After the financial “bailout” plan was approved by the House and Senate at the end of the week, George Bush sought to “assure” Americans that “ …The federal government will undertake this rescue plan at a careful and deliberate pace to ensure that your tax dollars are spent wisely.” Can you imagine? This statement about spending our tax dollars “wisely” from the same guy who has pissed away what will eventually amount to over a trillion of our tax dollars on an illegal, unjust, unnecessary, and genocidal war on Iraq, a sovereign nation that was no threat to the security of the US at the time of the invasion.

Phil Schwab
Williamsville

This whole bailout fiasco has me confused. Here are some questions that I have:

Why $700 billion?

Over and over and over, everyone keeps saying we need to put $700 billion into the economy to solve this crisis. Why $700 billion? Why not $900 billion? Or $200 billion? Supposedly the number comes from a computerized model that projects how the economy will do based on different amounts coming from the feds. But who created the model? Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke. The same people who were saying a couple of weeks ago that things weren’t that bad. Based, I presume, on their computer models.

I have a sinking feeling the $700 billion figure came from asking “How much money can we raise if we sock every man, woman, and child in this country with a $2,300 tax bill?” I hope I’m wrong about this.

Who are the 12 Congressmen?

Supposedly, the bailout bill failed in the House of Representatives because 12 Republican congressmen were so pissed off about Nancy Pelosi’s speech that they voted against the bill. I read Representative Pelosi’s speech. It is available at guardian.co.uk. It really isn’t that offensive.

If we are going to fall into a repeat of the Great Depression of 1929, we ought to at least have the names of the 12 sissies who voted to skewer the economy, not because they disagreed with the provisions of the bailout bill but because they got their feelings hurt by that mean lady. So, who are these 12 people?

Why did John McCain keep campaigning?

John McCain said he was going to suspend his presidential campaign. He was going to Washington to “get it done” and he wouldn’t resume campaigning until a bailout bill was signed. A bailout bill wasn’t signed. But John McCain was still campaigning. What’s up with that? The good news was that as long as he was on the campaign trail, he wouldn’t be screwing things up, the way he did last week, when we were on the verge of getting a bailout bill passed.

These are just some of the questions I have. If you have any answers let me know.

Joe Gerken
Buffalo

The current fiscal crisis and bailout proposals are making many of us think about the macro-economy and how we fit into it like most of us haven’t before. How does the failure of multi-billion dollar commercial banks and insurance companies with whom we never did business, nor could we, affect whether we’re employed, how much we pay for gasoline, food, clothing, and household goods, and whether our children inherit a national debt well north of $10 trillion ($40,000+/taxpayer).

So, are the effects of failing to pass a massive mop-up plan all bad ? The wholesale price of crude oil fell $10 the same day the Bush-Paulson plan was defeated in Congress. Eventually, this could mean lower prices at the pump, and eventually in the supermarket and beyond, which will help all Americans at the margins—a good thing. Some economists believe that the Federal Reserve will also have to lower the prime lending rate to stimulate commercial borrowing, which will likely translate into lower interest rates for those of us who qualify for secured loans for housing, vehicles, solar energy panels.A slower economy may be bad for some, especially for those who lose their jobs as a result, but may result in a stronger economy tomorrow, if we rebuild it smartly.

Many economists view this process, as painful as it may be, as an inevitable and necessary correction for the excesses of the past few decades and the current decade in particular. The truth is that many millions of us bought into the myths that led to the current crisis like the assumption that home values would continue to increase indefinitely, which led millions of Americans to spend that future appreciation by taking out large lines of credit against their home equity, while millions of new home buyers were cajoled into believing they could own the home of their dreams regardless of their economic real lives because they could always bail and sell their ever-appreciating homes at a profit. This was fueled by countless examples of homes in hot real estate markets doubling and tripling in value in a matter of years rather than decades, as per normal.

Everyone, including our fiscal gurus, like Alan Greenspan, seemed to suggest that this new global economy had somehow transcended the old rules limiting growth and the need for fiscal discipline. On top of that, we laid off most of the fiscal cops. Now, years down that road, we’re discovering that many of those basic economic adages like “Don’t bite off more than you can chew” and Newton’s second law that “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” still apply in the 21st century.

It is interesting that the Bush administration, which had been so fastidious in keeping Americans insulated from the personal pain of the Iraq war and the so-called “War on Terror” so underestimated the possible fallout from its war on the middle class. Living in a financial cocoon far from the main streets and mean streets where most Americans reside left them unprepared for the backlash against what was broadly viewed as a taxpayer-funded bailout plan for billionaires. Their naivete in reading the mood of the nation was evident in their initial plan with its Pentagon-budget-sized price tag, its total lack of Congressional oversight or control, and the fact that it was demanded quickly, with no questions asked, based on a sketchy, three-page proposal. Their success in selling the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, government eavesdropping on our phone calls and emails, etc. apparently emboldened them to believe that all they had to do was cry wolf loudly enough again and Americans would run for their jeopardized homes begging for protection at any price. This time they underestimated the gullibility of Americans, who apparently decided that “Fool me twice, shame on you; fool me thrice, shame on me.” Enough was enough.

The end result of this taxpayer revolt has yet to be seen. With a bit of luck and continued pluck, the bailout legislation may begin cleaning up the colossal mess that our unbridled greed has left us in, but in an even-handed way that addresses the pain on both Main Street and Wall Street—which, after all, are interdependent in more ways than we imagined.

Carl Mrozek
Buffalo

Artvoice reserves the right to edit letters for content and length. Shorter letters have a better chance at being published in their entirety. Please include your name, hometown, and contact number. Email letters to: editorial@artvoice.com or write to: Artvoice Letters, 810 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14202