Congress exhibits yet another example of broken clock politics…

REAL ID: Congress is cutting the appropriation for the REAL ID national ID card — by $40 million. That’s good! But they’re still planning to spend $60 million on it in 2010. That’s bad!

Please send Congress a letter objecting to any further funding for REAL ID.

You can copy what I said in my letter to Congress . . .

I’m upset that Congress just appropriated $60 million for the REAL ID national identification scheme. I’ve asked you repeatedly to repeal REAL ID, and replace it with nothing. I’m repeating my request today.

I do not want a centralized national ID system. It lays the foundation for a police state, and will do little or nothing to improve security. Instead, it will subject me to increased risk of identity theft, and eventually entangle me in new Congressional schemes to do things like control my health care decisions.

I also object because the REAL ID Act was passed under false pretenses. It was rejected three times by the U.S. Senate, and was only enacted because it was added to a larger bill containing funding for disaster relief and Iraq. REAL ID never could have passed on its own merits, but now that we have it, we can’t seem to get rid of it. But you, as my representative, can do something about this . . .

Please introduce legislation to repeal REAL ID and replace it with nothing. I’m paying close attention to how you represent me.

END OF SAMPLE LETTER

You can send your letter to Congress here.

Please take additional steps to spread the word, recruit more DC Downsizers, and increase the heat on Congress:

* Ask other people to send a letter to Congress — forward them this message
* Digg this message on our Blog
* Contribute so we can reach more people

Jim Babka, President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Check out these recent posts on our blog:

President Obama keeps a promise http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/a-downsize-dc-victory
Congress responds to Constitutional questions http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/how-they-responded
Chatter about the “Read the Bills” idea http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/read-the-bills-roundup

Do you ever notice how the federal government names things?  The Patriot Act; sounds so patriotic doesn’t it?  In reality it is an unconstitutional power grab and we possibly will never know the full extent of the abuses.  Downsize DC has a new campaign to rollback the Patriot Act.   Here are some of the reasons we must repeal it.

Roll Back the PATRIOT Act

 

The Patriot Act authorized “sneak and peak” warrants that allow the government to search your home without your knowledge. In 2008, this power was used just three times in terrorism investigations and 760 times in regular criminal investigations.

 

It also authorized National Security Letters (NSLs). NSLs allow federal agents to seize your personal records without a warrant, even when there’s no suspicion of wrongdoing. The FBI can also prohibit you from telling anyone that you’ve been searched because of an NSL. The FBI was found to have abused this power thousands of times. FBI abused power to obtain business and personal records without prior judicial approval

 

Under the FISA Amendments Act, government can engage in wiretapping without a warrant. Senate Immunizes Telecom Firms From Wiretap Lawsuits

I see this as a crucial first step to regaining lost freedoms.  We must reign in the federal government if we are to ever restore our states’ sovereignty.

Deo Vindice!

Quote of the Day: “There are some bills we don’t need to read, we already know how we’re going to vote.” – Rep. Henry Brown

Does DownsizeDC.org agree or disagree with this statement? The answer may surprise you . . .

Subject: Clearing up a misconception about the Read the Bills Act

The partisans on both sides are using “reading the bill” as a sign of moral superiority. They’re jabbing each other over who’s read the healthcare bill more carefully, as the Joe Wilson controversy indicates.

As originators of the Read the Bills meme, we consider this a sign of progress. It means that public pressure in support of our idea is both working and growing. Now, if only the Democrats and Republicans in Congress would stop using our idea to grandstand, and would instead pass DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act (RTBA)!

But the debate over which side has read the healthcare bill more carefully raises a question: should members of Congress who intend to vote AGAINST a bill still be required to read every word of it?

We think it would be helpful for them to do so, especially when it comes to debating why the bill should be defeated, but we don’t think those who intend to vote NO on a bill should be required to read it.

No one needs to justify opposing a bill that will invade your life, your liberty, or your property. Opponents don’t have to prove they know every clause and subsection.

One bad clause may be sufficient to put down the bill and go vote against it.

The onus is always on those who support a bill to justify it.

This gives us an opportunity to clear up a common misconception among members of Congress . . .

Several of them think that DownsizeDC.org’s RTBA would require all members to read every word of every bill that comes to a vote. It doesn’t. It only requires those who vote in favor of a bill to have signed an affadavit affirming they have read the bill, or heard it read.

Those who oppose a bill because they think its key points are bad, aren’t asked to sweat the details.

The RTBA’s purpose is to force a bill’s supporters to have a basic knowledge of what it is they’re passing. This basic knowledge can only come from reading the bill. This simple requirement would . . .

* Prevent politicians from blithely supporting bills just because they sound like they have good intentions
* Require politicians to take responsibility for their vote — they could no longer hide behind the excuse that they “didn’t know that was in the bill”
* Make politicians more concerned to make sure that a nice-sounding bill won’t have unintended consequences

We therefore agree with the Quote of the Day above — at least in one sense. If Representative Brown already knows he’s going to oppose a bill, the RTBA won’t require him to read it. But he, and all members of Congress, must read every bill they intend to support.

Use our Educate the Powerful System to tell your Congressional employees to pass DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act.

Use your personal comments to tell them that, contrary to their possible misconception, the RTBA only requires them to read bills they support, not bills they oppose. Also remind them that if they pass the healthcare bill without reading it first, they will pay a steep political price.

You can send your letter to Congress here.

Thank-you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. To see how fast your Army is growing, please check out the Keeping Score report below my signature.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

KEEPING SCORE REPORT

Your Downsize DC Army grew by 22 net new members since our last report. This brings our total growth for the year to 3,802. The Downsize DC Army now stands at 28,148, nearly 15% of the way between 28,000 and 29,000.

YOU can make the army KEEP GROWING by following our quick and easy instructions for personalized recruiting.

SOURCE

I am adding a new organization to my list. I haven’t visited their website in a while, but yesterday’s legal plunder by Congress reminded me of them.

I would encourage everyone to stop by their site and look at some of the campaigns that they are sponsoring.

The reason that I thought of them is the “Read the Bills Act.” I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that most of our elected officials didn’t read the 1,800+ page stimulus bill that they are cramming down our throats. I have a feeling that when some of the details of the bill come out, and people find out where their money is going, they will be pissed. Alas, a perfect opportunity to spread the word that most of our legislation isn’t written by our congressmen, but by lobbyist. Most of them don’t even read the legislation that they vote on. Frankly, I find this to be disgusting.

The Downsize D.C. campaigns that I identify with include:

“End the Fed” campaign. Why are we paying interest to a private company to print our money?

“Federal Deficit causes Congressional pay cut.” Simple enough, if we have a deficit Congress takes a pay cut.

“Repeal the Real ID Act” Real ID isn’t secure, it isn’t necessary, and frankly it’s not the feds damn business.

“End Asset Forfeiture” The fourth amendment says that “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Just obey the laws you swore to uphold.

These are just a few of the campaigns that they are sponsoring. If these ones don’t float your boat, go there anyway. I’m sure you’ll find something that is important to you. The link to their campaign page is below, or you can find them in my organizations links.

Do I think that signing these campaigns will do much good?  Probably not. But it never hurts to put them on notice that more and more people are starting to get downright upset.

www.downsizedc.org/etp

The following is the substance of an email my mom forwarded me that has evidently been making the rounds among her friends at her workplace:

“The Proposal”
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of “tough decision”, and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.

Our government should not be immune from similar risks.

Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.

Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:

$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)

$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people’s staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)

$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?

We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)

Note:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.

Summary of opportunity:

$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.

$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.

$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.

$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.

$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.

$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings.
(that’s 8 BILLION (with a ‘B’) just to start!)

Big business does these types of cuts all the time.

If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.

IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just delete this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume you know what to do.

When I got this email, it sounded like a good plan, but as always I wanted to check with the Constitution. I knew that the Constitution guarantees each state 2 Senators, but I was more curious about the numbers of US Representatives.

Quite frankly, as far as the reductions to the numbers of members of the US Congress goes, the above commentary is UNconstitutional.

The US Constitution in Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 1 explicitly states, “”The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state”. Therefore, without a Constitutional Amendment, you cannot have only 50 US Senators.

But what was more interesting for me, as noted above, was what the Constitution says in regards to the number of Representatives that there should be.

And this is where it gets interesting. The US Constitution in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 states the following (emphasis mine):

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

The population of the United States according to census.gov right now is 305,802,240.

The number of current US Representatives is 435. Doing the math, this means that each Representative represents 702,993 people.

This is more than TWENTY TIMES more than the Constitution allows.

The ‘Proposal’ above would limit the number of US Representatives to 218. This would mean that each Representative would represent 1,402,762 people. This number is nearly FIFTY TIMES the number the Constitution allows.

These numbers beg the question, how many US Representatives are needed to comply with the specifications in the Constitution?

I’m glad you asked!

Doing the math, the current US population divided by the Constitutionally mandated maximum of 30,000 people per Representative, gives us:

10,193 US Representatives – TWENTY THREE times the number currently there.

Now, I’m not saying there needs to be that many US Representatives. Indeed, even I tend to think that the number we currently have is excessive. HOWEVER, I hold that we MUST hold to what the Constitution says, and if we don’t like it we MUST put forth an Amendment to change it.

Therefore, I say an Amendment needs to be adopted changing the maximum number of people represented by any given Representative. What should that number be? I’m open for debate on that, though I’d say it clearly needs to be more than 30K!

What do y’all think?

There was an excellent dispatch from DownsizeDC.org today…

Quote of the Day: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” – Rahm Emmanuel, Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff

Rahm Emmanuel loves the financial crisis. He sees it as an opportunity. His admission of this fact, which we’ve used as our quote of the day, is breathtaking.

Mr. Emmanuel tried to moderate his enthusiasm for exploiting the crisis by claiming that his desire wasn’t for big government, but for good government. But has Mr. Emmanuel ever acted as if good government was consistent with smaller government? We doubt it.

Mr. Emmanuel isn’t alone in seeing crisis as an opportunity to make government “gooder” by making it bigger. Donald Rumsfeld famously wanted to exploit the 9-11 attack by “roping in everything,” including Iraq. And that is what they did.

One “crisis” event was used to create another crisis. Now it’s happening again.

Consider what this means: What do the politicians think of you? They think you aren’t wise enough to accept their grand plans for remaking the world, so you have to be scared into doing the right thing. Their grand plans require crisis to be implemented. This way of thinking also implies that only the politicians know what the right thing is.

Your plans and my plans, and all the individual plans of 300 million Americans, must be superseded by the plans of the politicians and their court intellectuals. But what’s the likelihood that such a small group of people really knows how 300 million individuals should live — how their affairs should be regulated and their money spent?

And what happens when they’re wrong? If you and I make mistakes in our small plans for our own lives, the consequences effect only ourselves and maybe a few people around us. But when the politicians’ grand plans go wrong, millions, perhaps everyone, is harmed in a grand way.

But isn’t this very nearly the definition of a crisis — something that harms everyone?

If politicians have the power to help everyone, then they also have the power to harm everyone. But what they can never have is enough knowledge to predict the full consequences of their grand, universal “do-gooder” plans.

Knowledge is decentralized. All of us have pieces of the puzzle. This is why small, decentralized plans tend to work, creating massive progress from the bottom-up. It’s also why grand plans, from the top-down, blow-up.

[Check out the rest of the article here and find out what you can do to help us Downsize DC.]

Taken from Downsize DC:

This isn’t some arbitrary, symbolic holiday. It’s a real anniversary. The Bill of Rights was ratified today in 1791 — 217 years ago. We believe that this event, more than anything else, was what has made the United States different from other countries.

It isn’t democracy or representative government that made America unique. The Greeks, the Romans, and the British had those things. The Roman Republic even had divided powers, with checks and balances which our Founders knowingly copied. But as far as we know the United States was the first country to incorporate such specific, individually-oriented limits on government power into its supreme law.

Of course, this protection only works if our politicians obey the law, and this obedience is something we must demand; it will not be given freely.

I was skimming through my old articles and I thought it might be a good idea to link back to my personal favorites and most offensive articles. So without any further ado:

DontTreadOnMike’s most offensive articles…

Why I Don’t Salute the Flag

All Drugs Should Be Legalized

Christianity Does Not Equal Nationalism

I CAN’T TAKE THIS ANYMORE!

Vegetarianism Shrinks the Brain…It’s Science

Sarah Palin: Scumbag of the Month

The Terrorists Have Already Won

D.C. v Heller Was NOT a Victory for Gun-Owners

Bush and Obama, What’s the Difference?

Judge Returns Polygamist’s Children, FINALLY

UN Peacekeepers are pedophiles, so what else is new?

Do Illegal Aliens Have Rights?

Worst President in History: Bush or Lincoln?

SECESSION!

Writer’s Strike Delays New Conan Movie (awesome picture)

Quote of the Day: “Today’s political candidates are proposing a new fiscal spending stimulus, when what we really need is a “deregulatory stimulus.” We need to roll back the regulatory state and free up the wealth-creating sector. We cannot afford today’s bull market in government regulations.” — Clyde Wayne Crews & Ryan Young

Subject: They could do this instead

The Big Three automakers came to Washington last week, begging for $25 billion in loans.

The Detroit automakers can’t say why they need so much, how they would spend it, or that they won’t be back again, asking for more. After the bungled handling of the banking bailout many lawmakers are reluctant to give the automakers what they want. As of now, there’s no deal, but the danger hasn’t passed.

Proponents of a bailout argue that without it the money will instead be spent on unemployment checks and income tax losses when one or more of the Detroit 3 file for reorganization under the bankruptcy laws. So why not just go ahead and do the bailout?

We need to push our own counter-arguments. Let’s start with a few startling facts . . .

• The U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax rate in in the developed world. We’re losing the world-wide tax-rate competition. With lower corporate taxes we could attract businesses and create jobs.
• U.S. businesses spent $148 billion in 2005 complying with a complicated and inefficient tax code. Meanwhile, revenue from the corporate tax was only $272 billion.
• Some companies spend millions trying to find tax loopholes. This is money that could go to create products, services, and jobs. In 2008, the combined cost of corporate taxes and tax compliance is likely to be about half a trillion dollars.

Why should the politicians . . .

• Impose $500 billion dollars in costs on businesses to raise only about $300 billion in tax revenue
• Spend $1 trillion or more propping up companies

When instead, they could . . .

• Allow Chapter 11 bankruptcy to turn inefficient firms into reorganized, rejuvenated, productive businesses
• Eliminate the corporate tax and thereby pump $500 billion a year back into the economy

Bankruptcy isn’t the end of the world. Many large businesses, from retailers to airlines to steel companies, have gone bankrupt, but are still in business through reorganization and consolidation. Bankruptcy actually saves many businesses.

The Big Three’s problems are self-inflicted, from signing extravagant union contracts to building gas-guzzling SUV’s. Foreign-owned automakers who build cars in the U.S. aren’t facing the same difficulties. So why should taxpayers have to subsidize the incompetence of the Big Three, when reorganization under the bankruptcy laws would allow them to correct their errors at little cost to innocent bystanders?

Let’s propose an alternative to another Big Bailout: Downsize DC! Send Congress another message opposing the automaker bailout.

Use your personal comments to urge Congress to completely eliminate the corporate tax and all of the complicated tax regulations that go with it. Tell your elected representatives that this would . . .

• Inject half a trillion dollars a year into the productive economy
• Lower the costs of good and services, since many economists agree that the corporate tax is just passed onto consumers in the prices we pay
• Make the U.S. the most attractive business environment in the entire world
• Create huge numbers of new jobs, and save many old ones
• Cost much less, to the government, than their boondoggle bailouts

You can send your message using our Educate the Powerful System.

And magnify your voice by sending this Dispatch to others, by reprinting it on your blog, and by “Digging” it on our blog.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

<< Quotes of the Day:

“You can’t walk around unless you’ve got flak jackets, helmets on all the time, no matter where you are. It’s always struck me it’s almost like a Fellini movie, kind of unreal. The American people are told things are stable and secure, and violence is down. No American would walk outside there without a convoy!” — Chuck Hagel, upon returning from Baghdad

“At long last, the fragile state of Somalia seems to be slowly resurfacing from a searing bout of violence and humanitarian crisis. Interestingly, the light at the end of this decades-long tunnel is not burning at the behest of the United States or the United Nations; rather, it burns because Somali leaders, both within the government and without, have banded together. Frustrated by failed foreign interventions, they are now seeking sustainable Somali-based solutions. The key to success, going forward, is to keep it Somali-led. Further intervention from neighboring Ethiopia or the United States will be ruinous.” — Michael Shank, Communications Director, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, Senior Analyst at Foreign Policy In Focus

Subject: Real “Change” in Iraq

Many people think the U.S. occupation of Iraq has become a non-issue, for two reasons . . .

1. Violence is down
2. The U.S. government signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to continue the occupation

We feel differently. We think the occupation is still an issue, because . . .

* American soldiers continue to die
* The factions in Iraq haven’t reached a settlement, and have no incentive to do so as long as we remain there
* Somalia and Lebanon show that stable societies are grown from within, not engineered from without
* The “agreement” to continue the occupation was signed by a U.S. government that has now been repudiated
* The public legitimacy of the Iraqi government is also highly questionable
* The dollars being spent in Iraq belong in the pockets of struggling U.S. taxpayers

This is why we think the occupation is still an issue. We still want the occupation to end. We want change.

Barack Obama won election by promising change. He distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton and John McCain by having always opposed the Iraq invasion, and by promising to leave Iraq sooner rather than later. Iraq was a key issue to millions of Obama voters. Will they get the change they sought? Consider these points . . .

* Pro-war Congressman Rahm Emmanuel will be Obama’s Chief of Staff
* Pro-war Senator Clinton may become his Secretary of State
* Robert Gates, who favors an indefinite occupation, may remain as Secretary of Defense

With top advisers like these, who needs neo-con bogeymen? Perhaps in DC-speak, “change” means “let’s fool the yokels who think elections matter, and give them more of the same.”

Are we being too harsh on Obama too soon? We think not. We think our skepticism is justified. Remember . . .

We now know that George W. Bush was already scheming to invade Iraq when he promised us a “humble foreign policy,” and “no nation-building.” He also stocked his cabinet with aggressive interventionists, just like Obama has started to do.

This is how politicians behave. They promise one thing and do another. Obama is a politician, therefore . . .

We assume the worst.

And remember, Senator Obama voted to “legalize” warrantless spying. This, all by itself, is enough to justify extreme skepticism about our incoming president, no matter how much we may like him as a person.

If we want real change we’re going to have to demand it, constantly. Eternal vigilance!

The main argument for the occupation has been, “We broke it, so we must fix it.” But what if the Iraqi people don’t want us to “fix” them? What if they don’t want us there?

We think Congress should pass a resolution asking the Iraqi government to hold a public referendum on the U.S. occupation. This resolution would . . .

* Show respect to the Iraqi people
* Potentially legitimize the occupation, or end it
* Tell the President-elect that the American people still want what he promised — to leave Iraq

If you don’t buy the argument that Iraq has become a non-issue, and you do buy our argument that the Iraqi people must . . .

A. Settle their own differences
B. Be allowed to say yes or no to the U.S. occupation

And if you want to . . .

* Save American lives
* Save your tax dollars

Then . . .

Please tell Congress to pass a resolution requesting an Iraqi referendum on the occupation. You can do so using our quick-and-easy Educate the Powerful System.

Please also . . .

* Forward this message to others or re-post it on your own blog
* Digg this message on our blog.

Thank you for being part of our growing Downsize DC army.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc. >>

EDIT: Ever since I posted this blatantly ripped-off Obama poster, it has been one of the most popular entries and I don’t know why. Leave a comment and tell me how you found it if you have the time.

click here for the full sized version

In many of my posts, I have said things like, “The Federal Government is a lost cause” and “You can’t influence national politics.”

Well I stand by my view that the Federal Government is a lost cause but there is one way to influence national politics. I don’t think the Federal Government can be saved but we can at least perform some damage control while each of us individually figures out what we want to do to protect our personal liberty. I’m talking of course about DownsizeDC.org.

I am constantly amazed at the success we’ve had through their letter writing campaigns and the Bill they have drafted are excellent!

Here are a few of the best ones:

THE READ-THE-BILLS ACT
Make Congress read every word of every bill they create before they vote on it.

THE WRITE-THE-LAWS ACT
Unelected bureaucrats create tens-of-thousands of new dictates each year. Making rules is the job of Congress, not bureaucrats.

And my personal favorite..

THE ENUMERATED POWERS ACT
It’s time for Congress to, “Cite it, chapter and verse.” Where do they derive their authority? When they pass new laws or spend taxpayer money, they should be required to point to specific language in the Constitution. The Enumerated Powers Act would require them to do precisely that.

Who could possibly be against any of these Bills? I’ll tell you who, politicians. They like to be able to claim that they didn’t know what was in a Bill before they voted on it. The read the Bills act would prevent that. They like to dump their responsibilities on bureaucrats so that they don’t have to take the blame for unpopular regulations. They like to be able to write whatever laws they want to without consulting the Constitution to see if they have the authority. THe Enumerated Powers Act would put and end to that.

You can write to your “representatives” through DownsizeDC.org and demand that they vote for these Bills. It might not save the Federal Government but it can save our liberty and our wallets.

Sign up with them today. It’s free.

[ARTICLE]

Despair about a weakening global economy is sweeping across Wall Street, propelling the Dow Jones industrials down more than 700 points. Investors around the world have been selling off stocks as they come to realize that financial systems in the United States and other countries need more than government bailouts to fix them.

Meanwhile, the credit markets remain stagnant, a sign that banks are too afraid to lend. The Federal Reserve is making more money available for borrowing, but no one expects the credit markets to ease up anytime soon.

The Dow has fallen more than 700 and is in striking distance of its biggest one-day point decline—778, which the blue chips suffered a week ago when investors feared the bailout package might not pass Congress.

The Sumbag of the Month for October is the entire Congress. Over the course of the Bailout drama, Congressmen and Senators recieved letters, emails, and phonecalls at a ratio of 300 to 1 against the $700 Billion Dollar Economic Bailout Plan. The original Bill was 3 pages long. Soon it swelled to over 40 pages. By the time it reached the House for its first vote it was 110 pages long. The House voted down that version by a narrow margin. Two days later, the Senate had their own version of the Bill only this time it had over 400 pages and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of new pork tacked on to it as “sweeteners” or “compromises”. These included tax subsidies for the Rum industry, some company is Samoa, and even Nascar. Wait a minute. You thought budget and spending bills had to originate in the House didn’t you? Well you’re right. That’s why the Senate tacked the entire Bailout plan on to a completely unrelated Bill as pork. So techinically the Bailout Plan was pork with more pork in it. This goes beyond pork barrel spending and well into the realm of Turducken.

Well the Senate passed the Bill and two days later, so did the house. It turns out they aren’t principled like we had hoped. In fact they’re not even afraid of loosing their next elections. And why should they be? The American people have short memories. To them, every politician is bad except their politician. The incumbant success rate will not change.

We are told that we can change things we don’t like in government by voting and writing to our Congressmen. Well we sent in our messages 300 to 1 against the Bailout plan and Congress replied…

Proving once and for all that the Federal Government is a lost cause. You cannot influence national politics. The Federal Government does more harm than good.

Secede.