A Crisis Of Leadership

If there was ever a clearer illustration of why the Republican brand has tanked, I don’t think I’ve seen it.  It seems the Republican caucus wants no part of this bailout package, and anyone paying attention should know why.

They do not lead.

Public opinion on the proposed bailout is split, with more people against it than for it.  It is a complicated matter, one that cannot be boiled down to a catchy slogan that people can recite easily or slap on their bumpers.  If you have no experience keeping your constituents informed on why you made a particular vote on a particular issue, helping the nation avert a total economic meltdown may not be the issue upon which to cut your teeth.  If you have not been transparent in the past, it won’t look like transparency, it will look like pandering.  In short, if you haven’t really lead your people, but merely gauged their opinions and took the path of least resistance, you don’t have the tools in your bag to be of much help.

I’m all for a bailout, provided that we, also known as The Collective, approach this process as if the shoe were on the other foot.  If, for some reason, the United States Treasury were to approach the banking and finance industry for an emergency loan, I’m pretty sure that they, having the upper hand, or leverage, if you prefer, would ensure that they received, at a minimum, the following:

1.  Control over how the money was spent.

2.  A stake in the “company.”  Percentages can be determined later.

3.  A healthy return on their investment.

4.  A hedge fee for making the loan in the first place.

Approach it as a business deal.  Have Congress announce that it will provide a bailout measure to calm nervous investors.  Explain that in a business transaction of that size, due diligence is required.  Go home and explain to your constituents what is at stake if we do nothing, then lead them, regardless of what impact that decision has on your chances of re-election.  That, my friends, is leadership.

The Irony Burns

What is it called when you lend people money who have displayed a tendency to be irresponsible about their finances?  A sub-prime loan.  Or, a bailout.

A Word To You Gardeners

The other day, I went to a farm up in Springfield to buy hay for the winter.  The man I met there was one fine human being.  Not only did he sell me quality hay at an affordable price, but he took me over to see his garden and chicken coop.  His garden was incredible.  He had tomatos the size of softballs.  Meaty and nearly seedless.  He doesn’t stake his tomatos, he places them in beds and puts straw under his plants, and allows them to grow along the ground by breaking off the tops.  The seeds he uses have been passed down in his family for years.  He gave us some of his tomatos, and promised us seeds this Spring.

I hit the motherload.  More later.  Oh, I forgot, he claims these tomatos are low acid.  we’ll let y’all know. They were delicious.

Definition Of Insanity

“doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

There is some great stuff around the web regarding The Bailout, but I wish there were more attention paid to what i think are some root causes of this mess in the first place:  Stagnating wages, un/under-employment, increases in fuel costs, food prices, etc.

We bail these firms so they don’t “crash”, yet we do nothing to address the factors that lead us here? Perhaps this isn’t possible.  I saw this quote today:

If you catch a cold because you got caught out in the rain, you don’t try to change the weather. You take your lemon tea and an aspirin.

Ok, so if we cannot eliminate greed, speculation, short-sightedness, etc, why not, in this case, circumvent the system and go directly to the individual homeowners?  If roughly 80% of the loans are “good paper”, can we not shore up the other 20% (provided they are owner-occupied, to hell with the house flippers) until real estate values catch up with the amount owed?  Because, eventually, it will.  It has to.  Whats the old saying about real estate?  “They ain’t making any more of it?”

I realize that there isn’t a palatable choice out there for us as taxpayers.  But, surely we can find balance to this situation, and spend the money wisely, expecting a return in time for our children to benefit from this decision instead of having to pay for it.

EDITED TO ADD:  Wow.  Go read this article.  Heres a key quote:

The Treasury Secretary’s authority is limited to $700 billion outstanding at any time. That means he could buy $700 billion — then sell some at a loss — and then buy more to get back to $700 billion. This is a revolving credit line, not a firm upper limit. It’s conceivable the Treasury could buy and sell trillions of dollars under this authority.