Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

The Rich Get Richer - Middle Class Squeeze.

If you ask most Americans what form of government we have, they would probably respond with a democracy or a republic. In truth, it seems to me we have an oligarchy, defined as:

  1. government by the few;
  2. a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also: a group exercising such control
Sound familiar?

It takes a lot of money to get elected; the average member of Congress spent $516,000 to get elected in the last election. How many people do you know can spend that kind of money? So because some people feel they can make a difference or because they have further political ambitions, they decide to run for office. Because of the high cost, in many cases getting elected comes down to convincing special interests you will support their causes and help them once you are elected. If you have a process where most likely the person who spends the most gets elected, then by definition you have a government by the few.

If you set aside all the wonderful language in the Constitution about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and dig into the body of law by which our country is governed, you can quickly come to the conclusion the "Founding Fathers" were rich men looking for a way to stay rich men without having to share their wealth with a monarchy across the Atlantic Ocean. It seems to me the United States has truly become their promised land. To read more about the concentration of wealth in the United States and the effects it is having on the middle class, please see:

http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/07/unequal-america.html

It appears to me the playing field needs to be more level in order to allow the United States to return to economic preeminence. Without a healthy middle class, there is nobody to buy what American companies have to sell. Henry Ford built his wealth making sure he paid his workers enough to be able to afford what he was manufacturing. It sounds like a good idea to me, so spreading the wealth more equally is actually better for America in the long run.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Bailout Fiasco

Our government is asking us to lend money to the very same people who were bragging about their multi-million dollar bonuses not so long ago. They've trotted out their pet doomsayers to say we have to do this quickly or all hell will break loose. Sound vaguely familiar?

All hell for who? All hell for those who believe we should continue to concentrate wealth to historic highs? Would it really be all hell to turn that trend around somewhat and put the comatose American Dream on better life support? It seems to me it would have been a much greater taxpayer incentive if they didn't take it in the first place.

I feel a better solution to the mortgage lending crisis is for all the companies who over-inflated the price of real estate in order to be able to sell more and more mortgage debt in the first place to take the losses, starting with the executives who made more 50 times more than their lowest paid worker (The modified Ben and Jerry's Rule). They should write-off at least 30% of the value of those mortgages, mortgage-backed securities and all the other exotic financial instruments associated with mortgages, re-write all mortgages to be 2% mortgages and allow everyone who defaulted and were foreclosed on to settle any remaining debt based on 70% of their original first loan.

All second and third (or fourth) loans should be written-off with no recourse against the borrowers, unless the total debt owed on the property is below 70% of the appraised value. All new real estate transactions should be made more streamlined and more cost-efficient; consider that in California we normally pay 5-10% in non-loan related closing costs for useless items like title insurance and such.

Decrease the cost of government so we the taxpayers can make our own choices on how to stimulate the economy. Creating a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street doesn't sound like less expensive government to me. Given the choice, I think most of us would choose to spend much less money on the machinery of war and Wall Street, and more on the machinery to actually make things in America once again.

Speaking of the machinery of war, the Middle East has been in a continuous state of conflict for almost 3,000 years. How arrogant are our leaders to think they will be the ones to finally get different religous groups to coexist?

It's time to stand up to those who would take more of your money and give it to their "friends". We need a government that is actually looking out for everyone and not just the rich and connected. We have been fed a steady diet of our current leaders have our best interests at heart, where were they as the real estate market was preparing to go nuclear?