conventional analysis ignores the fact that we face deep economic problems besides the financial crisis--problems that only government can fix. The case for Obama's spending agenda hasn't suddenly become weaker. If anything, it's actually grown a bit stronger...the culprit behind the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid is the overall price of medical care, which the federal government currently has limited power to control. Ultimately, the only hope lies in a comprehensive reform of health care--one that reduces expensive over-treatment while creating a unified system in which it's possible for the government to exert more pricing power. And, while a reform like Obama's might not accomplish that right away, it would take the essential first steps.
Another way to prepare for future financial obligations is to help the economy grow faster, which would increase tax revenue and make the government's debt seem smaller by comparison. But, over the last decade, we've spent too little on educating our workforce and developing infrastructure essential to growth. We've also been too slow to focus on energy independence. It's imperative to make up for that neglect now, particularly given what's happened on Wall Street.
Obama would do well to remind them that their party has pursued different priorities before. Back in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt promised a balanced budget, then presided over one of the most famous federal spending binges in history. That turned out well, both for the party and the nation. There's no reason it can't happen again.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8c40a373-af0a-4efe-af99-6ac7835b9da...
soo many people don't know about the toxic debt being outside the U.S.
They think it's just here. And still, it passed. Not 700 B, actually 850B.
this is insane
MorganAnsons 3 years ago 5
I don't like Dennis Kucinich. I prefer Peter Schiff or Ron Paul. They're much more intelligent. Why does Kucinich want to help home owners? It was their decision to buy homes, they can rent. He's a socialist. Atleast he's better than most politicians.
ecnerwal999 2 years ago 2