Show of hands - who's for this 700 billion dollar bail out?

Let me go on the record and say that I am OPPOSED.

First, I hope everyone read my post just below this one. Believe me, that was one discussion that I wish I was wrong about.

To the bail out ...

I have never seen so many politicians in such a stupor over what to do at once. They are so disoriented on what to do that they can't even figure out a way to fight over it. The "it" is what the government action must be to stave off the impending financial doom that has been predicted if there is no federal action whatsoever. Look, I am not an economist, but I have common sense and perhaps an above average grasp of the ideological politics. And it seems to me that if a "bail out" or any action teetering on what is by definition socialism or at least further government intervention into the private sector, is considered "bad" during boom times then my best Vulcan logic tells me it is HORRIBLE during economic bust times. I'm not advocating zero government action, not by any stretch as you will see in a moment, but why mandate the feds to do the very thing they do least well of all? Spend money! It is scheduling disaster. If anyone thinks cronyism or obscene lobbying by special interests is bad now, let me point something out to you: this precedent setting monster bail out would set us all up for a generation's worth of cronyism and high pressure lobbying - times 100 of what it is at current. As it stands now corporate lobbying is done to achieve nearly one thing and one thing alone - deregulation. Whether that's in the form of lower taxes, special tax incentives, lessening of current regulations or just avoiding future regulations, corporate lobbying is meant to keep the feds off their back, period. Now, with this precedent, corporate lobbyists will be soliciting not merely tax breaks or incentives, but ACTUAL DOLLARS. An actual check. So let me ask you something - does the fact that they could possibly get actual monies just GIVEN if proper lobbying pressure is applied increase or decrease the risk of corruption or at least actions contrary to the best interests of Joe & Jane America? No my friends, this is a horrible idea. And the thought that Pelosi and Reid want to set up a PERMANENT commission to go around and buy up bad debt on behalf of the federal government sends a very cold chill down my well developed back.

So, what would F.Ryan suggest? What is the "Ryan Economic Initiative?" I'll give It to you, for I am honor bound to provide my answer if I am to slam someone else's.

1.) Reform Sarbanes-Oxley. It has been said that congress has only two speeds - zero and overreact, and this is certainly true with this bill which quite literally shifted the financial center of the universe from New York to London. Sarbanes-Oxley was a response by Congress to the various high-profile scandals on Wall Street. You know the names: WorldCom, Enron, Global Crossing. In short a small number of executives were acting primarily for their own interests, as opposed to on behalf of the interests of shareholders. And in at least one case—Arthur Anders­en, one of the Big Five accounting firms—there were some accountants that either were intentionally com­plicit or were sort of turning the other way in order to make their clients happy. The problem is section 404 of that legislation.You have a confluence of problems with the way Section 404 has been implemented by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which the PCAOB reports to. The basic problem is that on the one hand, you've got total ambiguity—nobody knows what a "problem" IS in today's accounting world in 404 compliance. And in Sarbanes-Oxley they have imposed not just civil but criminal penalties on everybody involved in the process. So, if you're an executive officer, a CFO, a CEO, or if you're a mem­ber of the board of directors, the internal accoun­tants who work for your company and give you advice about how to comply are not just civilly responsible, but they can go to jail if they make an error. We don't know whether one box of paper clips is enough to send you to jail or to get you sued in a serious way. That's the problem - the language is so fuzzy that in theory a CEO of a 10 billion dollar company could be brought up on charges for mislabeling a company purchase for a magazine subscription! It must be reformed. There must be specific language layed out so EVERYONE knows where they stand. This, according to my sources, has driven billions of not just domestic venture capital over seas, but foreign investment especially. They don't want the risk of a jail sentence over staples! Put specific language in, and, as #1 part A.) get a prosecutor oriented politician (such as Guliani for example) into the chairmanships of the SEC & PCAOB (& making Romney Treasury Sec wouldn't hurt either). But no matter whom you put in the economic enforcement seats of power, now you have SPECIFIC AND MEASURABLE oversight with individual high profile faces responsible for that enforcement rather then this fuzzy, open for interpretation (grossly so) ambiguous mess of a law. So that's number 1.

2.) Put a 2 year moratorium on the capital gains tax. It being the tax levied on a person or corporation for the profitable sale of any stock. It's at 15% right now. Obama has stated he would double it if elected, which made even fellow Democrats cringe - each time it has been cut in the last 25 years the revenues to the treasury went up. It's established dogma now, that's why no one messes with it ... until Obama. Not to mention the dollars that would flood in if there is zero tax liability on making sound investment choices. So that's at zero, and now combined with the reformation of Sarbanes you are REALLY making investing in the US markets VERY attractive to foreign and domestic peoples with the capital to invest.

3.) Cut corporate tax in half. Currently we have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. How much revenue, not to mention jobs, would be created if you as a corporate entity you were able to have the most profitable consumer market in the world - the US - as your base of operations? We are rapidly losing competitiveness and sending dollars to London et al by leaving this tax (at this rate) and Sarbanes in place. You see what I'm driving at here with the first 3 proposals? Getting PRIVATE money voluntarily pumped into US markets rather then the American tax payer giving it away to the worst of the worst run companies.

4.) Outlaw mortgage loan profit guarantees. Make entities like Freddie and Fannie thoroughly examine their investments knowing THEIR DECISION MAKING is the only "guarantee" of profitability they will have to rely upon when purchasing a mortgage from a lender. Those two institutions were the first domino when the correction in home values came. Were there no "loan profit guarantees" I'd be willing to wager that there would be a lot less mortgage "write downs" on the books at Freddie, thus avoiding the proverbial straw on this camel's back.

5.) Pick up Teddy Roosevelt's manacle (and even a stick if needed) and bust Freddie and Fannie into a million pieces. Not tear it down mind you, but break it up. Doesn't it strike anyone else as "risky" for 50% of home mortgages in the United Sates to be owned by a single entity, even if it is a quasi government/private business? Spread that risk around I say. And because it's incestuously linked to the government, making that bust up happen should be relatively short work. Make quite literally a hundred different companies out of the two giants (Freddie and Fannie) with a hundred different CEO's and write the legislation in such a way that it must remain so. NOW you have limited the risk by spreading it around AND limited the affects of poor management and hard market corrections in the housing market. Not to mention, as 100 separate entity's the lobbying power Freddie currently enjoys as a single monter of a company would all but disappear. And again, I stress Freddie/Fannie because they were the first domino.

6.) Make low interest federal loans available. Now that the first 3 of my proposals have pumped hundreds of billions into the US economy, and we've shored up a future Freddie debacle by trust-busting it, we can allow the classic institutions (including but not limited to: Lehman's, Goldman Sachs) that are teetering on bankruptcy to secure low interest loans. BUT limit the entire amount available to 200 billion dollars so that only the most qualified "slumpers" (the best of the worst) will be granted a loan ( by virtue of the finite, lower amount available) thus limiting the tax payer's burden to only those companies with the best chance of paying the monies back, with interest.

Any one company that can not survive after these 6 proposals are implemented deserves to fade away into economic obscurity ... rather then be given a free lunch by you and I. I reiterate that the bailou, is scheduling a disaster. The one mantra that unites fiscal conservatives and fiscal moderates alike is that, "throwing money at it won't fix the problem." Yet that is exactly what the PoTUS and his Treasury Secretary want to do. Rather give the markets the tools to fix itself, and it will. "Give a man a fish/teach a man to fish ..." logic. If ever the phrase. "the cure is worse then the illness" applied, it's now, embodied in that $700,000,000,000 tax payer funded check. The "Ryan Economic Initiative" holds much more promise in my best estimation.

I welcome your thoughts.