The $700 billion bailout for “financial institutions” requested by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson amounts to $6,300 per household. Fortunately, we will not have to pay it off this year, but the amount with interest will be spread across several years.

            Many expert economists question whether the bailout will solve the economy’s problem. An even larger share, believe the bailout should not be approved without a variety of constraints on how the money is spent. Many also question the degree of urgency and the need to act right away.

            Not surprisingly, Secretary Paulson claims the sky is falling and he needs the $700 billion this week. Two years ago he made $37 million a year as CEO of a now-vulnerable investment bank. Then President Bush asked him to head the nation’s Treasury Department.

            On the other hand, some economists argue that the economy would be better off  without unregulated investment banking, and that real estate values would settle down faster without a bailout of the type demanded. After all, investment banking has become a collection of unregulated casinos that keep coming up with new games investors can play.

            In a political system such as ours that asks individuals to stand on their own and pay for their own welfare, shouldn’t corporations be allowed to fail if they take huge risks without insurance or collateral?

            For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the economy really has to be bailed out by the government. In a democracy like ours shouldn’t the people rather than Congress be asked to pull out their check books and pay for the bailout? They are asked to pay for our society’s social charity, why not economic charity?

            Individual Americans already write checks for charity for about $230 billion a year according to Giving USA. And according to the Independent Sector, last year American volunteers gave 8.1 billion hours of free labor worth $162 billion dollars  through formal organizations. On the basis of the American Time Use, I estimate that that Americans volunteered an additional $345 billion worth of free informal community service. Compare this huge value of charitable donations to last year’s United States Federal budget allocation of $294 billion for unemployment and welfare.

            Americans could do the same for the Investment Banking  industry if they thought it was important enough. Why should the  American people be given the option to be charitable to their fellow human beings, but forced to be charitable to the financial sector? Why should charity to businesses be determined by Congress and lobbyists but charity to the people left largely to private donations?

            Rather than buying assets of failing banks at inflated prices, the economy would be better served by loans to small as well as large businesses, and to home owners facing foreclosure as well as to businesses facing bankruptcy.

            Then the public should be asked to double their charitable donations this year and write checks to funds for ailing businesses. People should be given the choice as to which type of business receives their donation. This would be true economic democracy.

            The Bush administration’s enacted concept of democracy continues to be freedom for economic institutions with little regard to freedom for individuals. What is your conception of how democracy should deal with financial institutions?

Craig Unger, author of the books Fall of the House of Bush and House of Bush, House of Saud, loves to point out the irony of the Bush administration’s promotion of democracy and freedom in the middle east while simultaneously cuddling up with Saudi Arabia and offering them billions in arms. The American press only gives attention to the democracy initiative, but if you read the foreign press on the Internet, you will hear about human rights abuses and the brutal theocracy in Saudi Arabia.

After seven years most Americans seem tired of Bush-bashing, but if President Bush’s trips to Saudi Arabia and Africa are any indication, he does not want his comedic reputation to end. As if it is not enough to get caught holding hands and kissing Saudi King Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud, the number-one smugly American posed again and again with Saudi Sheikhs while brandishing a sword.

The President’s face was beaming with joy as he held the sword high in the air in the likeness of a crusading Christian. In the spirit of a happy knight in shining armor he clearly was not thinking about his killing poll numbers. Approval ratings at home were only 32%, and only 12% of the Saudi Arabian people rate him favorably.

 What else will the lame-duck “ruler” of the free world do in his last year in office? Now that he has come to love the Saudi Sunni culture so thoroughly, can we not expect him to bring their folkways to America to cement goodwill between the two countries? While it would be oppressive, wouldn’t it be fun to throw stones at evil doers?

The best next step for not-nearly-curious-enough George would be to call up King Abdallah and say, “Sorry the American people don’t want you to have that $20 billion dollar weapons deal I promised you.” And, “Oh by-the-way, we are going to cut back on a third of our oil consumption, so you can keep your oil.”

Instead, President Bush has pleaded repeatedly for the Saudi’s to increase their oil production so that the price of oil will go down for Americans. Hillary Clinton called his pleas pathetic. King Abdallah said, in so much words, “forget it.”

Well, Mr. Bush you may not have accomplished any foreign policy objectives in the Middle East, but you gave us memorable photographs. But factoring in the huge cost to the taxpayer, and to thinning the ozone layer, of flying all those people over for a desert vacation, aren’t those ridiculously expensive photos?