Open Letter to President Bush Regarding the Housing Bill
http://digg.com/politics/Letter_to_President_Bush_Regarding_the_Housing_...
Mr. President,
I am writing to express my wishes in the strongest terms that you veto the housing bill that is likely to pass in the U.S. Senate tomorrow (Saturday July 26, 2008). This bill is an outright violation of the most basic property rights that our society is founded upon, redistributing tax monies paid by me and other citizens (who have no choice but to pay them) to those who either borrowed or lent in poor judgment. I am a homeowner that most likely paid too much for my own home, but would not consider using the force of government to extort “relief” from my fellow citizens. I deny their right to do likewise to me.
I have received a letter from U.S. Senator Mel Martinez stating that “we must use the resources of the federal government in a reasonable and responsible manner in order to mitigate future losses and put our housing market on the pathway to recovery.” I remind you, Mr. President, that those “federal funds” are nothing more than my property, paid in taxes for no other purpose than the protection of the rest of my property. My government, even by majority vote, does not have the right to dispose of my property to fund “grants for communities to purchase and renovate abandoned properties,” nor to “assist families facing foreclosure,” nor to prevent the bankruptcy of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, lending institutions that should never have been sponsored by government in the first place.
We were once a country where each individual was guaranteed unalienable rights. Now, it seems that our rights can be voted away whenever the legislature believes it will win favor with an uninformed electorate. I remind you of your oath to the Constitution, Mr. President, and beseech you, as the last line of defense of my rights, to veto this bill. Thank you for your time and kind consideration.
Best regards,
Tom Mullen
- Tom Mullen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 765 reads
****
Well, it looks like he got up early to rob us before breakfast. It is kind of fitting. I would have hated to see his perfect record against the citizens he's sworn to protect spoiled with just a few months to go. Now, at least we won't have to put an asterisk next to his "Worst President in U.S. History" award (although Wilson, FDR, and LBJ still deserve dishonorable mentions). Here is the article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080730/ap_on_go_pr_wh/housing_bill
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
As far as I know, he hasn't signed it yet. It may be futile, as there are only 16 Diggs, but I will continue to ask until the dastardly pen stroke is made.
Digg this letter! http://digg.com/politics/Letter_to_President_Bush_Regarding_the_Housing_...
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
For anyone who might be interested, I just posted new content about a Fed Up USA protest of the Federal Reserve and Congress stealing taxpayer money to bailout banks and investors that will take place in Washington D.C. on July 31st. If I can go, I'll report back.
As expected, the housing bill passed in the Senate on Saturday, and President Bush is expected to sign it today. You can e-mail him at comments@whitehouse.gov to request he veto this gross miscarriage of justice. If you have not yet put a letter together, please feel free to copy this one and substitute your name for mine. If you are not a homewner, you can remove the last two sentences of paragraph one.
Please do let your voice be heard by President Bush on this. He was threatening a veto until Sec. Paulson told him that bailing out Fannie and Freddie "couldn't wait" for a veto fight. Let him know that bailing out Fannie and Freddie is unacceptable to you as well.
IF you have time, please also follow the link and Digg this letter in the hopes that other Americans not members of BTM will do likewise. THanks!
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
Hello everyone!
If you have visited this thread, you will see that another newly created, anonymous profile has sidetracked the conversation away from the purpose, which is to get this letter voted up so that it reaches more Americans who will hopefully take up its position. So, once again, please take a moment to click on the link and give this a "Digg." THanks!
http://digg.com/politics/Letter_to_President_Bush_Regarding_the_Housing_...
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
If you will kindly read my letter again, this time reading all of it's words, perhaps, you will see that it objects to both corporate welfare (bailing out the lenders) and public welfare (bailing out the borrowers). So yes, I am adamantly opposed to corporate welfare, or any variation of robbing from one party to distribute wealth to another. Our country currently tries to follow Bastiat's 2nd choice in his chapter entitled "Socialism Is Legal Pluner" in The Law, namely "everybody plunders everybody." Bastiat, Jefferson, and I are all opposed to it and would argue that we should be following his third choice, which is "nobody plunders anybody."
A look at our federal budget will also tell you that neither the poor nor the rich receive the lion's share of the plunder. Social Security and Medicare - plunder for everybody - make up about $1 trillion, while welfare for the poor (Medicaid and Welfare) only make up about $400 billion (although Medicare at $209 billion is only 50% funded by the feds - the state pays the other half - so that number is understated). Corporate welfare is usually the smallest in terms of direct dollars transferred, although there are also regulations that favor entrenched corporations over new competitors.
While I object to all of it, the biggest savings will be in getting rid of the "plunder for everybody" category first. Corporate welfare could be next, leaving welfare for the poor until last, at which time there will be far fewer poor due to the huge reduction in destructive government spending, and those that are left will have far more opportunities to rise out of poverty.
If you do not wish to debate further, that is fine. However, perhaps you should go back and read the comments and responses on this thread to make sure that it is me that is in the "alternate fantasy universe." You have again chosen to try to attack me after you were called out and shown to be completely wrong about the repeal of primogeniture, after proclaiming yourself to be an authority on the subject and me uneducated and uninformed on the founders. I don't mind the personal attacks, because when they are backed up by arguments that are this easy to refute, it is you that makes himself out to be a fool in public. It's kind of pathetic, actually.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
like it is TM
But then you've been misled so much since the day you were born, it's not really surprising.
An example:
Jim DeMint arguing against healthcare:
Since the dawn of our nation, Americans have resisted government control over their daily lives. Unlike Europeans who have mortgaged their futures in the name of nationalized health care, we have an innate distrust of big government schemes. We have seen time and time again that the greatness of our nation comes from its people, not from the government. Perhaps most importantly, we understand, as Thomas Jefferson understood, that "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Jefferson went on to explain that "the course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/mccain_plan_gives_heal...
Not quite. Jefferson never wrote or said that but you will find it all over the web attributed to Jefferson by misguided or dishonest people. It was Gerald Ford.
http://www.bartleby.com/63/7/107.html
Mr. President, that those “federal funds” are nothing more than my property, paid in taxes for no other purpose than the protection of the rest of my property. My government, even by majority vote, does not have the right to dispose of my property to fund “grants for communities to purchase and renovate abandoned properties,” nor to “assist families facing foreclosure,” nor to prevent the bankruptcy of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, lending institutions that should never have been sponsored by government in the first place.
We have (had, and will again soon) an estate tax today BECAUSE of Thomas Jefferson, not in spite of him and the Founders and Framers, and they did so because they read Locke and Smith, not in spite of it. You never have read any of them, apparently. Lord knows what you read but whatever it is, your seem to have developed a false myth, an alternate reality and history, to which you subscribe. Again, not surprising, since you have been spoon fed the Repuplican and faux libertarian falsehoods and false history your entire life.
Read the Adams-Jefferson letters some time. Primogeniture and the Laws of Entails were the name for the lack of an Estate Tax at the time.
In one of his first acts there he introduced a bill to end the laws of primogeniture and entails. Primogeniture – Latin for first born – required that all of a man’s wealth be passed to his eldest son upon his death. Entails stipulated that this requirement applied to the land in perpetuity. Over time this practice ensured the slow accumulation of great wealth by a few the families who had lived in the state the longest. These families formed what was a called a ‘Patrician Order” by Jefferson. And where the King picked his advisors to administer the colony. This system established the conditions favorable for the formation of a permanent aristocracy in Virginia.
Jefferson was successful in getting his bill passed. And, while today it is a little noted event, to Jefferson it was an important act in his political life. In his autobiography he wrote:
"To annul this privilege, and instead of an aristocracy of wealth, of more harm and danger, than benefit, to society, to make an opening for the aristocracy of virtue and talent, which nature has wisely provided for the direction of the interests of society, & scattered with equal hand through all it's conditions, was deemed essential to a well ordered republic."
How do you suppose Jefferson intended to fund his public education without taxation? That was his proudest achievement, you know. Public education. This is all so easy to learn. Why are you unaware of this?
As far as taxes for welfare of the poor, you only need to read this: Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, Thomas Jefferson, 1787. Were Jefferson here today, he would probably be Georgist and in favor of Universal Healthcare proposals. He certainly wouldn't be a member of the Republican party and he would likely agree with Chomsky more than Ron Paul. Do read the man. You might learn something. What you will learn is that you, as well as liberals, have both strayed from the original intent of the founders, and usually in very different ways than you suspect.
Find out what a republic meant to them. You don't know.
An excellent book and resource to start your deprogramming.
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/
In light of all this, you'll understand if I decline to digg or recommend your post, and letter.
RJ
and if you have as well then I assume you are aware that you are grossly distorting the meaning of Jefferson's bill and his stance on primogeniture. Either that or you just don't understand what primogeniture was and what the effect of repealing it was. Primogeniture required that the first born son inherit the estate, regardless of his father's wishes. Eliminating this requirement allowed the father to leave his estate to anyone he wished, including his first born son, but also including other children, other family members, or people or organizations outside the family. It gave the bequeather MORE property rights, not less. Eliminating primogeniture is not remotely related to the estate tax, where the state seizes part or all of the bequeathed property, which would have been anathema to Jefferson, Locke, and any of the other philosophers in the liberal tradition.
I have read many, but not all, of Jefferson's writings, as well as Locke, Mill, Hobbes, and other Enlightenment writers. I am aware that there are many quotes falsely attributed to the founders or unsubstantiated (we're not sure if the person really said it or not). I try to provide a cite for all of the quotes that I use. The space provided for the BTM signatures did not allow me to do so for the Jefferson quote in mine, but it was from Jefferson's Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787.
I notice that your BTM profile was actually created tomorrow. Very impressive! I assume that you are overseas and created this in the early evening here, which would have been a little after midnight in England. I only bring this up because I was recently the subject of coordinated attacks against my character and credibility by an unhinged person that created multiple logins to lead other BTM members to believe that many people were attacking and disagreeing with me. Then, this pathetic little person proceeded to make comments on behalf of all of the fake members indicating that they were all quitting BTM because of me. I point all of this out because you chose not just to disagree with me, but rather to disparage my knowledge and ability to understand what I read. If the fact that you just created your login and the personal nature of your attack are a coincidence, so be it.
What any of this has to do with the federal government requiring me to pay other people's mortgages or cover the losses of irresponsible lenders I haven't the foggiest idea. Perhaps you can explain the connection for the slower witted people like me.
I also assume (wrongly?) that you favor this bill. I would be interested to hear why you favor it and how you would justify its redistribution of wealth from the taxpayer to the lenders and borrowers.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
What any of this has to do with the federal government requiring me to pay other people's mortgages or cover the losses of irresponsible lenders I haven't the foggiest idea. Perhaps you can explain the connection for the slower witted people like me.
While I will agree with you that Jefferson would be opposed to the practice of privatizing the profits and socializing the risk and losses of the corporate malefactors, a common practice of the so called "fiscal conservatives" or what passes for "the right" in this country, and what happened previously with Countrywide, see:
The Stealth Public Bailout of Reckless “Countrywide”: Privatizing Profits and Socializing Losses
http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/228924/the_stealth_public_bail...
I don't think that's what you were arguing against. Further dialogue is really pointless, unless and until you leave the alternate fantasy universe you inhabit and join the real world I inhabit. Do it or don't. That world will move on with or without you.
"The lesson of this sad and sleazy episode is that when profits are privatized and losses are socialized we get sleaze capitalism and corporate welfare that becomes public bailout of reckless lenders. All this from a US administration that hypocritically praises every other day the virtues of private markets capitalism. For all of us who do truly believe in free market economies where a variety of public goods are provided by governments and the financial sector is properly supervised and regulate this is not a capitalist system but rather socialism for the rich."
Aha! So your thrust here is in declaring the government the proper apparatus to make free market economies function, granting the government full control of private enterprises that either fail or are mismanaged...
Is it your contention that government acts as an honest broker, therefore they are the rightful heirs to all dishonest businesses that run into trouble?
Is this the real world you stand on your tiny salt mound and proclaim?
.....................
Boy, people used to pay a lot more attention to me back when I had my own religion....
C'mon, people, Digg this thing and let's get it on the neo cons' radar screen!
http://digg.com/politics/Letter_to_President_Bush_Regarding_the_Housing_...
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
I got this forwarded to me yesterday:
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/07/23/gse-bailout-contains-fingerprint-re...
I had not heard of this aspect of the housing bill before.
Apparently the feds want to have loan originators and loan processors and sometimes even real estate agents submit fingerprints along with loan applications to reduce fraud?? Whaaaa? Please tell me this isn't true.
Yes, I did hear about that. Ron Paul brought this up a while ago. I actually wrote my senators in April or May, because I got a response from martinez on May 18, then responded to his response on June 10 (that one was worded a bit more, ahem, strongly. THe fingerprinting has absolutely no logical purpose in helping to reduce mortgage fraud or "predatory lending." It's just one more group of people that they have total suveillance on.
First they came for the mortgage brokers....
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
Tom,
Great letter! Thanks for taking action on this!
Laura
http://digg.com/politics/Letter_to_President_Bush_Regarding_the_Housing_...
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
I dugg it too. Thanks for writing and sending that letter.
dugg - great letter!