On Sep 23, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Ron Wormus wrote:

. . . a single sentence of thirty-two words, but it represents a significant consolidation of power and an abdication of oversight authority that's so flat-out astounding that it ought to set one's hair on fire. It reads, in its entirety:

"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."

Many people have noticed this! I doubt it will be included in the final bill.

While I agree you are probable right Jed. However, you can be sure that the people who have a stake in how the system works and are interested in increasing their control, will not ignore a chance to increase their power. As a result, we are becoming less of a democracy, which is probably a good thing in view of how little thought or knowledge goes into the choice of president.



The measure will run up the budget deficit by a significant amount, with no guarantee of recouping the outlay . . .

Well, it won't be entirely lost, even in the worst case. The properties are worth something. I think the worst are worth perhaps half or one-tenth as much as their present value. The taxpayers are likely to lose $200 billion or so, I think.

In some previous bailouts, such the Chrysler bailout, the government ended up making money. Bailouts are still a bad idea in my opinion, but people should realize that the entire amount is not at risk. Some undefinable fraction of it is.

Most agree, the fraction of worthless assets is much higher than ever before. In addition, the country is too weak in other respects to make a recovery possible. A country does not create a huge debt at all levels, then ship much of its manufacturing ability overseas, and then allow other countries to acquire the power that comes with owning so many dollars without paying a great price when the house of cards falls. Bush has created a perfect storm. I hope the people who elected and supported him are pleased.

Ed


- Jed


Reply via email to