Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America

Commentary

April 2009

Over the last few months, I, together with our citizens, have been treated by Professor Paulson and Professor Geithner as if we were slow addled students whom they require to absorb their lessons in economics without questioning their meaning - as sponges in a course in unreality. Add to all of that a requirement of control without question of its implementation or tracing the expenditure of the bailout funds.

I can remember the economics classes I took as a student at NYU - there were no student sponges there since the majority of the students were there under a newly enacted GI Bill and let no economic truth go by without detailed questioning of our professor who became uncomfortable in having the specify the reasoning for an economic fact. He didn't use a term he couldn't explain.

There are now an unlimited number of TV economic soothsayers who pompously doubletalk the issues to show how much they don't really know. They are trying to convince our citizens that we are not the victims, but rather that we are the ones who caused it all by permitting the greedy to bundle our mortgages and other credit instruments and sell them, knowing that they were not worth the powder to blow them to hell. We apparently are the ones who fooled the financial powers into thinking that we were looking for a better standard of living at their expense and our nation's stability.

Now that we understand this, we will get out of our mess by allowing private investors to join with the government in bundling so-called toxic assets and selling them to others for a profit. Of course, the government will be taking the major part of the cost in creating the bundle [whoever said our government was not a quick learner?] Hey, it worked in getting us into the mess - it should work in getting us out, in part, or, at least, just a little. If it doesn't work, the investors, at least, won't be hurt too much. If they don't name him as Geithner's Number Two man in the U.S. Treasury, they will probably get Bernie Madoff to represent us.

Now, let me go back to what for many years was the golden rule of economics - namely the Balanced Budget approach. The States and Federal governments pranced around telling us that we can only spend an amount of money equal to what we actually take in in revenue. The illusion was made to seem real.

It was so simple that the citizens ate it up - even though it reallocated defined trust monies legislated for specific purposes over to general purposes to give the appearance of equality, such as a five-year moratorium imposed on veterans' health and other benefits and other social welfare programs which were turned over to non-profits to provide relief. We believed it to the point where we voted for amendments to State Constitutions to enforce an unenforceable theory that masked the needs of society.

Now, Balanced Budget is an economic stone in a rock garden of social indifference. It gives way to the U.S. Bureau of Printing and Engraving with its ability to create enough money to cover needs in a stimulus budget and the regular budget, which now includes the former Afghan and Iraqi War supplemental budgets and the Congressional earmarks of goodies needed to pass it.

The new package given to GM and Chrysler contains a small number of billions of dollars with a short date to reorganize their operations or face the prospect of bankruptcy. We have even fired the head of GM to show we mean business or the appearance thereof. This will involve not only GM and Chrysler but the many suppliers, dealers and whoever else is associated with or tied into the automotive business. Not really important since a number of them were small businesses - not even considering the workers now without wages, health coverage, pensions and the sense of comfort for which they all worked and to which they are entitled. It comes under the classification of middle class relief.

Guess what? China is questioning the value of our collateral for the billions of dollars of debt that they bought from us. Of source, forget about any offsets for the value of all of the Chinese toxic toys, toxic plaster board, and poisoned food products, the theft of our textile and leather industries and the attempted control of our steel and other products. They seek global euros in place of dollars to give them an economic energy drink.

Europe is irritated about our trying to save our own economy through the infusion of bailout funding instead of acting as we always have by being sucked into saving theirs. You have to remember that AIG took some of the bailout money and used it to pay European banks at par for what they were insured for - not a percentage, but the full amount.

In upcoming weeks of global meetings, we will face their anger for our thinking of ourselves and our fight against terror and our humanitarian endeavors in Sudan and elsewhere and the maintenance of American forces in Europe and NATO for their benefit at our expense.

They will try to convince us that the protection in the saving of the global economy is the cardinal obligation for America if we want them to love us. They are already telling us that, not only are they unable to provide any additional NATO forces in Afghanistan, they will be withdrawing some of their forces and convert it into an American obligation.

I sometimes have been accused of having a convoluted sense of reality, and this is one of those times. It appears to me that the Automotive Task Force may have come up with a solution not only for the automotive industry but for our country. By our filing a pre-packaged bankruptcy for our nation, we can eliminate all debt on our books so we can start afresh. Over the years we have forgiven debts owed us by third-world countries - why not allow the global "leaders" to do the same for us. It ain't gonna happen, but it was nice thinking of it.

I just hope that all of the bailouts don't turn out to be black-outs of our economy and our nation as we know it. Although to think about it, what's the big deal about a $3.5 trillion budget? I guess the real question is - will it truly be a budget, or is it to be a global bailout? I'm entitled; I passed Economics 101.