Help the homeowners
Details are still being worked out about the financial rescue plan. From what we know already it seems to me more as a rescue of the speculators at banks and mortgage institutions than an effort to help the homeowners.
That is the way the stock market is reading the news bidding up Dow Jones several hundred points in a day.
I strongly urge Maine’s congressional delegation to make sure that the rescue money, all $700 billion, will go to where it should go, to ease the burden of suffering homeowners and not to save the profits of those who are responsible for the breakdown. I’m in favor of a step-by-step approach, giving the treasury $150-200 billion now and then review the situation with the possibility of adding more money later.
It is hard for me to imagine a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, now secretary of the treasury, thinking more about suffering ordinary people in this situation than bailing out the finance industry. I am sure that Maine’s senators and House members will think about doing good for ordinary people in Maine when they have a chance to sit down to formalize the legislation for the operation during the coming days.
• • •
Russia or Canada
I think I’ve just realized that I qualify to run for vice president of the U.S. on the Republican ticket. Why? I can see Canada from my house!
• • •
Answers to $700B
Six years ago, right before an important election, the Bush Administration suddenly decided that authorization for the Iraq War was so important that it couldn’t wait. Accusations and threats greeted any senators and legislators who balked at abdicating Congress’ constitutional duty to decide when wars are declared. History will decide whether it was the right decision, but most experts agree that the administration did not present Congress or America with all the facts needed to make an informed choice.
Now, right before an important election, the Bush Administration has suddenly decided that an unprecedented blank check should be written by the taxpayers, and it can’t wait. Senators and congressmen who balk at giving $700 billion to the same administration that failed to foresee this mess are greeted with threats that they will be blamed for the pending economic meltdown. Congress will be foolish if they capitulate without having questions answered.
Why, for instance, did no one raise this issue before it became so immediately important? Ten days ago, Bush was repeating his statements that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. What information changed the administration’s minds so quickly, and why has that information not been presented to the American people? If this bailout is so immediately important, why is the administration delaying its passage by fighting to protect multi-million dollar severance packages for the CEOs of these failing companies?
The crisis is probably real, but Congress should insist on transparency and accountability before the administration gets a dime.
• • •
Not our debt
I’m watching what is going on with the Wall Street bailout. It is not nice, nor is it wise to continue down that road. Welfare for the rich is worse than for the poor. Investors, banks, etc. who saw the housing market as fruit ripe for the picking knew what they were doing and knew the consequences.
They were warned by at least 30 of the states attorneys general as was the Bush administration that bad practices were going on as far back as four years ago. Neither the administration nor the banking industry took action. They enjoyed the ride up the scale to bigger bonuses and profits, but now that they have to suffer the consequences of poor judgment, they want the little guys (aka taxpayers) to foot the bill.
They need to understand that personal responsibility is not only for the welfare mother trying to get along on a few hundred a month but for corporations as well. They got away with moving offshore where they do not have a business other than a P.O. Box to avoid taxes, moving jobs to countries where they got labor for a lot less and kept their U.S. markets, also getting loopholes written into the tax law like the Enron loophole. They need to pay the piper and that should not be passed on to taxpayers or our children.
Republicans talk about personal responsibility and corporations are treated like people, so let’s just do that. They need to eat the bad debts, not us.
Glyn David Lovely
• • •
Palin, love or hate
Apparently, women either love or hate Sarah Palin, with no middle ground. Those who love her rejoice in the fact that a conservative woman with great family values has the opportunity to serve our country as the most powerful woman in the world. We love her because she is intelligent, articulate, pro-life, possesses poise, grace, warm personality, as well as beauty. She embodies everything we admire and respect, and she is a wonderful representative for us and our traditional beliefs.
On the other hand, there are those women who hate Palin and everything she stands for. These people seem to be primarily the “women’s libber” type. Barbara Walters, who used to be considered fair and the epitome of professionalism, treated John McCain with contempt and total disrespect on “The View,” especially when she spoke of Palin. Lindsay Lohan and Pamela Anderson say they can’t stand the governor. I believe this hatred stems from these women’s deep desire to have what Palin has — a wonderful, supportive husband, a life filled with love, success and fun times, and most of all the Lord in her heart. Palin has everything that is sadly lacking in the lives of many women today, true happiness and real success.
• • •
Collins broke pledge
How can we ever trust Sen. Susan Collins again? If you recall, when she first announced that she was running for the U.S. Senate, she announced publicly and in the newspapers that if she is elected she will serve two terms and retire.
Well, her second term is rapidly coming to an end, but instead of honoring the commitment she made, she is actively involved in seeking re-election to a third term. This does not speak well for her honesty and trustworthiness. Ms. Collins made this commitment and she should honor it. It will be difficult to trust her in the future after she has reneged.
William P. Robertson, III