So what has happened since our last musing. The United States economy continues to be a rollercoaster ride few citizens on Wall Street or Main Street are currently enjoying. In one day, the economy lost more than $1 trillion in value by plunging 777 points throughout the course of business. This sent ripples throughout the global economy causing anxiety and general unease among most major western economies. The markets then "rebounded" gaining over 200 points all the while eeringly teetering on the brink of collapse. I will continue to say that such drastic changes in market conditions are signs of great uncertainty and anxiety and point to the fact that the largest of our problems await. I will say again that no-one should feel comfortable when market actions are directly affected by the actions, or inactions, of the United States Congress.
Meanwhile, the Senate passed a larger version of the financial "bailout" or "rescue" or whatever its being called in the current debate. The bill passed by the Upper Chamber has a few more "sweeteners" designed to provide political cover for Members to vote yes. This seems fine, and normally works in attracting new votes in the legislative arena, except this issue is now so high-profile and the election is so close (5 weeks) that in this case poison by any other name remains poison. Once Members vote yes, or switch their votes to yes from no, that becomes an instant talking point for the opposition candidate for the next five weeks. I can see it now, and so can the Members, "Congressman X voted to bailout greedy investment bankers while doing nothing to protect your family and our community from the horrors of foreclosure, the strain provided by rising commodity prices and the pressures of rising energy prices". If only it were that simplistic, the only problem is, in elections it is.
Our Presidential candidate's continue to tell us that passage of this bill is of critical import, but neither of them have really taken any actions to show this truism other than showing up for a vote they are supposed to show up for anyway. I imagine that if one of these candidates did speak honestly with the American people and made this a hallmark issue of their campaign, an "action item" if you will, than that candidate would see a significant rise in their polling numbers across the board. Is it possible that instead of using campaign dollars in varying state's of strategic value that a candidate could approach the national television networks and ask to pay for a 15 minute chunk of time addressing the American people? It sets a dangerous precedent for future cycles, but it almost assures a victory in 2008. But a move such as that would require political leadership and anyone who knows anything in the nation's capitol can tell you that is a tough thing to come by in today's day and age.
So here's to the lower house of Congress. Our future as a nation rests squarely in your hands, at least our prosperity for the next 5 to 10 years. A "no" vote almost ensures our continued demise, while a "yes" vote could save us from the worst economic meltdown our nation has seen in generations. This is one of those votes where elected officials have to make a tough decision. That decision is a value judgement, which is more important, the future of our nation or the future of their job? I would argue that both are intertwined and a true public servant would be able to convey that compelling message with candor and vigor to their constituents.
