What we have is a serious lack of grown-ups

Yes, I get it. We have a serious terrorist weapons of mass destruction homeland security patriot act torture immunity for phone companies Iran with nukes, economic problem. Yes, it has to be faced or the world something will blow up. But for a lot of reasons, I have not supported the bailout. We have made this known to our representatives in Congress.

To start, I don't trust the Bush administration to handle anything right. I don't trust all oversight being under appointees of the president (who is noted for his quality appointees not). I do not trust how this whole proposal came to pass in such a rush. Usually spending bills come through Congress with evaluations of their needs, but this is not a spending bill as such or is it?

Here is Paul Krugman on where the money will come from. Krugman, whose judgment I do respect, trusts the bill as not perfect but the best possible.

The success of this measure would depend on Henry Paulson, who is? Yeah, you didn't know, right? He has a reputation as being a wily, Wall Street boss. Here is something I didn't know from the newsletter Farm Boss gets from Tobin Smith:

"As head of Goldman Sachs (GS) from 2003 to 2006, Paulson oversaw one of the largest credit-default swaps (immense wagers on mortgage-backed bonds and other credit instruments) operations in the business. Now, only a couple of years later, he is the "decider" determining who gets bailed out and on what basis."

Does that make you feel good about this financial genius who didn't appear to know in the spring (or he lied) that we had a problem. Now, right before elections when many Congressmen are feeling vulnerable, when we are in the midst of a presidential transition election, right then, Paulson rushes forward with a plan involving taxpayer assurances or maybe money. Trust him! The usual October presidential surprise and this one is a doozy-- and might not be all either.

If nothing is done, we may face... WMDs striking our cities oh wait, that was the other one. This time it's stock market crash, home loan defaults, banks going bankrupt, grandma and grandpa on the street, and the latest-- nobody will get loans for their businesses; so jobs will disappear. Followed by, of course, trust us.

This is straight from the mouths of the ones who brought us the Iraq War over in a few days with huge profits to follow as the Middle East turns to growing roses, lowering oil prices, and the release of peace doves.

I am not denying something must be done, but why now? What made this emergency arise right before an election? Is that coincidence? I am not knowledgeable to be sure what would happen, but we have been here before with the Bush administration. How can we, as average citizens, trust any of this? Which leads to another logical question-- how can we know this will fix anything for more than a year with possibly our federal debt larger when the problem returns? What if a lot of what we have thought was prosperity was built on paper and does not exist?

As I understand it, if the recapitalization (I read more about this, still don't understand it, but to me, it sounds like shell game) works, then the taxpayers will have no out of pocket expenses, credit will be loosened, stock market will rise, and the banks will loan businesses capital that is needed for growth.

Using logic, that there is another possibility. We are anteing up $700 billion and maybe more. Suppose this co-signing doesn't work and the taxpayers are stuck with the bills? From where would that money come?

When we don't understand how something happened, how do we keep it from repeating? They say this emergency was due to abuse in lending practices. What stops them from repeating it since it apparently is about to pay off?

Like children, a whole group of Americans believe in wars with no cost, programs that nobody pays for, in short, mud pie in the sky. It is not childlike to resist higher taxes if you understand the consequences to the country, but it is childlike to think you can get something (like a huge military) for no cost. It is childlike to want things cut somewhere else but nothing that impacts your life. It is childlike to not take responsibility for your own debts.

Another group believes what Reagan said-- government is the problem. Never mind that what he said was ridiculous, aimed at people with little understanding of what government does, centering on its failures and not its successes, and totally ignoring the reality of life in a complex society. Pie in the sky and voodoo economics are not based on reality. They are also not facing life like a responsible adult.

Suppose the federal government does have to cover these debts, that the shell game doesn't work? Suppose a lot of the debt isn't real homes with a solid product to sell but bad paper trades? How long can this country keep increasing its debt (consumer and government)?

From what I have read, those who created this problem are lining up for the chance to profit from it. No surprise there. It's like a pinata is about to be broken open and they want what they can grab.

Were there grown-ups in Congress who stood up and spoke rationally about this? Did they work out a reasonable plan to assure this will not only work but not be repeated down the road? Did they put aside partisanship? Do any of them know what they might be buying with this 'fix?' How many even understand it?

It seems to me too many have used a real problem as a time for gotchas and gaining more power. We had some eager to get more money to hand out. There were those who desired to make political capital from it. There were those who grandstanded, and grown ups? They were in short supply.

For me to favor the bailout, I'd have to see some corrective measures. There should be transparency. Who is getting it? There should be some recognition by the CEOs of these companies that they cannot profit from this bailout. To me, the bill, at least as it was, has looked a lot like a band-aid, a reassurance from daddy that the owie will be okay without doing something to assure it doesn't repeat.

How about doing something real to pay for the oversight that Wall Street clearly needs like reinstating the transaction tax on every stock market trade. This was a tiny tax which didn't cost individual investors much but could put some brakes on those speculators who buy and sell with the computer and trade millions like popcorn.At the least, a transaction tax helps the government pay some of the cost of regulating those who would bilk the system.

From what I understand, there were some regulations in place that might have stopped some of this. Elect a president who believes in healthy regulations and who might actually appoint someone competent to make sure the rules are being followed.

Republicans want to protect the corporate CEOs who have gotten us into this mess. They are busy worrying about getting additional capital gains tax cuts. Democrats are trying to figure out how to get some of this to keep everyone in their homes, even if they bought them irresponsibly and still can't afford them.

Neither side has appeared to be worried about fixing the broken financial system. Throwing money at problems has not worked in the past. Our total reassurance that we are not doing that has to rest on how much you trust Henry Paulson.

Below is more of the Tobin Smith newsletter. Tobin has not always been right and what he says is not good news, but we won't protect ourselves with our heads in the sand-- or elsewhere:

"Eccentric movie director Ed Woods' "Plan 9 From Outer Space" would be an apt title for the bailout plan that awaits approval by Congress. After initially allowing for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to rule over the financial system, the plan has finally come down to earth, but still lacks the laser-beam focus to attack the credit monsters.

"As we've said, our biggest concern is that the folks who have their hands on the controls of this spaceship are the same ones who steered us into this out-of-this-world mess in the first place. As Albert Einstein once said, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

"As head of Goldman Sachs (GS) from 2003 to 2006, Paulson oversaw one of the largest credit-default swaps (immense wagers on mortgage-backed bonds and other credit instruments) operations in the business. Now, only a couple of years later, he is the "decider" determining who gets bailed out and on what basis.

"If its sounds like we're not too confident about the bailout plan, you're right. While the need for action is unquestionable, we would prefer to see a more-enlightened approach instead of what is essentially an "investment banking" solution to a global economic crisis.

"Crises of this magnitude rarely come along, but when they do, they create generational opportunities for instituting the sort of changes that would never happen during calmer times. It would be a tremendous loss if the final plan fails to take advantage of the situation and doesn't boost the underlying fundamentals of the U.S. economy and direct it on a more sustainable and growth-oriented path.

"Speaking of the economy, the picture is rapidly growing darker."

Tobin Smith