Bailouts, Contracts & Representative Government - doh! 

As always, I’m a bit confused by the arrogant presumption of government. Here’s my problem (today) - aside from there being no ‘legally’ viable, Constitutional authority to spend public funds to save private corporations from their bad decisions, I can’t see any possible way the feds can actually ‘pay’ the bill for the money they’re pulling out of thin air to save their friends from Wall Street. The nebulous story they spin (since we won’t live long enough to pay the trillions they’re giving away) is that these funds will exist once future taxes are paid into their coffers. Hmmm...

I called Citibank and asked them to open a credit card account in the name of my 18 month old daughter’s name. I asked for a paltry $60,000.00 credit line to be granted so that my wife and I might “invest in infrastructure” around the house. We were thinking perhaps, a nice patio and deck around the pool, a gazebo we might enjoy the summer evenings in, free from New Hampshire’s state bird (the black fly) as well as a new fancy driveway made of something other than dirt. Do you know Citibank refused? I was told the party to the credit card had to sign a “contract” with the borrower and apparently, they feel I have no legal authority to “bind” my 18 month old daughter to a possible $60,000.00 debt she didn’t agree to.

Imagine my surprise when they said “no”. A company on the receiving end of of $300 BILLION in taxpayer bailout funds (thus far) and this week (25 February 2009) asking the feds to buy a further 40% stake in their company, saying “No” to a simple request to give my kid (and me) some credit?

So, if the borrower needs to sign a “contract” to make it legally binding and, a review of state & federal Law shows contracts (agreements between parties), to be legally enforceable, require an offer of a good or service; an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds, I wonder how the feds might construe that they have the legal authority to “bind” my daughter as well as everyone else in the next three generations, to being responsible for the TRILLIONS they are giving away to Wall Street bankers, bankrupt car companies, insurance giants like AIG and all the other outfits with their hands out?

Since I can’t ‘legally’ commit my daughter to pay for things I want (today) and, being 18 months old, she can’t sign a legally binding contract under ANY state or federal contract law in existence, isn’t it not only ILLEGAL but, more importantly immoral for a government (especially one claiming to represent ‘the People’) to hand over trillions upon trillions of dollars my daughter (as well as the couple of hundred million unborn Americans) hasn’t earned yet, to private, ‘for profit’ corporations that have been run so poorly they’ve destroyed not just themselves, the investments of their stockholders and, indeed, the entire capitalist financial system?

For  the record, the current market capitalization (the current value of all shares of the company) of Citigroup, despite having just received $75 billion in taxpayer bailout money, is worth only $5.4 billion. This, my fellow taxpayers is less than Autozone, a chain of car parts stores, and less than H&R Block, the franchise chain of tax preparers. As for AIG, which received $180 billion in free money, its total market value today is less than $1 billion! For what the government is throwing away in Iraq - in a MONTH - they could buy both companies outright! Can anyone else hear a loud flushing noise?

The President & his Congress’ excuse for spending these funds on the present ‘effort’ (any many other boondogles) would allegedly be laid at the feet of our Constitution’s ‘general welfare clause’. As you may (or may not) know, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes to “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” Since FDR’s New Deal, this clause has been generally assumed that Congress may pass any law it deems in the “general welfare of the United States.

Of course, where this falls on it’s face, in the present case, is that historically the ‘general welfare’ of the United States has (even for Congress) meant spending public funds on public programs. Never before have public funds been simply handed over (given) to private corporations and subsequently paid out as bonuses to their fat cat executives, blown on parties or spent on Madison Avenue marketing campaigns under the premise that keeping these folks fat & happy is in the “general welfare” of the United States of America. According to Wikipedia “fascists ... advocate a nationalized form of such economic systems such as national corporatism, national socialism, or national syndicalism which promotes the creation of a strong proletarian nation, but not a proletarian class.” So, we’re different from the Nazis & Mussollini’s Black Shirts because we don’t have snappy tailors & wear cool uniforms?

It appears true that with over half the American population on some kind of coping pharmaceutical, there seemingly aren’t enough people, with enough clarity of mind to understand either the simple math related above, the simple concept of a legally binding ‘contract’, where this is leading or the fact that those who are being asked to pay the butcher’s bill for this disaster are NOT represented or asked to agree or, in most cases, even alive yet.

This country (the former Republic) was founded on the rallying cry of  "No taxation without representation!” My daughter and the millions of Americans expected to PAY for this have no representation in this debate. Alas, a little more fluoride in our water, perhaps another Prozac or a shot of el Don and this too shall pass. It’s all starting to come into focus, isn’t it?





Christopher T. Sununu

District 1

Mike J. Cryans

District 2

Andru Volinsky

District 3

Russell E Prescott

District 4

Theodore L. Gatsas

District 5

Debora B. Pignatelli

Click on the above photos to read about each of our council members.


Home Q & A Rules Q  & A Answers RC's Column