Thanks for responding to my letter in opposition to the bailout package. Though your letter is appreciated, I am profoundly disappointed in your choice of action in this most crucial time of decision.
Your letter reads as if you're under the impression that citizen opponents of the bailouts have not read or understood the bill. Be assured that we have read it and do understand it. I do not think, however, that substantial debate could have occurred regarding a bill of 451 pages in the space of three days, Likewise, though the 'new' bill is stuffed with what have been offensively termed by the media as 'sweeteners,' the objectionable nature and specifics of the bill remain intact.
You point out that the new bill includes, or at least does not preclude as did Paulson's original and treasonous proposal, judicial review of Treasury acts under this structure. You're right. However, how are the oversight mechanisms you mention to have any credibility when the Secretary sits on the very board tasked with reviewing his actions (Sec. 104)? This bill does not uphold liberty and responsible government, but rather includes distractions and feints to confuse people and conceal its true nature.
The other defense you raise, that the tacked-on tax breaks somehow justify the passage of this bill, is outrageous. No matter how noble or 'necessary' these tax breaks may be in intent, they cannot be justified without spending cuts to compensate for their impact. Is it unclear to you that the fundamental reason for our objection is that our children will be forced to pay for these follies because of their increase to the national debt? Have you looked at the Treasury books and seen how much of our debt is held by potentially hostile foreign interests? To attempt to assuage our anger by trumpeting this new debt spending is misguided. In point of fact, the mentality that it's OK to run up huge debts to pay for temporary comforts is the root reason that our economy and our society is in jeopardy.
Whether or not we support the industries that would benefit from these tax breaks (we do support sustainable energy investment; we don't support archery pork) is not relevant. Such considerations are external to the issue of public liability for private debt, which is at the heart of the bailout debate, and do not belong in this bill.
On what do you base your assertion that 'inaction would cripple our economy?' Do you base it on the fearmongering words of Paulson and his Wall Street buddies, or others who have large vested interests in the system of speculative finance? There is no certainty that this act, which carries with it truly huge risk both financial and political, will have a stabilizing effect at all -- even on the credit markets. We have seen today that stock marketers looked on this bailout as a foregone conclusion and greedily wiped out billions in assets themselves when they started depressing prices again by their profit-taking the afternoon of 10-03. The financial markets, like other gambling concerns, are volatile and unpredictable by their nature. There is no way of knowing from where the next seed of crisis will spring. Will you vote for another bailout when the next class of bad securities fails and our broken 'financial system' quakes again? How about the time after that?
Because your letter seems to be well-intended, I have not used here the harsh words I had for Mr Shadegg, another 'representative' whose vote was changed against the people's will by his own fear. I must warn you, however : you have made a grave error in this vote, and the disappointment of your constituents will very likely cost you your office in November.
Work has already begun to repeal this ill-considered Act. We hope that you will sit back and think it through, change your mind again, and raise your voice against the violence done this week to our values.
Sincerely,
Nicholas DiBiase
EndBailouts.org