|
It is a power grab such as we have never seen. Besides, it will not work.
Federal agencies combine administrative, legislative and judicial powers. That is why they have three-part structures, an administrative part, a quasi-legislative part and a quasi-judicial part. This bill would abandon that structure and hand to the Secretary unfettered legislative and judicial power as well as administrative power.
It is interesting that you so lightly dismiss concern about the provision in the proposed bill that would prohibit judicial review of the Secretary's exercise of authority. Your analysis is persuasive only because of your clever sleight of hand. Like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, you produce from thin air reassuring language that would limit the Secretary's almighty power over the property of selected institutions (selected at his discretion with no review or supervision other than that of the president). Sorry, but that language is not there. And what is more there is additional language in the proposed Act specifically granting total discretion to the Secretary in the exercise of his powers under the proposed Act.
It will take more than conjuring up imaginary magic words to convince me that the intention of the author of this proposed bill is anything other than to grant to the Secretary powers that are completely discretionary and not subject to judicial review.
As for the power of Congress, the provision that provides for reports to Congress specifies that the reports will be biannual (every six months). That language could be interpreted to mean that Congress will be barred from more frequent review. As a matter of fact, considering the past actions of the Bush administration, its refusal to allow executive employees to respond to the subpoenas issued by Congress even when Congress votes to hold the subpoenaed individual in contempt, I seriously doubt that the Secretary would be permitted to cooperate with congressional oversight other than the perfunctory reports at six month intervals. This is especially likely in view of that troubling language about the sole discretion given to the Secretary.
As I recall, the Constitution of the United States guarantees to Americans the right to due process, to property and to just compensation for the taking of property. I have not agreed to relinquish or waive those rights, and I do not believe that any other American has agreed or would agree to do so. This is particularly true of the companies who are likely to be selected by the Secretary (at his sole discretion, of course) for "bail-out" under this proposed Act. The shareholders of the companies still have the right to just compensation as do all of the rest of us when our property is taken for the common good.
The right to due process must be respected even in times of economic crisis -- even especially in times of economic crisis. I suggest that you read (and I think the Democrats in Congress also need to read) the history of the great German inflation. The Germans did not have the concept of right to just compensation. And their contract law, their Commercial Code, focused on the concept of "good faith," not the right to just compensation. When faced with massive inflation, courts simply went in and rewrote contracts (especially leases) in order to save the fortunes of the landlords (who had entered into long-term leases for specific rents with inadequate or no rent adjustment provisions and were going bankrupt as the rents due them did not even cover the cost of heating their buildings). No one should propose any solution to the current crisis without first studying the history of Germany and Austria in the 1920s and 1930s. Whether or not this bill is enacted, we face massive inflation.
There has never been a moment when Americans needed to adhere to the principals of the Constitution. This bill, unfortunately, insults our Constitution. If enacted, and even if enacted with some of the changes the Democrats propose, it will lead to a disaster even worse than the disaster we are now in. (Where is the Federalist Society now that we need them.)
We need to protect our economy from the Bush administration's propensity for panic and overdramatization. Holding a firehouse sale of American assets is not the answer. But that is precisely what this bill would encourage.
Shareholders in the mismanaged companies should have the opportunity to sue the boards of directors and managers. Those who committed criminal fraud should be brought to justice. Thus, the right to due process for all concerned should not be ignored or set aside. Due process is necessary to insure justice for all involved at all levels in this. Due process is not a luxury. It is the glue that holds our society together.
Americans need to cut back on their standard of living. We have lived far above our means for far too long.
The first luxury that we need to give up is the War in Iraq. We can't afford it. With our finances in the mess they are in, I question whether we have the money to fund an orderly exit, so we need to start that exit right now in order to give us as much time to get people out as possible before our dollar becomes worthless and we can't even buy the oil to fuel our military equipment. (That probably won't happen, but if you read the German history as I suggest, you might agree that it is a possibility, however remote.)
In addition, we need to close a lot of bases all over the world. This is a terrible, terrible thing to say, but it is the truth.
The Bush administration has way overextended the treasury. My husband and I have weathered financially difficult times. We know what how to do it. The first thing you do is stop spending. The second thing you do is to keep a very exact record of every cent that you do spend. The third thing you do is review that record and see where you can cut more expenses until your outlays and your income are in balance. First consideration: feed and clothe your children properly. That means that our first duty will be to make sure that the poor among us are fed and clothed. I seriously doubt that Secretary Paulson is thinking of them at this moment. It is Congress's job to appropriate money. So, it is their job, not Secretary Paulson's to decide how money is spent. That is another constitutional violation proposed in this bill. The Secretary would grab the power to appropriate the money received from the sales of the properties. No. No. No. The Constitution specifically gives that power to Congress. Congress should not give Paulson a blank check. That is a violation of the Constitution.
We need to stop here and remember that a major problem in our system is that this administration and previous administrations have so much black budget, secret spending, so many military commitments, so many commitments to pay off leaders of other countries. Our governments are and have been so reckless with money that it is hard to put a stop to it.
Giving the Secretary the authority to spend the proceeds from the sale of American real property assets and other paper will exacerbate that fundamental problem. Let's get back to the Constitution. It is the only way that we can prevent this kind of fiasco in the future.
In addition, the provision that allows the Secretary to enter into contacts without complying with government contract laws and regulations is unnecessary and dangerous. It would, for example, permit the Secretary to sell off American assets to agents of the Chinese government or the Dubai government -- in disregard of the will of the American people and a betrayal of American interests.
Americans can't afford healthcare, spend pitifully little on public education and eat a diet laced with cheap sugar. This bill reflects the stupidity and desire for instant gratification that caused the mortgage crisis as well as the lack of healthcare, the bad education and the obesity.
No. No. No. The Bush administration's so-called bail-out proposal is completely unacceptable. It is the wrong approach at the wrong time. It will just make things worse.
The right approach: Protect the due process and property rights of Americans. That is President Bush's solemn duty. That is the solemn duty of Congress. If they do not protect those rights, they are quite simply traitors all of them. They did not swear to uphold the dollar. They swore to uphold the Constitution. I don't believe the Constitution mentions the dollar, but I know it guarantees our rights to due process to property and to just compensation for a taking.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
