With citizens in all walks of life losing their jobs and needing hope, some officials more concerned about grandstanding they hope will lead themselves to higher political office than to addressing the suffering of the people who elected them.

When people need hope, more money in their pockets, possibility of new jobs opening up for which they are qualified, we are unfortunately faced with some politicians who are more interested in spreading lies than in solving problems.

Yes, we all have to support our government through taxes. Yes, we need to be as frugal as possible with public money. Yes, we need to cut pork out of all budgets—federal, state, local or personal.

But first we need to bail ourselves out of the mess we’re in.

Will Durant said, “Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.”

We taxpayers have blithely believed that we could allow bankers, Wall Street, and our financial system to police itself. We forgot that these people have only one agenda—to make themselves as rich as possible with no regard for anyone else’s welfare.

Bankers who gave out loans as “sub prime” lending knew that they were going to raise interest rates on these poor unfortunates to the point that they would lose their houses. The banker didn’t care because he knew he would get his commission on the loan and eventually the bank would get the house. Amazingly, he forgot that banks aren’t in the business of holding astronomical numbers of houses on their balance sheets in order to resell them at a future date—especially when the bottom falls out of the real estate market.

Wall Street has encouraged average Americans who know absolutely nothing about the risks of investing in stocks to put their life savings into buying stocks. The old adage, “What goes up ultimately goes down,” works well in the stock market. If you can’t afford to lose every penny you invest, you have no business gambling in the stock market—because that’s what it is—gambling!

Oversight agencies in the government didn’t bother to check out some of the Ponzi scheme brokers so their clients are now poverty stricken.

The bottom line is that unless you are well educated about finances, you can get taken for the horror ride of your life.

Vernon Law

Education for whatever faces you in life is not always presented prior to its need. Vernon Law said, “Experience is the hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward.”

We’ve had the lesson. Our country and many of its citizens are scalding in hot water. We now need to stop focusing on our fears and educate ourselves into a becoming a more productive society.

We have the capacity to get our society back on kilter. We have the energy to help each other in times of trouble. We have the know-how to reinvest in ourselves, our children and a more equitable distribution of resources in this country.

Listen to people who have a positive message. Support those who are trying to bail us out. Solve today’s problems and the future will take care of itself.

This country has spent trillions on wars during the past. It is necessary to defend ourselves at times of threat. We are now challenged to spend trillions on revamping our own infrastructure. We are resilient enough to spend where it is necessary, cut back on frivolous pursuits, and restructure our society so that our children have a better life.

Samuel Clemens - Mark Twain

Mark Twain said, “Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.” H. G. Wells asserted that “History is a race between education and catastrophe.”

Educating yourself on the current situation means choosing messages that are sent from those without a personal agenda for blowing one’s own horn at the expense of the good of all.

Our system allows for fools to shout as loudly as the wise. It is up to each of us to judge which message we wish to hear and to act accordingly.

Personally, I choose hope, because the alternative is unthinkable.

The statement came even as the stock market, which had a rebound last week, tanked on the news, dropping 400 points by noon Monday and closing the day down by 680. With a public still reeling from months of soaring gas prices and the fallout of higher food and other retail items (due in part to exploding transportation costs), the reality of recession with or without documentation from a national bureau.

In making their determination on the state of American economy, the NBES examined records on jobs and job loss, real personal income, industrial production, and wholesale and retail sales. The last two recessions (1990-91 and 2001) both lasted less than a year.

Initial reports of “better than expected” holiday spending may not be an indicator of the true retail market this holiday season, since many shoppers who bought into the Black Fridayscenerio seemed to be after the sharply discounted big ticket items like computers and audio/visual equiment. One of the problems for retailers is that these items have been so steeply discounted so early there is a diminishing profit margin — little “wiggle room” for more cuts. Apart from these specialty items, consumers seemed conservative and, at least in Clarksville, not as willing to randomly spend.

There is no fudging a national declaration of “recession.” It’s, here. It’s now. And it’s been here for a while. It’s an issue on which the current administration has been in a state of persistent denial. For the rest of America, the lower and middle class worker bees, it’s reality.They have the bills and the decreased spending power to prove it.

In the Ozarks of Missouri,my grandparents never got to retire, nor did I ever hear them discuss it. The dream of sitting on the front porch in a rocking chair with their dog at their feet was always a serene unrealized thought. Because of their hard-scrabbled living on a small farm, they never had enough money to retire. From sun-up to sundown they collected the eggs, milked the cows, worked for neighbors for 50 cents a day. washed their laundry by hand on a washboard, cooked, and did numerous other chores that occupied their time but brought little cash to show for that strenuous effort to survive.There was no retirement for them.

Today we have a better life, one in which we can dream and plan for retirement and actually realize it. Even in these threatening economic days of impending financial disaster, that dream is still with us. However, the challenge of our monetary system precipitates intelligent thinking about when, where and how to retire.

In wrapping up a career and settling into retirement, there are some issues to confront. Before retirement we can ask “now what?” As we confront the challenges of retirement we have more options that our grandparents. We have options such as downsizing, starting a new “second” career,” moving to the sun belt or some other area of choice, going back to school, giving a portion of our time as a community volunteer, or spending more time and resources on grandchildren.

Retirement is the optimum time to make decisions on the number and subjects of a will or trust, and certainly to think about our demise — be that in 10, 20 or 30 years, if we are lucky. Retirement presents us with challenges.

Our decision on when, where, and how to fully retire in the next five years will hinge on how to afford this longed for lifestyle.The stability of sources of income for retirement is more serious than it has ever been since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The tumbling stock market is trashing my investments. The balance and value on my portfolio is steadily going downhill, a 25% decline in value since January. I am thankful though, in the midst of this crisis, that none of my investment companies have gone bankrupt.  For me, less in value of investments is better than a total zero. I am following St. Paul’s advice: “be ye thankful.”

Our choice of  options for a retirement lifestyle will also hinge on the falling value of our homes. Whether it’s true or false, we are given the impression that the decline of the value and worth of our personal property is less than the median decline for the rest of the nation. It’s certain that home values are continuing to fall in many areas. We hope the fall is less in our community.

Another expense that can drain our savings for retirement will be the cost of medical care. In retirement this cost can quickly accelerate. One reliable study found that “65-year-old males generally need to save $196,000 to cover their health care premiums during retirement; for females, who live longer, it’s $224,000.”

For a successful retirement, first count the cost. The answer to “what now” as you contemplate retirement, is influenced by one’s personal assets, investments, pensions and income. The solution to this challenge may be to keep working or change the retirement date. In retirement, especially in the confusion and uncertainty of these days, life will not be easy.  However, a healthy and mature attitude can give us strength to confront the various challenges enveloping the thought of retirement.

Does the word “recession” come to mind?

Timing is everything, and this economic downturn arrives on the heels of a long hot storm-laden disaster-ridden summer in the South and East, with the fall and incipient winter heating season across the northern half of the country.

The 1930’s depression was marked by a 25% unemployment rate, widespread bank failures and millions of American suffering homelessness and hunger. In checking a series of surveys, including a CNN POLL,  21-23% of Americans feel a recession imminent, over 35%  said is a strong possibility. That’s nearly 60% of America’s citizens looking with pessimism at the prospect of financial woes that will not turn around anytime soon. Richard Fuld, former CEO of bankrupt Lehman, calls the the current economic woes a ‘crisis of confidence,’ a term that is of little comfort to anyone.

It’s not just happening here; nations around the world are watching their economies being sucked into an ever-widening whirlpool of loss. Iceland is on the brink of bankruptcy. Russia lost 19% of its market, Brazil, 15%.Jakarta dropped 12%. Japan’s on shaky ground. Europe is staggering under a steady stream of loss.

On the homefront, American’s are looking at the bottom of their investments; those with years before they may need to draw on assets may be somewhat less panicked while others, including a surge of baby boomers, with retirement looming ever closer are worried that the fiscal downturn will hammer their retirement plans to oblivion.

Everyone is watching America and the upcoming Presidential election, which is a battle between same old-same old and the prospect of change. Americans are registering to vote in record numbers, and that a refreshing sight to see. A presidential race that originated when Iraq was the voter’s top concern has now shifted to the economy, the economy, the economy.

Tomorrow, and for weeks to come, all eyes will be on Washington and Wall Street, watching what the market does and what our nation’s leaders are doing to deal with what can only be described as a fiscal “crisis.” The shift from recession to depression is, in the minds of many Americans, happening, despite faint hopes and spurts of optimism that an infusion of bail-out money will ease the crisis and tamp down concerns.

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is Enemy Action.” — Auric Goldfinger, Ian Fleming’s James Bond

In 1982, the same year John McCain entered the Senate, a bill was put forward that would substantially deregulate the Savings and Loan industry. The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was an initiative of the Reagan administration, and was largely authored by lobbyists for the S&L industry — including John McCain’s warm-up speaker at the convention, Fred Thompson. The official description of the bill was “An act to revitalize the housing industry by strengthening the financial stability of home mortgage lending institutions and ensuring the availability of home mortgage loans.” Considering where things stand in 2008, that may sound dubious. It should.

Seven years later, the S&L industry was collapsing. What was the cause? Garn-St. Germain handed the S&Ls a greatly expanded range of capabilities, allowing them to go head to head with full service banks, but it didn’t give them the bank’s regulations. Left to operate in an anarchistic gray area, S&Ls chased profits, indulged in amazing extravagances, and cranked out enough cheap mortgages to fuel a real estate boom. They also experimented with lots of complex, creative — and risky — investments, even though they didn’t have the economic models to really determine the worth of the things they were buying. The result was a mountain of bad debts and worthless “assets.”  Does any of that sound eerily (or nauseatingly) familiar?

It wasn’t a foregone conclusion. In 1985, three years after the deregulation of the S&Ls, the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board saw that the situation was already looking shaky, with the potential to become much worse. He instituted a rule to limit the amounts and types of investments S&Ls could carry on their books in an effort to head off disaster. However, many savings and loans — among them Lincoln Savings & Loan Association of Irvine, CA, which was headed by a fellow named Charles Keating — promptly ignored these rules.

Alan Greenspan

Now enters a familiar cast of characters. First to pop up was the universally beloved Fed-chief-to-be, Alan Greenspan. Greenspan argued against the loan board’s new rules, and persuaded Reagan to appoint one of Keating’s pals to the board to blunt the requirements. A quintet of senators, among them John McCain, began having meetings with both the management at Lincoln and the regulators at the loan board.  Alan Greenspan also helped out with a letter to the regulators, asking that Lincoln be exempt from the new rules. With their help of Greenspan and their pet senators, Lincoln was able to stay in business an additional two years, at the end of which they failed — taking the life savings of 21,000, mostly elderly, investors with them.

How involved was John McCain? McCain and Keating had known each other since 1981 and had become fast friends. Of all the “Keating Five,” it was McCain who moved into the life of the Lincoln S&L chief. The two men vacationed together multiple times, with the whole McCain clan (babysitter included) heading out for Keating’s private Caribbean property on Keating’s private jet. McCain didn’t think to actually report these trips, or pay for them, until the investigators were breathing down his neck. And McCain took his payment in the form of more than just vacations. Keating and other members of Lincoln’s parent company padded McCain’s pockets with $112,000 in campaign contributions.

In John McCain’s biography, he called his meetings with Keating and regulators “the worst mistake of my life,” though from the text you’d think this was a spur of the moment decision, not something that McCain did repeatedly over a space of years. Still, you might think that a “worst mistake” would stay fresh in his memory.

It certainly didn’t fade quickly for the country. Following the S&L crisis, the Resolution Trust Company was formed to swallow up the debt of Lincoln and 746 other S&Ls gone wild, and taxpayers were left with the $125 billion bill. The resulting budget deficit forced cutbacks in other programs. The artificial real estate boom collapsed and housing starts fell to their lowest levels in decades. Finally, the whole nation settled in for a period nasty enough that three years later someone could still campaign around the idea “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Phil Granmm, John McCain

Even so, by 1999 Phil Gramm — who had entered the Senate two years after McCain and quickly become the economic guru of the Keating Five maverick — put forward the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This Act passed out of the Senate on a party line vote with 100% Republican support, including that of John McCain. (To be fair, the bill eventually passed again with a wide margin following revisions in the House.)

This act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act. This may sound like a bunch of Congressperson soup, but the gist of it is that Glass-Steagall was put in place in 1933 to control the rampant speculation that had helped cause the collapse of banking at the outset of the depression, and to prevent such consolidation of the banks that the nation had all its eggs in one fiscal basket.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley reversed those rules, allowing not only more bank mergers, but for banks to become directly involved in the stock market, bonds, and insurance. Remember the bit about how S&Ls failed because they didn’t have the regulations that protected banks? After Gramm-Leach-Bliley, banks didn’t have that protection either.

Gramm wasn’t done. The next year he was back with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which was slipped into a “must pass” spending bill on the last day of the 106th Congress. This Act greatly expanded the scope of futures trading, created new vehicles for speculation, and sheltered several investments from regulation.

As with both Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Garn-St. Germain, large parts of this bill were written by industry lobbyists. This famously included the “Enron Loophole” that exempted energy trading from regulation and was written by (big suprise) Enron Lobbyists working with Gramm. Not coincidentally, Senator Gramm, the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Enron, was also key to legislating the deregulation of California’s energy commodity trading.

Thanks to this fortunate trifecta of Gramm-crafted legislation, Enron was able to create “EnronOnline” and trade electricity in California with absolutely no oversight or transparency. They quickly worked out how to game the system. Previously, there had been only one Stage 3 rolling blackout in the history of California. Within months, the system had been manipulated by traders to generate 38 such blackouts and wholesale electrical prices had gone up more than 3000%. Despite production capacity equal to four times the demand during winter, energy traders even engineered a blackout in mid-January.

During the confusion of these deliberate “shortages” and “price spikes,” the California administration of Gray Davis — blind to speculator manipulations because of the walls erected by Gramm’s legislation — was forced to sign energy contracts at enormous rates. There was little choice, because most of California’s public utilities were on the brink of bankruptcy from the rising wholesale prices.

In a single year, Gramm’s legislation allowed speculators to bring the state to its knees. Enron alone looted California of $11 billion. The manipulations of the energy market were also a major factor in Davis getting the hook, helped usher the governator into power, and they still have repercussions in California’s budget battles today. By the end of that year, the depth of Enron’s deception could no longer be hidden, and the whole company came crashing down in the largest bankruptcy in history — at the time. This brought more billions lost in mutual funds and pension funds across the country, and played a major role in the economic downturn of 2001.

But that was only the second act. The combination of Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was a toxic cocktail whose total damage was greater than the sum of its parts.

The first Act promoted bank buyouts and mergers that reached such an insane pitch that the average consumer could only keep up by tracking the changing names on their checks and credit cards. Mercantile buys Ameribanc and Mark Twain. Firstar buys Federated and First Colonial. US Bancorp buys Mercantile and Firstar. And, because it allowed brokerages and insurance companies to mingle with banks, the Act cemented a trend that was already (and illegally) underway in which all those terms had become rather quaint. Is Wachovia a savings bank, an investment bank, a brokerage, or an insurance provider? The answer is “yes.”

In allowing financial institutions to grow to Godzilla-sized proportions, Gramm-Leach-Bliley helped ensure that we would have financial entities that were “too big to fail.” Rather than choosing to enforce rules that kept these institutions apart, the deregulators chose to create monster bankeragasurances whose downfall (and existence) was enough to threaten the whole system.

But if Gramm-Leach-Bliley removed the limits on size and scope, these new institutions still needed fuel. With many financial transactions operating on razor thin margins, and increasing automation sapping the profits from trading of all sorts, they needed a new way to generate the funds required to swallow their brethren in the merged fiscal corporation pond.  For that, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was a godsend.

Among those instruments which the CFMA sheltered from regulatory scrutiny was something called the “credit default swap.” A kind of insurance one bank could exchange with another, credit default swaps supposedly made it safe for banks to take on ever riskier forms of debt. The Act didn’t invent these swaps, though they were relatively new. Instead, by placing them in a state where they were not only unregulated but almost perfectly opaque, credit default swaps were turned into the perfect vehicle to fuel a Wall Street revolution. No one had any idea what these things were actually worth, they were traded “over the counter” without being administered by any exchange, and even the SEC could monitor their existence only indirectly.

Who would cheer for a new kind of financial instrument that was difficult to understand, invisible to regulators, and impossible for even the whizziest of Wall Street whiz kids to value? Guess.

More recently, instruments that are more complex and less transparent–such as credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations, and credit-linked notes–have been developed and their use has grown very rapidly in recent years. The result? Improved credit-risk management together with more and better risk-management tools appear to have significantly reduced loan concentrations in telecommunications and, indeed, other areas and the associated stress on banks and other financial institutions. — Alan Greenspan, 2002

Get that? Greenspan loved credit default swaps. He opined again and again that such instruments would be the salvation of the industry by spreading around risks. To the mighty Greenspan, both their complexity and their lack of transparency were good things, since swaps would only be handled by the big boys who knew how to play with fire.

When questioned about his support of Gramm’s legislation, John McCain called his friend (and by then, campaign co-chair) Gramm “one of the smartest people in the world on the economy” and pointed out that Greenspan also favored the acts Gramm and his coalition of lobbyists had authored. If both Gramm and Greenspan were on his side, McCain couldn’t possibly be in the wrong.

Except, of course, that he could.

From the beginning, there were plenty of people in the financial community whose opinion of these unregulated credit swaps was not as rosy as that of Gramm, Greenspan, and McCain. Chief among those speaking in opposition was SEC Chairman, Arthur Levitt. Levitt argued that what the industry needed was more transparency, especially when it came to complex instruments like default swaps, and he testified to this before Gramm’s Senate Banking Committee.

“In my judgment, the risk of this regulatory approach is simply unacceptable for America’s investors.” –Arthur Levitt, 1999

Gramm paid no attention.

Credit default swaps did allow the banks to share risks. So much so, that banks raced each other in an effort to find more risks. They made it possible for the down payment on homes to become 3%, 1%, 0%. Skip the credit check, avoid the employment requirements, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! We’ve got a credit default swap, we can do anything!

The encouragement and “safety” that credit default swaps provided made the sub-prime mortgage market possible. Just as with the deregulation of S&Ls in the 1980s, the market was suddenly flooded with easy credit. The result was a real estate boom, soaring home prices, and a plague of “Flip that House!” shows on cable.

As the banks piled up crappy mortgages, they heaped on ever more of the credit default swaps — and they still had no idea how to value the things. Worse, they began to trade the swaps themselves as if they were an investment, treating them like something worth holding instead of a big bundle of cartoon bombs whose fuses were already lit. Since very few loans were falling into default at the time, owning a default swap seemed like a way to collect fees without ever paying out. Banks wanted more, and more, and more.

A secondary market for trading swaps exploded into existence, and swaps were traded with absolutely no consideration for the nature or quality of the underlying investment. Swaps changed hands a dozen or more times, growing in “value” as they went. Worse still, no one regulated who could buy a swap, so it was (and is) perfectly possible for a company to acquire swaps that theoretically cover billions of dollars in loans, even if that company doesn’t have a red cent on hand to cover those swaps should the loans default.

How big did this market become? Here’s business correspondent Bob Moon and host Kai Ryssdal on American Public Media’s Marketplace from back in the spring.

BOB MOON: OK, I’m about to unload some numbers on you here, so I’ll speak slowly so you can follow this.

The value of the entire U.S. Treasuries market: $4.5 trillion.

The value of the entire mortgage market: $7 trillion.

The size of the U.S. stock market: $22 trillion.

OK, you ready?

The size of the credit default swap market last year: $45 trillion.

KAI RYSSDAL: That’s a lot of money, Bob.

As in three times the whole US gross domestic product, Bob. And the truth is that Moon probably underestimated. The unregulated and poorly reported credit default swaps may have actually passed $70 trillion last year, or about $5 trillion more than the GDP of the entire world.

So, are you starting to get an idea of just how big a genie Phil Gramm and his pals unleashed?

With some regularity over the last eight years, fiscal whistle blowers have tried to raise their hands and register a protest. Um, sirs? Is it altogether a good idea to run up debts exceeding all the assets it’s even possible to hold? But so long as no one actually had to pay off on the swaps, the party went on.  Even usually conservative (in the fiscal sense) companies like AIG started to worry that they were being left behind and leapt headlong into the swap pool.

Federal Reserve

Shortly after Greenspan’s departure in 2006, the Federal Reserve took the unusual step of issued a joint statement along with the SEC to warn about the risks associated with credit default swaps. But by that point, the damage was already severe. If swaps lost their value, most of those who had played the game would find their giant firms abruptly valued in pocket change. The only solution was to cover the problem with still more swaps and keep moving.

Then a funny thing happened. After years in which banks had handed out loans willy-nilly, guarded by the indestructible swap, people and companies started to really default on those loans. Credit slowed, home prices fell, and the whole snake started to eat itself tail first. Suddenly, credit default swaps were not sources of limitless cash. It turns out that an insurance policy — even a secret, unregulated policy — is occasionally expected to pay. Speculators started to look at the paper they were holding and for the first time realized it could all be worthless. Worse, it could (and did) represent a massive debt; one that no one had the funds to cover.

When Bear Stearns fell apart last March, it was only suspected that a big part of the effort in saving the giant investment bank was keeping their holdings in credit default swaps from unraveling and spreading to other institutions. Naturally, part of solving this problem involved creating a new credit default swap to cover Bear Stearn’s potential debt. But the all-purpose swap was starting to lose its power. Shortly after Bear Stearns went belly up, AIG reported the largest quarterly loss in the company’s history, taking a $11 billion hit on revaluing its holdings of swaps. The party was definitely coming to a close.

When AIG finally collapsed this week, there was no doubt about the primary cause of its failure. The previously well grounded company had “gotten itself involved with something called credit default swaps.” Point of irony alert: Arthur Levitt now serves on the AIG board… or at least he did until the government had to take over most of AIG to salvage the company from the very idiocy Levitt had warned of in 1999.

This week, the Bush administration announced the beginnings of a plan to salvage what remains of the financial markets. At first glance, it appears that the plan will consist mainly of creating a kind of “garbage pit,” a fund or group of funds — cousins of the Resolution Trust that was created during the S&L crisis — into which those people who have dabbled in bad debts can toss their problems. Only this time the cost to the taxpayers is at least $700 billion… and a big bite out of representative democracy.

The expansion of unregulated Savings and Loans in the 1980s brought on the collapse of that industry, a crippling of the economy, and left taxpayers holding the bag. Maybe that was only happenstance. Those pushing for the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act may not have known what they were doing.

The deregulation of the California electricity market, along with the protections provided to Enron through Phil Gramm’s lobbyist-written legislation brought blackouts, fiscal and political chaos, and left taxpayers holding the bag. But the people who engineered that event — people like Gramm and Greenspan — had already seen what happened with the S&Ls. They should have known better. Still, perhaps that was only coincidence.

The sub-prime mortgage crisis that has not only come so close to utterly destroying the markets, but has ruined the value of many people’s homes and left millions with mortgages they can’t pay, was also the outcome of the deregulation created by these men. The very predictable outcome.  When taxpayers are left holding the bag for $1 trillion this time around, it’s hard to believe it’s any sort of accident.

This is enemy action. This is a bullet deliberately fired into the economy by men willing to exercise their ideology regardless of the cost to taxpayers. Men who have every expectation that they can plunder the system again and again, while the public picks up the tab. John McCain may not have had his finger directly on the trigger, but he was there. He assisted. These were his personal friends and philosophical comrades. He may not be the high priest, but he has been a loyal acolyte in the cult of deregulation.

It may come as a surprise to the champions of deregulation, but nobody likes regulation. The restrictions that were placed on banks, S&Ls, and other institutions in the 1930s weren’t put there because someone thought it would be fun. They were put in place because they addressed problems that had just been clearly and painfully revealed. They were put in place because they were necessary.

It’s bad enough if John McCain didn’t know that. It’s far worse if he did.

About Mark Summer

Mark Summer is a Contributing Editor on the Daily Kos website, and one of the founders of the Political Cortex.  He is also commonly known as Devilstower. You can email him directly at .