Letters to the Editor: Economy

Politicians aren't qualified to make economic repairs

Aren't we in exciting times? Since 1950, the Republicans have had a majority in the Senate only eight years. Since 1950, the Republicans have had a majority in the House only 16 years. Congress made the rules that brought on these financial woes. Most members of Congress have never owned a business for profit. Most have never had an education in business management or economics. Most of them are lawyers and attorneys or went to school for an education in politics.

Who is qualified to fix our problem? If you want to buy diamonds, you go to a jeweler. If you need your car fixed, you go to a mechanic, not a jeweler. If you want your air conditioner fixed, you go to a cooling and heating expert, not a mechanic. If you need your business to be successful you go to a business manager, not a politician. If you need to know how to correct economic problems, you go to an expert in economics, not a politician. The politicians I see today are more interested in staying in power than in going back home and going to work.

IVAN HOFFMAN, Meridian

Congress dropped the ball on financial bailout

The only thing that arguably transcends the Bush administration's utter incompetence is the complete abdication by Congress of any responsibility.

The latest example - and one that will haunt taxpayers for generations - is the Troubled Asset Relief Plan ("TARP"), aka the financial industry bailout. After Paulson panicked Congress into doling out hundreds of billions of dollars, he admitted he didn't really have a plan on how to effectively use the money. Of course, he has spent it nevertheless but refuses to disclose to whom he gave the money. And now he's back at the trough, asking Congress for more. To do what, heaven only knows; certainly Congress has no idea.

When will we finally decide to hold our government accountable?

BRUCE PERRY, Boise

Defense projects make us poor - but not safe

The Dec. 14 edition of the Statesman included comments on the economic recovery by columnist Bill Kristol. Kristol was one of the neocon cheerleaders who pushed us into the mess in Iraq. As recently as March 2008, he maintained the economy was doing well.

Kristol argues that if we must spend money to stimulate our ailing economy, it should be on "much needed and underfunded defense procurement." We currently spend more on military defense than the rest of the world combined. We recently launched a new multibillion-dollar nuclear missile submarine. For what mission? The United States is purchasing hundreds of vertical takeoff aircraft for $122 million each. They are incapable of defending themselves from even small arms fire. We are spending billions on a pie-in-the-sky missile defense system. Mr. Kristol, are you serious? Such things don't make us safe; they only make us poor.

He also argued for rebuilding our military bases over rebuilding bridges and roads. With 650 bases worldwide, any base rebuilding should be paid for by closing bases no longer necessary.

The musings of neocon "intellectuals" have given cover to the damage done to this country for 20 years. Apparently, they aren't finished yet.

RICHARD RINGELSTETTER, Boise

Stop blaming Community Reinvestment Act for crisis

Regarding the Dec. 18 letter from Adrian Arp, "Limited government can restore freedom:"

Once again, someone is pushing the Community Reinvestment Act-caused-the-crisis myth (defined as such by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, a Republican) that Democrats are responsible for the mortgage crisis (traced back to the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act, drafted in the '70s and rewritten by that nasty Bill Clinton in 1995.)

According to Federal Reserve governor Randall Kroszner, a conservative economist, "First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis."

Do your homework, citizens!

MICHAEL HAMILTON, Boise

Will auto bailout include a 'no strike' clause?

I need to comment on the auto company bailout hysteria. I was just laid off from my job of 13 years due to poor economic conditions and other mitigating factors. Obviously, the company I worked for was not too big to fail (it's also not unionized and has a very small voting influence in Washington). I will not blame anyone.

My questions as to bailing out the auto companies are these: If we rescue these companies and the union jobs along with them, will there be a "no strike" clause (and will it be enforced)? Will there be some type of restructuring for the reportedly lavish retirement packages for all concerned? And is there any way we can get a plant here in Boise for the several thousand professional plant operators and technicians ready and willing to go to work without a union to mess it up?

Thanks in advance for an answer.

JOE KLEBENOW, Boise

Big Three deserve to fail

I've bought my last vehicle from any of the so-called "Big Three" automobile manufacturers. These companies don't deserve my business, and they don't deserve yours, either. If they are unable to stand on their own, continue to let the unions be the tail wagging the dog and continue to produce inferior products, then they all deserve to fail; they've earned it.

These firms should declare bankruptcy and shut down their plants that they've refused to downsize - which in turn should provide the needed wake-up call this country so desperately needs.

I'm looking forward to my next purchase of a more reliable, superior product that holds its value, and I'm going to do it without a shred of guilt.

JIM JOHNSON, Meridian

Corruption, deregulation lead to economic instability

You can see now why privatization with insurance, investments and retirement accounts is very risky. There's no stability, due to the lobbying and promotion of deregulation since the 1970s - the same as in 1929, and now in 2008. The lack of responsibility in human financial speculating; the manipulation and other activities that break down the stability of the economic system; the corruption and desecration of privatized investment, savings and retirements accounts - all these have created a dysfunctional economy. There must be rules and regulations for stability and responsibility in the financial industry.

This is why President Roosevelt created Social Security as a safety net, and as a addend to whatever retirements accounts you can create in life through work efforts to keep people out of garbage cans.

When the people use the Social Security money for goods and services, the businesses get the money from the sale for revenue. Everyone gets a helping hand until they can get all of the dishonest people in jail and are able to get honesty back in the system again.

Read H. G. Wells' "Outline of History, Volume Two," "Depression."

JOHN WEST, Emmett

Federal government is just one big Ponzi scheme

Bernard Madoff is being crucified for his $50 billion Ponzi scheme. Where did he get the idea, and why didn't the Securities and Exchange Commission stop him?

Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital points out that, "The Social Security Administration runs its 'trust funds' with precisely the same methods used by Madoff and Ponzi. As money is collected from current workers, the funds are then dispersed to those already receiving benefits. None of the funds collected are actually invested, so no investment returns (www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2065/pub_detail.asp%20/) are ever generated. Those currently paying into the system are expected to receive their returns based on the 'contribution' made by future workers."

To greater or lesser extents, the entire federal government is funded in this manner, and this is part of the answer for our current economic downturn, in which the banks are being bailed out while the Big Three automakers are being allowed to collapse to the point that they are being socialized by government.

If Ponzi schemes are illegal, then outlaw the federal government!

Otherwise, leave Madoff alone - he was following the example of our so-called "leaders" in government.

Obama wants a "stimulus" of close to $1 trillion. Who is going to pay for it? The federal deficit this year is more than $1 trillion already.

CURT LILLIE, Boise

How many other Madoffs are out there?

Many prominent investors were allegedly swindled by one of Wall Street's biggest money managers, Bernard Madoff. Prosecutors called it a massive Ponzi scheme. Losses from the alleged fraud could reach $50 billion.

My question is: How many more investment securities are doing the same thing? The Securities and Exchange Commission was asleep at the wheel, so there are probably many, many more. This also makes you think the CEOs are involved in something like this with their companies' money.

DARREL LA MAR WAKLEY, Rexburg

The bank gets the house; it shouldn't get other assets

Don't let banks take other assets as result of no-fault foreclosure:

We were not able to make payments on our home after company layoffs as a result of the poor economy. With no income, we were forced to move in with family with our three children. We used a large portion of our earnings to make improvements to the home when we still had jobs. The home, in theory, has a large amount of equity. We are losing our largest asset.

To know that the bank could still come after our cars, savings (which we have no current access to), and even future earnings is adding insult to injury. They have received their bailout, and we are homeless. The real losers here are the taxpayers. Let those bailout dollars help protect what little people still have.

KRISTEN WETHERELL ROUNTREE, Wilder

Why didn't the government give us the bailout money?

Why did businesses raise prices on everything because the price of fuel was outrageous but not lower them when the price of fuel dropped?

I also wonder what would have happened if the federal government gave the $700 billion bailout to us, the taxpayers. That would have been some huge stimulus checks. Were they afraid that we would pay off credit cards and build our credit as well as put the banks on track? Or maybe they were worried that we would have bought a new Chevy, Ford or Chrysler, thus keeping them afloat. No, it has got to be they were worried that we would make our house payments on time, pay them off or even buy more homes.

Why did they not consider giving us the bailout? In my opinion, many businesses would have worked hard to get the money from us, such as better sales, lower prices, etc. Now we have to work twice as hard to pay for just our needs.

What would I have done with my money? I would have paid off my creditors and saved money for the future when I retire.

AARON AMOS, Burley