It's easy to be overwhelmed by the financial mess and simply shut down, but of course, that's what "they" want, isn't it? Yet it's also hard to go forward and support or oppose any particular plan if you know that there's a strong possibility that whatever you think is right may not be, and in fact could do more harm than good. At least it is for me.
That dilemma does not seem to have affected anyone in the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve, and it is increasingly apparent that any sort of self-awareness that the members of Congress may have is slipping away, hammered by the pressures of an election and the perception (on their part) that they have to "do something."
In other words, I'm feeling that no matter what, it's inevitable that Congress will pass some kind of bailout bill. Inasmuch as I can't stop it (and I'm not at all sure I would want to), I would like just a little something in return.
I suppose you could call it Good Government. The financial "crisis" may indeed be too big to ignore, too deep to fix, and too complex to ever understand. Students of the process of governance will tell you that this is a normal condition - government appears ineffective because government gets to do the jobs that no one knows how to do. That's why I'm always skeptical of anyone who runs for public office on the platform of "running government like a business"; a business probably wouldn't try to do such things because they're too hard and there's little or no chance of return.
So here we are, just like we were in 2001 when we had a different crisis. We are going to get something from Congress, like it or not. What I would hope is different this time is that Congress NOT pass broad sweeping legislation it hasn't read.
That's all I want. If any of my members of Congress are going to vote "yes" on any bill related to this crisis, I want to be sure that they know what they are supporting. Therefore, I ask that Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Representative Susan Davis be willing to sign a statement for me (us) along these lines:
I declare (or affirm) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that I have read the foregoing (bill name or number) and all analyses of this bill prepared for Congress and the Executive, and understand their contents.
That's it. If they vote for it, then I expect that they will have read it and understand what they read. We pay for lots of agencies with lots of people preparing reports and analyses just for Congress to use so they can make informed decisions. They should be using that stuff, especially when the stakes are so high.
If they will do that much, I will be satisfied. At least I will know that they really tried to figure out what to do, even if it turns out to be horribly wrong.
I realize that an argument could be made that such a demand ought rightly apply to every bill that Congres considers. Baby steps - let's start with this one.
I suggest that you request the same of your members of Congress. Is it too much to ask?