Conference back40::soapbox

    sorry for all the typos..."it" (third sentence)..."people" farther
    down...etc...

    
    Mexico is the first of the many economic crisises waiting just 
    around the corner, including the most dangerous one in Russia.
    
    many third world countries are in debt upto their ears just
    like Mexico with loan after loan rescheduled for decades. while
    lower oil prices have helped other countries to stay afloat it
    sunk mexican economy which is way too much dependent on oil revenues. 
    
    welcome to the new world order. 

    Mexico will also sell off there state owned businesses for much needed
    cash.  They are way over staffed which the new owners will attempt to
    right size leading to more unempoloyment, greater numbers leaving the
    country, and greater civil unrest.  We do not need a civil war on our 
    border.  I believe it is in our interest to help them out financially
    than to suffer an increased influx of emigrants, soon to be refugees.  
    
    Brian

The Mexicans should be forced to open up their nationalized oil
industry to private investment as a condition of this bailout.
Since they will default on outstanding debt, and will not pay back
this "loan" (what a joke), the condition of saving their sorry butts
should be a guarantee to share in their resources. The fact that this
isn't being insisted upon is what makes the US "offer" a dumb move.

    As I understand it in both the latest bailout plan as well as the
    original $ 40 billion plan Mexico pledged $ 7 Billion of oil revenues
    as loan collateral.
    
    It is a total joke to expect that the US would ever be able to collect
    this collateral. If the Mexican economy continues to falter the last
    thing the US is going to be able to do politically is to go to Mexico and
    say now that you have gotten into deeper economic trouble we are going
    to call the $ 7 Bn of collateral from you.
    
    At some point in the future the US will forgive any money Mexico might
    owe us just as we did with Egypt
    
    Lyndon

    The common misconception is expressed in the base note (i.e., that 
    we are sending Mexico $20 billion).  The reality is that it is a 
    loan guarantee---we are, in effect, cosigners---so no money is 
    actually being transferred from the U.S. Treasury.  The U.S. is not 
    loaning them anything.  In addition, Mexico is putting up their 
    oil reserves a collateral.

    In my opinion, this is the first thing Clinton has done right. He
    listened to good advice and his actions staved off an economic crisis.

    We all realize that a major crisis is coming, but why force it to
    happen now? It is not in America's best interest to have a weak peso.
    If Mexico collapses, it will be the first domino to fall. Then try
    exporting your goods. Lotsa luck.

    Glenn

Just out of curiosity, are Les Canadiennes anteing up anything to assist
their brethren to the south?

    The arguments against it:
    
    1. We'd essentially be bailing out Wall Street investors who bought
    bonds which were dollar-based -- Mexico had to pay in pesos based on the
    current dollar value. Since the peso has dropped through the floor, it
    now takes a gazillion more pesos than expected, and they are close to
    default each day as new bonds come due. No problem if the investors
    simply bought more of these bonds (they were *always* high interest,
    and are more so now), but investors are running like crazy. Mexico
    needs our loan guarantee to ship the dough back to Wall Street.
    
    2. The Mexican government is not competently handling the economics.
    They should have been gently devaluing the peso over the last year or
    so. But because of the presidential election they held off. Economists
    who were paying attention said it was dangerously overvalued, but no
    one in the Mexican government wanted to dump a lower standard of living
    on the people just before the election, and the US govt was too
    invested in supporting NAFTA to say anything either (the various market
    economic policies and free-trade policies of NAFTA led to the needed
    devaluation)
    
    The arguments for it:
    
    1. Our economies are too intertwined to allow this crisis to put the
    Mexican government in default. There's no way to stabilize the peso to
    allow for economic growth without also paying off the wealthy
    investors. And if the peso is not stablilized, the rest of the Mexican
    economy falls into recession and depression and we can't afford that.
    
    2. Ditto in Mexico -- NAFTA and market economics are killing the
    non-rich in Mexico, but they don't have a choice. They've got to ride
    this horse.
    
    3. A greatly worsened Mexican economy also increases illegal
    immigration to the US
    
    4. Lots of the investment instruments (like the aforementionned bonds)
    are not held just by wealthy speculators, but are part of all kinds of
    pension funds and mutual funds that are broadly held by Americans.   
    
    
    The politics of this:
    
    Congressional leadership, administration, usual big-wig suspects from 
    various administrations dating back to Millard Fillmore favored the $40B 
    guarantee. Most Repubs favored, but enough Dems were balking that the
    delay was taking them beyond the likely default D-Day -- and they
    might have dumped it altogether. Repub leaders liked having President
    on the spot, so didn't speak up.  
    
    All Congresscritters breathed huge sigh of relief to have
    responsibility taken off their backs.
    
    
    That's all I can think of off the top of my head.
    
    Kit

    re: .8
    
    yes, Canada is putting up $2b, with our $20.  Other increases from
    World Bank, and a bunch of other western hemisphere and other wealthy
    industrial nations.  The broader subscription to add to our $20b than
    was envisioned with the original $40b is also considered a good sign.
    
    Kit

    re: .6
    
    Yeah, I picked that up in another topic where this discussion was going
    on.  Loan guarantee/co-signer...okay.
    
    Where is the money coming from?  Why did the president use an EO to
    push something throught that the poeple made clear (to Congress) that
    they did not want to do?
    
    This "guarantee" will turn into a full-scale bail-out.  Since we
    guarantee the money (and I doubt that NONE of the money comes out of
    our own coffers), we will have a vested interest and may end up
    sending money anyway (if part of the loan does not come out of our
    coffers).
    
    This is just a glimpse at the future.  As mentioned previously, many
    third-world nations are in the same boat as Mexico..who will bail them
    out?  Is the World Bank going to pass out cheap loans to the nations in
    question?  If so, what happens when these countries inevitably default
    on the loans?
    
    Welcome to the new world order, indeed.
    
    -steve

re:                      <<< Note 274.6 by JARETH::WIGGINS >>>

>    we are sending Mexico $20 billion).  The reality is that it is a 
>    loan guarantee---we are, in effect, cosigners---so no money is 
>    actually being transferred from the U.S. Treasury.  The U.S. is not 
>    loaning them anything.  In addition, Mexico is putting up their 
>    oil reserves a collateral.

1) As has been stated, the chances of anyone trying to "collect" on
   the collateral are two - slim, and none.
2) As has also been stated, when Mexico defaults, which it will, since
   it's done nothing to put itself at real risk, such as de-nationalizing
   its petroleum resources, we, as "cosigners" will have the responsibility
   of making good on the debt, at which point the money will be transferred.

It's not a question of "if", only a question of "when". And "when" is
"very soon".

You are correct insofar as we are not loaning them anything. It is a free
grant with no expectation of repayment, which is what constitutes a loan.

    Another dilemna of liberalism. If we don't give them money they will
    all come here... not a dilemna for conservatism. Don't give them money,
    here or there. If they're here illegally, they're miserable and might
    as well go home and be miserable there.
    
    And as far as this being a "loan guarantee" and not "giving them
    money". Puhleeeeeze. Let's just crank up that deficit a little
    more as the federal government not only pays the tab on default,
    pays the interest associated with the default, and then, pay
    the interest on that interest as the feds borrow money to pay
    for this bailout. Good plan. Let them rot. Better plan.
    
    -b

    Lots of good arguments both for and against...but where will it end? 
    Third world countries are not the only ones in debt up to their ears. 
    The US is in pretty hot water in the ol' bank account department
    themselves.  If we continue to play hero, we're gonna be the ones
    looking for financial aid...and where do you suppose that's gonna come
    from?
    
    MJ

    How many new world orders have there been? I'd say lots. Governments
    don't last, monarchies don't last, currencies don't last. If you can
    believe that what is happening is due to some great sinister plan then
    why worry? Just let them put the mark of the beast on your left hand or
    on your tongue or something.
    
    Glenn

    re: .13
    
    Nice try, but the whole NAFTA/free market/free trade shtick, while
    pretty bipartisan, comes more from the conservative end of the spectrum
    and is opposed more by liberals than conservatives.  
    
    The loan guarantee is smack-dab in the middle of and part-and-parcel of
    that set of policies.
    
    Kit

    Kit,
    
    >Nice try, but the whole NAFTA/free market/free trade shtick, while
    >pretty bipartisan, comes more from the conservative end of the spectrum
    
    That depends what you mean by conservative. NAFTA comes more from
    the business owner/manager constituency of the Republicans, than
    it does from the grass roots of conservatism that accomplished
    the overthrow of Congress. I would bet NAFTA would have a tougher
    road to hoe today, even if the current situation in Mexico were
    different.
    
    >and is opposed more by liberals than conservatives.  
    
    You assume labor == liberals. NAFTA was opposed by the labor
    constituency of the Democrats for reasons which had nothing to
    do with the general ideals of liberalism... it had to do with
    the greed of labor and the thought that people should be paid
    a ridiculous wage for unskilled jobs that pay lesser amounts
    in other countries.
    
    -b

RE                       <<< Note 274.16 by DOCTP::BINNS >>>

>    Nice try, but the whole NAFTA/free market/free trade shtick, while
>    pretty bipartisan, comes more from the conservative end of the spectrum
>    and is opposed more by liberals than conservatives.  

  Well not really. It's opposed by democrats who get most of their support from
labor unions. For the most part, labor unions represent the conservative part
of the democratic party. 

  This is not really a conservative/liberal issue since it doesn't involve
government regulation which is favored by liberals or moral regulation which is
favored by conservatives. The idea of giant free markets is more of a
libertarian thing. 

  George 

    
    
     Anyone have any idea who the guarantor is for the World Bank and/or
    the IMF???

    Satan.

    Burma.

    I BELEIVE the world bank/IMF is over seen by the most industialized
    nations, i.e. Japan, U.S., France, England and or the U.N. This is only
    a guess mind you so please save my head for the next issue.
    

    I panicked.

    
    	re .6
    
>    The common misconception is expressed in the base note (i.e., that 
>    we are sending Mexico $20 billion).  The reality is that it is a 
>    loan guarantee---we are, in effect, cosigners---so no money is 
>    actually being transferred from the U.S. Treasury.  
    
    I don't believe this is correct. The initial plan was for a loan
    guarantee, but that required a law (and congressional action) to
    make it take place. As of yesterday the loan guarantee went away,
    and 20B from our treasury is being used. This money is in an
    "emergency" fund to be used in times when the dollar in in crisis.
    It was to be used to support the dollar. The president has
    the power to use this money for other things.
    
    Just the same. I support the president in this action. I think
    it took a lot of guts. 

>    Just the same. I support the president in this action. I think
>    it took a lot of guts.
    
    Maybe...but he'd better watch out or his guts could be trailed out all
    over the place with out any funding to sew them back up.  Jeez, sounds
    like the health care crisis!                    
    

    
    .25 is right about the EO for $20B.
    
    BTW, the total need keeps growing. Started with 20B, grew to 40B 
    and now stands at 50B+ and growing.

    The Wall Street firm with the biggest exposure to Mexican debt is
    Goldman Sachs.  Robert Rubin, the Treasury Secretary, is pushing very
    hard for the bailout bill.  Guess what Wall Street firm Mr. Rubin was
    at before coming to Washington?  Goldman Sachs.

    I have a better idea. Let's buy Mexico.

    re: .15
    
    None like the one heading our way (as this conspiracy nut sees it,
    anyway  8^) ).  I'd say that your are right as far as the staying power
    of a new world order.  The next one will last 7 years.
    
    -steve (who won't take no steengking mark)

    How can you tell if the next world order will be that of the beast's?

    Better hurry up and help Hal Lindsay build the temple in Jerusalem!

    re: .31
    
    Call it a hunch based on current events.
    
    
    So...what would you say if temple construction actually got underway?
    
    -steve

    A hunch? That's one big hunch.

    If the construction of the temple did begin, I'd have to say "Wow, I
    wonder how long it will be before the middle east melts with fervent
    heat."

    Even if a new temple was completed it still could be destroyed and then
    rebuilt again and then destroyed again and then rebuilt. Who are we to
    say that we are the terminal generation?

    So much for NAFTA.
    So much for doing what the people want.  (invoke exec order and do
    it anyways.  That's a spit in the face).
    
    His collateral will be oil reciepts as opposed to oil RESERVES.
    So if Mexico goofs on a payment, the US has to wait in line behind
    the other creditors.  I'd much rather be able to tell mexico to
    pump MY 5Billion barrels of oil out of the ground - right now.
    
    MadMike

    
    
    What burns me, is that if an American citizen DEARS to OWE the US
    government $1 (IRS, student loan.... etc..) the will come down on 
    you with EXTREME PREJUDICE....!! NO QUESTIONS ASKED....
    
    But NOOO... a foreign gov. screws up..... BINGO we open our big,
    fat pockets....!!!!
    
    Sick of it....!!!!

    What are citizen dears?

    
    
    nice citizens of course!
    

    re: .35
    
    I've noticed this tendency, too.

    re: .33
    
>    A hunch? That's one big hunch.

    No, not really.  But then again, I certainly can't prove my hunch,
    either.
    
>    If the construction of the temple did begin, I'd have to say "Wow, I
>    wonder how long it will be before the middle east melts with fervent
>    heat."
    
    8^)
    
>    Even if a new temple was completed it still could be destroyed and then
>    rebuilt again and then destroyed again and then rebuilt. 
    
    Not according to Biblical prophesy, it won't. (I'm not going to
    further rathole my topic with details...perhaps we can start another
    topic.  8^) )
    
>    Who are we to say that we are the terminal generation?
    
    There are plenty of signs that point to this generation, the main one
    being Jesus' prophesy regarding Isreal (in Luke and Mat., I
    believe).
    
    -steve 

    Yes, this is off topic.

    re: .40
    
    I knew that.   Trouble is, my fingers are phonetic.  8^)

    You're pronouncing it wrong.

    Maybe I missed it somewhere in this string; But, I was listening
    to a couple congress critters, who felt that the bailout was not
    only for the Mexican Govt.;' but also for the many American companies
    that took advantage of ole' slicks' NAFTA treaty.  
    
    To me, it sounds like a bailout of Big businesses, and ole' slicks
    lack of ability make credible decisions.  
    
    Here is an example of what I see/think..
    
    1) Nafta is signed.
       
        a) Companies move to Mexico to avoid Unemployment costs, medical
    costs, EPA issues, ETC.  ETC. ETC.
    
    2) Poopoo hits the fan in Mexico, ecocomically and the Adventurious
    business decide they need a bailout from the same employess taxes
    that they took the jobs away to begin with. 
    
    I love our current govt.' 
    
    
    Ole slick is about corrupt.
    
    
    Sin-te-da

    Whoooo.  That my friends, is scary.

    Kit's summary in .9 or .10 was right on.
    
    This from .11 is laughable.
    
    > Why did the president use an EO to push something throught that the
    > poeple made clear (to Congress) that they did not want to do?
    
    The people have made no such thing "clear".  There is a complete dearth
    of responsible analysis and big picture comprehension.  The President
    happens to be in a position to know a lot better than to allow the
    ignorance of the people to determine policy.  Of course, if he doesn't
    educate them as to the wisdom of his policy, he'll pay a political
    price; but it will be for getting the politics wrong, not the substance
    of the policy.
    
    .34> So much for doing what the people want.  (invoke exec order and do 
    > it anyways.  That's a spit in the face).
    
    Similarly invalid.  The people don't want more illegals, which they'll
    get if Mexico defaults; the people don't want lost jobs, which they'll
    get if Mexico defaults.
    
    DougO

    .44   No, it's not primarily about bailing out Mexico, it's mostly
         about bailing out investors (mostly American)
    
    .45  you get the idea when you talk about NAFTA, although this crisis
         is not directly about companies moving to Mexico 
    
    > to avoid Unemployment costs, medical costs, EPA issues, ETC.  ETC. ETC.
    
    While that is true, the bailout results from a financial crisis related
    to the fall in value of the peso as a result of Mexico moving to a
    market economy, and the mismanagement of that transition.  
    
    Read .9 for a summary.
    
    And don't confuse yourselves by trying to wedge this into your easy
    Manichean vision of Clinton vs Goodness. Free trade, which is what this
    is about, is supported by the vast majority of Americans and by most
    elements of both parties. (Did you hear Newt praising Clinton to high
    heavens yesterday!?) 
    
    Among liberals the qualms relate to the continued decline in the US
    standard of living, environmental reasons, and issues of supporting
    non-democratic regimes.  Among the smaller group of conservatives who
    also have qualms, the issues relate primarily  to sovereignty.
    
    
    Kit

    re: .43
    
    That's a possibility, too.

    
    Re: .47
    
    Amazing. You are forgetting that it was Clinton who asked for
    congressional (read people) approval for the Mexican bail out.
    When that *hit got messey, he figured why mess around with the
    democratic process and went with EO. This big picture crap came
    about only after it became clear that mexican bail out is in fact
    a bail out of the wall street investors who were collecting 20%+
    interest on their invesments and now want the US taxpayer to cover
    their losses. 
    Noboby is that naive to beleive that mexican situation happened
    in last few months. It has been going on for years and both
    governments successfully conspired to keep it covered till NAFTA
    and Mexican election. Mexican bail out by US was alreday figured
    into all equations by investors as well as NAFTA promoters.
    BTW, Republicans hands are not clean either and they are in it
    knee deep. 

    re: .50
    
  >  Noboby is that naive to beleive that mexican situation happened
  >  in last few months. It has been going on for years and both
    
    No, the peso problem leading to the bailout is the result of NAFTA and
    associated free(r) trade. It has occured over the last year to year
    and a half. Had the peso been devalued slowly over that time this
    probably would not have happened. Both governments refused to deal with
    it because of the impending Mexican election.
    
 >   When that *hit got messey, he [Clinton] figured why mess around with the
 >   democratic process and went with EO. This big picture crap came
    
    No, default on the peso-bono (sp) loans was imminent. There was no time
    to wait for the bailout to go through Congress. And Congress is
    thrilled they didn't have to go on record. Dole said so expicitly. And
    Gingrich is all over himself about what a hero Clinton is for doing it.
    Together, they would have passed the 40b bailout, and if it failed, it
    would have been because Clinton couldn't hold enough Democrats in line,
    not because of lack of Republican support.  
    
    Kit

    I agree...welfare for the rich.
    
    I also question this business of EOs...scary, IMO.
    
    -steve

re: .47, DougO

>			The people don't want more illegals, which they'll
>    get if Mexico defaults

Well, there you have it. We gotta bailout Mexico in order to avoid more
illegal aliens.

How ridiculous can you get?

Tougher INS enforcement, enforcement of 187 and a few other well placed
conservative policies could keep the illegal alien influx stemmed
regardless of whether or not they're starving to death south of the border.
It (their "discomfort" in their own country) is not our problem to fix
and a liberal mindset that tries to make it so is PotP.

Perhaps lacing the border from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific with
claymores, as was suggested by a radio talk show caller the other night,
has possibilities . . . 

    
    
    Claymores?? Are you kidding???
    
    Those civil rights "activists" went ballistic when they found out the
    INS was going to use some sort of magic dust that was only seen through
    special glasses (don't remember the whole thing) and stuck to the
    individuals passing through it so they could be identified easily...
    

                        <<< Note 274.50 by ICS::VERMA >>>

>This big picture crap came
>    about only after it became clear that mexican bail out is in fact
>    a bail out of the wall street investors who were collecting 20%+
>    interest on their invesments and now want the US taxpayer to cover
>    their losses. 

	Not taking sides yet, but it should be noted that a large
	number of those "wall street investors" are regular folks
	that have invested in mutual funds as well as pension plan
	trustees who were trying to do the best they could to
	maximize their investments.

	A lot of "not rich" folks stand to be seriously affected
	by the Mexican crisis.

Jim

re: .55

>	Not taking sides yet, but it should be noted that a large
>	number of those "wall street investors" are regular folks
>	that have invested in mutual funds as well as pension plan
>	trustees who were trying to do the best they could to
>	maximize their investments.

Mutual funds come with a perspectus.  Pension fund managers have a feduciary
duty.  No sympathy for either of them from me.  I don't see why I should bail
anyone (rich or poor) out of bad investment decisions.  If there was fraud
involved, get the district attorney involved.

I have an investment that has lost 99.99% of its value in the past 10 months.
I take 100% of the blame for the decision to make that particular investment.
You win some, you lose some.

Bob

    
    The Fed kicked up interest rates again the other day, another .5.
    That makes 7 times in a year, ranging from .25 to .75 a pop.  Um,
    excuse me, but where is the inflation they are fighting ?  I guess
    the argument is that you are shadowboxing, and once you see it, it's
    too late.  Tough job !
    
    The relevance to Mexico is that this makes it worse.  If it took 40%
    interest to sell a Mexican bond before, raising our rates a little
    will raise their rates a lot.  Don't be surprised if 40 gigabucks
    turns out to be only half what is needed.  We've seen this sort of
    cost creep under scrutiny before.
    
      bb

    Where's that third party?  Are they going to be ready in time for '96?
    
    Chris

    Re: .51  
    
    Kit:    

    >No, the peso problem leading to the bailout is the result of NAFTA and
    >associated free(r) trade. It has occured over the last year to year
    >and a half. Had the peso been devalued slowly over that time this
    >probably would not have happened. Both governments refused to deal with
    >it because of the impending Mexican election.

    Long before the elections it was common knowledge that mexico had become
    an economic powder keg. WSJ had several articles on this issue. But Bush
    and Clinton chose to ignore any crticism of mexican economy so as not to
    hurt NAFTA passage. Clinton went as far as glorifying mexican economy
    that if US did not sign NAFTA, Japan will and Europeans can't wait to
    get in. All those that voiced concerns over mexico were demonized as
    isolationists. the reason Peso was not devalued slowley and before
    NAFTA was calculated and delibrate to get NAFTA passage. In essence,
    it was deception and conspiracy of governments of mexico and US that
    resulted in this crisis. As always, the US taxpayer is forced to pay.  

    
   >No, default on the peso-bono (sp) loans was imminent. 
    
    It was neglected and covered long enough to become imminent. I don't
    see it as a catastrophy if Mexico defaults. People who took risks with
    their investments will lose money but life will go on. Two arguments
    of increased illegal immigration and loss of US jobs are absurd.
    Immigration argument implies that we can't defend our borders so
    we should pay up. Job loss arguments  sounds like we should give
    mexico our money to enable them buying from us. That does not fit my  
    concept of a customer who gets paid to buy. Besides, over time we will 
    both go broke.

    >There was no time to wait for the bailout to go through Congress. 

    Creation of a crisis has been elevated to an art form by this 
    administartion period. 

    >And Congress is thrilled they didn't have to go on record. 
    >Dole said so expicitly. And Gingrich is all over himself about what 
    >a hero Clinton is for doing it. Together, they would have passed the 
    >40b bailout, and if it failed, it would have been because 
    >Clinton couldn't hold enough Democrats in line, not because of lack 
    >of Republican support.  

    Your right. As I said Republicans are not clean either. They were in
    it with Clinton on NAFTA, now they can't back out. Dole is just
    another political animal saying and doing things that will advance
    his political stature.

    
    Bottom line, I say let Mexico sink or swim on its own. 
    

re: .53
    
>Tougher INS enforcement, enforcement of 187 and a few other well placed
>conservative policies could keep the illegal alien influx stemmed
>regardless of whether or not they're starving to death south of the border.
    
    What a joke!  For 12 of the last 14 years the INS has been in the hands
    of Republican presidents, and the flood grows.
    
    Virtually no one welcomes the flood of illegal immigrants (except
    perhaps the businesses that profit directly or indirectly from them or
    the lowered wages they bring -- but they're not about to say so).
    
    It's simply not a partisan issue, no matter how much you try to stuff
    it into your neat little boxes, Jack.  Same as the peso bailout.
    
    Kit

>    What a joke!  For 12 of the last 14 years the INS has been in the hands
>    of Republican presidents, and the flood grows.

Then that's due to a lack of proper enforcement, which you can blame on
their Republican bosses if you like, but you can't blame it on a conservative
philosophy. (And I'll be the first to admit that not all Republican admins
had their brains in gear when it came to conservative philosophy.)

Claiming we need a bailout to keep it in control is quite clearly a liberal
cop out no matter how you look at it, as Verma stated quite well.

    <<< Note 274.56 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

>Mutual funds come with a perspectus.  Pension fund managers have a feduciary
>duty.  No sympathy for either of them from me.  I don't see why I should bail
>anyone (rich or poor) out of bad investment decisions.  If there was fraud
>involved, get the district attorney involved.

	Understood. I was merely commenting on the "welfare for the rich"
	statement. Like Brother Clinton's "tax on the rich" claim, there
	is a serious gap between the rhetoric and the truth.

Jim

    
    Re: .62
    
    rich in this case was as in Wall Street and Investment Banks rich.
    

                        <<< Note 274.63 by ICS::VERMA >>>
>                            -< money manipulators >-

	And I pointed out that it's not THEIR money that they are
	manipulating.

Jim

    
    .64
    
    understood. however I refuse to accept another class of victims
    who deserve compensation for having made risky investment.
    
    

    Some one pointed out last week that the S & L bailout started out
    with us "guaranteeing" loans.  We didn't have to cough of any cash
    initially, but we're sure paying it out now.
    
    

    re: .66
    
    well, not exactly. It's the *deposits* that are guaranteed, as they
    have been since the 30s.  The deposits are then the basis for loans.
    Problem was, with deregulation, speculators masquarading as bankers (or
    in cahoots with bankers, used deposits to invest in all kinds of stuff
    they'd never been allowed to before.  
    
    If the loans failed, the deposits in their banks were insured.
    Meanwhile, their speculator cronies  were essentially depositing big 
    chunks of the loan back in the bank, allowing even more loans based on
    bank deposit "assets", pyramid style.
    
    In an 80s-type speculative bubble, speculators never think they're
    going to be left holding the bag when it bursts. And even when it does,
    even most of those caught with their pants down usually made a pile
    before losing the last hand.
    
    Kit

    You can't blame this all on deregulation; it was corruption, plain and
    simple.  However, I will admit that deregulation opened the door too
    wide for the criminal element.
    
    -steve

    re: .68
    
    Sure, there was lots of illegality. But lots of it was clean as a
    whistle from the legal point of view.  With deregulation, a lot of
    sharpies saw how to take chances and not take the risks -- and we're
    paying for it.
    
    Kit

    re: .69
    
    I agree with you here.  But I call that "clean as a whistle"
    boondoggles as corruption, too.  Legal does not equal moral.  Congress
    legally spends more than it brings in, but I still find this practice
    corrupt.
    
    This is the problem when society turns away from common sense, common
    decency and ethical practices to embrace legalisms.  
    
    
    -steve

DougO says:
    
    The people have made no such thing "clear".  There is a complete dearth
    of responsible analysis and big picture comprehension.  The President
    happens to be in a position to know a lot better than to allow the
    ignorance of the people to determine policy.  Of course, if he doesn't
    educate them as to the wisdom of his policy, he'll pay a political
    price; but it will be for getting the politics wrong, not the substance
    of the policy.
    
Pardon me for being too stupid to understand this issue, like only
yer man (billc) can.  But, please point out to me in the Constitution where
BillC gets his authority to take taxpayer money and send it to other
countries.  Maybe bill should start by educating himself by reading the
Constitution, as opposed to wiping his arse with it every day.

    .34> So much for doing what the people want.  (invoke exec order and do 
    > it anyways.  That's a spit in the face).
    
    Similarly invalid.  The people don't want more illegals, which they'll
    get if Mexico defaults; the people don't want lost jobs, which they'll
    get if Mexico defaults.
    
No, irrelavent scare tactics.  "Hey... if you don't want the boogyman
to come, shut up and let me do this.  Don't worry, I know what I'm
doing..."  Yup.  America run by executive fiat.  We got problems alright.

MadMike

    Madmike, I'm not talking about "you" and "your ignorance"; I'm talking
    about your inaccurate rhetorical formulation "the people have", which
    was ridiculous.
    
    DougO

==================================================================

THE NEW AMERICAN -- March 6, 1995
Copyright 1994 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913

==================================================================

ARTICLE: World
TITLE: Bipartisan Bailout
AUTHOR: William F. Jasper

==================================================================

"The Administration can be faulted for lying back when Mexico was 
running through its reserves last year.... But it deserves credit 
for coming to Mexico's rescue." So intoned the New York Times in 
its lead editorial for February 2nd. A similarly astonishing 
admission came from Michael Clough, senior fellow at the Council 
on Foreign Relations (CFR) in a full-page op-ed piece for the 
February 5th Los Angeles Times. Clough acknowledged "most Americans 
know that Mexican officials and supporters of the North American 
Trade Agreement deliberately concealed Mexico's mounting financial 
difficulties last year, and that American investors and the Mexican 
upper classes benefited far more from the foreign capital flowing 
into Mexico than most American and Mexican workers."

Clough advised his comrades among the policy-making elites that in 
dealing with "globalization" issues they had better learn how to 
show they are "sensitive" to the concerns of Main Street, or "it 
is going to be difficult to build broad support even for policies, 
like the Mexican relief package, that clearly serve the public 
interest."

New World Preview

Such admissions by Establishment media organs are astonishing because: 
1) They demonstrate that the flagrant deception involving top U.S. and 
Mexican officials and Wall Street insiders in one of the biggest 
financial scams in history is so transparent that it is pointless to 
try to hide it; 2) these ho-hum dismissals of this colossal fraud are 
a signal that no media investigation will be forthcoming; 3) they are 
admissions that the same CFR-dominated media which overwhelmingly 
endorsed the fraudulent NAFTA and GATT agreements will continue to 
paper over other embarrassing potholes on the internationalist road 
to the "new world order"; 4) they are based on the supposition that 
we should blindly believe the promises of proven liars and deceivers.

Yes, we are getting a good taste of what "governance" in the new world 
order will be like -- should we allow the economic, political, and social 
"integration," "harmonization," and "globalization" so dear to the hearts 
of our ruling elites to go forward. With the stroke of a pen (and with 
the indispensable support of the Republican leadership and the Establish-
ment media cartel) President Clinton thumbed his nose at Congress and 
the American people, and started tens of billions of dollars flowing to 
Mexico. Some polls showed more than 80 percent of Americans surveyed were 
strongly opposed to the bailout. No matter; the President claimed "national 
security" was at stake.

Unable to get Congress to move on the President's $40 billion loan 
guarantee bill, the Administration announced on January 31st a new 
plan involving more than $50 billion that would not need congressional 
approval. The new plan included $20 billion from the U.S. Exchange 
Stabilization Fund, $17.8 billion from the International Monetary 
Fund (IMF), $10 billion from the Bank for International Settlements, 
and some $3 billion from commercial banks.

President Clinton, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (CFR), and other 
officials assured all concerned that there is "no risk" involved in 
the deal and that Mexico is merely suffering a "temporary liquidity 
crisis" that will be cured with yankee dollars.

A Few Dissenters

Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and 
other GOP leaders signed on, but few GOP regulars shared their 
enthusiasm. The GOP freshmen, especially, and a few of the party's 
hardcore conservative veterans refused to take the measure lying down. 
Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) was particularly exercised over 
the President's circumvention of Congress. In a press statement on 
February 2nd, Hunter charged: "President Bill Clinton is determined 
to do whatever it takes to 'save' Mexico. This includes defying the 
will of Congress and the vast majority of the American people who 
oppose throwing good money after bad to save those who speculated in 
the risky Mexico bubble economy."

Hunter, who opposed NAFTA and had warned its proponents of the false 
promises of the Mexican economy, continued in his press statement:

    "The latest scheme is to raid the Exchange Stabilization Fund 
    for up to $20 billion to restructure Mexico's foreign debts. 
    The ESF was set up in 1934 to defend the value of the dollar 
    after the U.S. abandoned the gold standard. Its use has evolved 
    over time, but its function is still to make short-term 
    adjustments in the currency markets. It is forbidden by statute 
    from making loans for more than six months unless 'the President 
    gives Congress a written statement that unique and emergency 
    circumstances require the loan or credit for more than six months.' 
    No President has invoked this 'emergency' power before, not even 
    during the 1982 Mexican default. But this President is desperate 
    to get his hands on some large pot of money he can use without 
    congressional interference. According to figures published by the 
    Treasury Department in December, the entire capital of the ESF is 
    only $22.1 billion -- and Clinton wants to send up to 90 percent 
    of this south of the border."

Hollow Promises

Hunter and other members of Congress have been warning that the 
Administration's promises that the loans and loan guarantees will be 
backed by Mexico's oil revenues are as hollow as the earlier promises 
of a stable and robust Mexican economy. Those revenues are already 
pledged to other creditors.

Representative Hunter notes: "Arguing that without a bailout Mexico can 
no longer afford high U.S. exports misses the real point: Mexico has 
never been able to afford the level of exports sent south in recent 
years. It's been living on debt. It's been like turning a teenager loose 
in a mall with the parents' credit cards. This strategy cannot be 
sustained. The limits of private financing have been reached in support 
of a policy whose flaws have been revealed. We are now being asked to 
risk public funds in a vain attempt to keep the wheels spinning a few 
more years."

"But it is already too late," says Hunter. "The real threat to American 
interests is the devaluation of the peso, which the bailout will not 
reverse. Clinton's turn to the International Monetary Fund for $17.8 
billion in loans to Mexico confirms this. The IMF always counsels 
devaluation and austerity to turn around current account balances."

Representative Hunter has joined freshman Representative Steve Stockman 
(R-TX), who introduced H.R. 807, the "Taxpayer Protection Act of 1995," 
on February 1st in an attempt to block the bailout. Stockman, who last 
November defeated 42-year House veteran Jack Brooks for Texas' 9th 
Congressional District seat, has emerged as one of the leading GOP 
"renegades." The Stockman measure is short, simple, and clear, stating:

    "No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any 
    provision of law, for any fiscal year, may be used in any way, 
    directly or indirectly, for the purpose of any swap, loan, loan 
    guarantee, or grant to Mexico unless and until Congress has 
    affirmatively approved such swap, loan, loan guarantee, or grant 
    to Mexico."

By February 6th, Stockman had 20 cosponsors: Dana Rohrbacher, David 
Funderburk, Dan Burton, Helen Chenoweth, Wes Cooley, Jon Fox, Greg 
Ganske, Gil Gutknecht, J.D. Hayworth, Duncan Hunter, Jack Metcalf, 
Matt Salmon, Mark Sanford, Joe Scarborough, Andrea Seastrand, Mark 
Souder, Zach Wamp, Wally Herger, Robert Dornan, and Robert Ney. But 
it is not likely to go anywhere with Newt Gingrich at the helm.

The lengths to which Gingrich will go to quash dissent within the ranks 
was made evident when Vice President Al Gore addressed the GOP caucus 
on February 1st. At the meeting, Representative John Boehner (R-OH), 
chairman of the Republican Conference, joined other GOP members in 
criticizing the bailout plan and claimed, "The Administration failed 
to make a case for our involvement over these last two weeks." House 
Speaker Gingrich would not tolerate even this mild dissension from 
"his" troops. Standing beside Gore, he called President Clinton's 
decision "courageous" and rebuked Boehner. "I think its very unfortunate 
to have a member of the [GOP] leadership come out when the Vice President 
is here being very helpful and cooperative," said Gingrich. "I commend 
the President for his decisiveness. It was a very sobering, very hard 
decision."

Like many other members of Congress, Representative Boehner said he had 
never even heard of the Exchange Stabilization Fund before and called 
for congressional hearings to find out "who knew what and when they 
knew it." But Newt has that base covered too; the chairman of the House 
Banking Committee is Representative Jim Leach (R_IA, CFR), a staunch 
internationalist and supporter of the bailout. Leach will not begin to 
ask the questions that beg to be asked. He will not expose the enormous 
conflict of interest involving Treasury Secretary Rubin and Goldman 
Sachs and Company, the giant Wall Street investment firm that he chaired 
until joining Team Clinton in 1993. It was Rubin and Goldman Sachs who 
were (are) the lead players in marketing billions of Mexico's junk bonds 
that the taxpayers are now bailing out.

Global Money

Many taxpayers are understandably angry over this blatant corruption. 
Talk show hosts and columnists have rightfully denounced it as a bailout 
for unscrupulous Wall Street bankers and brokers. It is that, but it is 
much more than that. It is part and parcel of the long-range plans of 
the leading savants of the CFR elite to create a global monetary system 
with a global currency and a global central bank under a global government. 
Which is why Treasury Secretary Rubin, IMF head Michel Camdessus, and 
other oracles of economic wisdom are bleating in unison that the lesson 
to be learned from the current "crisis" is that the IMF needs more money 
and more power.

The push will now be not only to "replenish" the IMF and ESF with 
billions more of our tax dollars, but to augment the powers of the 
IMF, the World Bank, and other multilateral institutions. In other 
words, get set for more robbery in the name of "stabilizing markets."

Congress must not only hear a deafening "NO" to these appeals, but 
must hear a thundering groundswell of Americans demanding that the 
U.S. withdraw altogether from the IMF and the whole UN "family" of 
institutions that threaten our prosperity, our sovereignty, and our 
liberty.

END OF ARTICLE

==================================================================

THE NEW AMERICAN -- March 6, 1995
Copyright 1994 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913

SUBSCRIPTIONS: $39.00/year (26 issues)

ATTENTION SYSOPS: Permission to repost articles from 
The New American may be obtained from the above address.

==================================================================
     ===================================================================
        The above text comes from The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070
     (long distance callers require manual upgrade, usually within hours)
     ===================================================================
        To subscribe to FWIW simply send the following:
        To: [email protected]
        Subj: (leave blank)
        Message:
        subscribe fwiw

        That's it!  The welcome letter will tell you more!
     ===================================================================




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA28105; Fri, 17 Feb 95 15:31:18 -050
% Received: from earth.execpc.com by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA24237; Fri, 17 Feb 95 12:05:24 -080
% Received: (from daemon@localhost) by earth.execpc.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id IAA20248 for fwiw-outgoing; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 08:27:43 -0600
% Received: (from jfish@localhost) by earth.execpc.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id IAA20238; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 08:27:39 -0600
% Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 08:27:37 -0600 (CST)
% From: James Fish <[email protected]>
% Subject: [FWIW] "Bailout" Duplicity.
% To: [email protected]
% Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9502170851.A19411-0100000@earth>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
% Sender: [email protected]
% Precedence: bulk
% Reply-To: [email protected]

    Aw...he's just one of those crazed conspiracy nuts.  No hidden agendas,
    no corruption...all is well.
    
    -steve

    you noticed!

THE MEXICAN RESCUE PACKAGE
 
[From The Congressional Record -- House, H1271-H1278, Feb. 6, 1995]
 
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 1995, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] is recognized for 60 minutes 
as the designee of the minority leader.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
Mr. Speaker, we are holding this special order this evening 
because our various offices here on Capitol Hill have been 
inundated with telephone calls and inquiries regarding the 
Mexican rescue package, and many questions are being asked by 
constituents and citizens of our country that we can not, in 
fact, answer.
 
I was asked today how much money has already left our U.S. 
Treasury as part of the drawdown on the deal that was announced 
last week by the Secretary of the Treasury and the President. The 
facts are that we cannot tell you.
 
Therefore tomorrow morning, likely after the morning business, 
there will be a special resolution brought up here in the House, 
and it will be a privileged resolution. In that resolution we 
will be asking for a vote of the House and a ruling of the 
Speaker so that we can obtain the information that we cannot give 
you this evening about the terms of the arrangement that was made 
by our Government with the nation of Mexico. Our resolution 
requires that the Comptroller General of the United States report 
back to us within a 7-day period.
 
So, we would try to draw to the Members' attention that this vote 
will likely occur tomorrow morning after the regular morning 
business, the 1-minutes and, perhaps, a vote on the Journal, and 
we will look forward to that moment.
 
It is likely that in the way that the resolution will be brought 
up there will be very little time for debate. There may actually 
be an effort by certain interests in this Chamber to table the 
resolution, and we would ask the Members to vote against tabling 
the resolution so that, in fact, we will have an opportunity to 
get the facts that we really want.
 
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
So, the situation we are confronted with is the Treasury, in 
concert with the Federal Reserve Board, agencies of the Federal 
Government of the United States, have extended, as far as we 
know, in excess of $40 billion of credits, loan guarantees, 
currency swaps and other instruments to Mexico, that our 
questions regarding the source of these funds, the exact amount 
and the term of these funds, whether or not these funds are 
somehow secured -- you know, what authorization exists for 
extending these funds without coming to Congress for 
appropriations; the gentlewoman [is] saying that there is a 
possibility that this House will not ask to have those questions 
answered, that we could just be shut down here on the floor by 
ruling of the chair, and we will have no opportunity for debate, 
no opportunity to go forward and ask these questions.
 
I, for one, as a Representative of a district from the Far West 
United States, feel that my constituents -- this is not the 
greatest issue before them, but they would certainly like to know 
what authority the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
the Federal Reserve, have, if it was extended to them by 
Congress, what amounts of money are controlled, what risks are 
involved, what collateral are involved. I mean all sorts of 
things we would like to know about even a small business 
transaction let alone one of this magnitude.
 
But in this ruling we could just be shut down and not have any 
opportunity to discuss that?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
That is really what the vote tomorrow is about. We know that the 
constitutional authority of the House as the place within the 
Congress; that is, the first to authorize and appropriate dollars 
through the U.S. Treasury, was essentially shut off. Our Members 
were muzzled. We were not privy to information that should be 
ours in relation to the dollars of our taxpayers being put at 
risk either inside the United States or outside the United 
States, and we thought we were going to have full debate and 
disclosure on this matter when a decision was made without the 
involvement of the legislative branch of the United States of 
America.
 
We now have to resort to special parliamentary tactics in order 
to bring this measure to a vote on the floor, and the gentleman 
is correct, that there are so many questions we want answers to 
that we are being asked, which are impossible for us to obtain, 
and we think that that is not what the Constitution intended, 
that in fact this is not a monarchy, this is not a parliamentary 
government. We are not an arm of the executive branch. We have 
our own status within the Constitution, and our constituents have 
an absolute right to know when their tax dollars are at risk, as 
they are, in this agreement, what the terms of that agreement 
are, what the terms of repayment are, what the nature of the 
collateral is. We need to know how fast money is being drawn 
down. Otherwise you cannot make a judgement as to what might 
happen in the future.
 
What type of precedent does this set? It is our understanding 
that never has the authority of this particular set of 
institutions within the Government of the United States been used 
to such a degree, and, therefore, we think there are some very 
serious constitutional questions to be asked, as well as 
questions to be asked about the nature of the agreement itself.
 
You know, I say with some humor this evening, "I hope the Mayor 
of Washington, DC, will take it in the humor that I offer it, 
but, you know that the District of Columbia here in our Nation's 
Capital has been having a lot of difficulty with its finances and 
is about to go bankrupt. It has been on all the pages here in the 
Nation's Capital and in other parts of the country, and we know 
that it's going to cost the District of Columbia real money to 
bail itself out, and it's money that we don't have in this 
Congress."
 
So I had an idea over the weekend that what we ought to do for 
the Mayor of Washington and the citizens of the Nation's Capital 
is to get the executive branch involved because they obviously 
are very creative in figuring out how to make things happen and 
make it seem as though you are not spending any real money, and 
they ought to work up a Mexico-type deal for Washington.
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
Perhaps, if the gentlewoman would yield, I like that idea, and 
perhaps what the Government of the District of Columbia could do 
would be similar to what Wall Street has been doing.
 
They can go down to Mexico, get a bunch of pesos, which are 
declining rapidly in value, and then they can take and exchange 
them to the Federal Reserve Board for United States dollars at a 
preferred rate, and by arbitraging this they can probably earn up 
to a billion quite readily, and they can pay off their debts.
 
I mean, if we can do this for the Government of Mexico and the 
Wall Street speculators, why would we not do it for the District 
of Columbia?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
I figure, if the Capital of Mexico can draw on the taxpayers of 
the United States, why should not the Capital of the United 
States be able to draw on the taxpayers of the United States? I 
agree with the gentleman, and, knowing that those tesobonos are 
paying anywhere between 20 and 40 percent interest rates, the 
Mayor of Washington would certainly be well advised to get in on 
that because he could probably get the money he needs in a flash.
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
I bet, if the gentlewoman would yield further, I would imagine, 
if the city were to engage, perhaps, Goldman Sachs as their 
financial adviser, perhaps they could do very well on this matter 
because, if I could go back to the questions the gentlewoman is 
asking, as I recall, the gentlewoman from Ohio and a number of us 
signed a letter with a series of questions probably 3 weeks ago --
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
There were 13.
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
To the Treasury and the Secretary of the Treasury and asked many 
of these same questions in a just, straightforward, and friendly 
manner. We thought it was things it was essential we know before 
any sort of bailout go forward.
 
Have we had any response?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
I am glad the gentleman put that on the *Record*.
 
We asked over 12 questions, over a dozen questions; the first 
one: Who are the creditors that Mexico was paying off, seeing as 
how they were going to be borrowing the money from us to do it. 
We wanted to know specifically. We did not want to know some sort 
of general answer.
 
We have received no reply from the Department of Treasury to our 
questions.
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
So, if the gentlewoman would yield further, it is not exactly 
like we are sandbagging them with this resolution of inquiry. We 
have been waiting 3 weeks on issues of national concern involving 
tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars, and we have had no 
response to a group of Members of Congress who have asked these 
questions.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
That is correct.
 
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].
 
 
MR. BROWN of Ohio:
You know, as bad as we thought, as bad an idea as we thought the 
bailout was 3 weeks ago, in the last few days, with Alan 
Greenspan and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates in this 
country, it only exacerbates the problem in Mexico. If you 
remember 2 weeks ago, 3 weeks ago, Mr. Greenspan was all over the 
Congress, lobbying, talking to Republicans, talking to Democrats, 
meeting with Speaker Gingrich, talking to the President, 
everybody he could, about this Mexican bailout on the one hand. 
Then on the other hand we began to hear stories that he was 
leaking out that the Federal Reserve is about to increase 
interest rates.
 
When that happens, when interest rates are increased in this 
country, which happened last week, in addition to what it does to 
home buying, homebuilding, the cost of credit, the costs to 
borrowed money for small businesses, all the hurt that puts on 
the economy, what it does with the Mexico situation is simply 
pull the rug out from under this whole bailout situation whereas 
the price, the cost, as the dollar gets stronger, the peso by 
definition gets weaker, which means that the $16 billion or so 
that Mexico already owes back to western investors gets more 
expensive so that it decreases the chance of pay back. It means 
those loan guarantees and direct loans may in fact not be paid 
back, but increases the chances there, and at the same time it 
undercuts the whole ability of the Mexican Government to get back 
on its feet in the Mexican society.
 
It simply does not make sense that the Federal Reserve did both 
of those things, or the Federal Reserve Chairman did both of 
those things the same month.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
If I might reclaim my time just for a second, does it not 
interest you that over the last year the Federal Reserve of our 
country raised interest rates six times, and during that period 
of time, of course, it became more lucrative for funds to be 
drawn into the United States and away from Mexico? This was all 
going on at the same time. We were asking ourselves why are 
interest rates going up in the United States when there is no 
inflation.
 
 
MR. BROWN of Ohio:
American investors were benefiting. There were incentive for 
American investors to pull their money out, and that is what 
accelerated the whole downward plunge of the peso. You couple the 
politics of NAFTA, that the Mexican Government and the American 
Government did not want any peso devaluation during NAFTA, the 
Mexican government did not want any peso devaluation, although it 
could have been done in small increments during their own 
Presidential elections. So the politics of Mexico and the easy 
availability of money sent to Mexico, and the American bankers 
and American investors sending their money down there, the 
Mexicans glad to receive it, certainly with the NAFTA stamp of 
approval, yes, our Government was saying it is O.K. to invest 
there, all played into this.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
If I might yield time to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. 
Sanders].
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio. We are back together again, 
right.
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
After hours.
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
Fourteen months ago many of us, all of us, and many other of our 
colleagues told the American people that we thought the NAFTA 
agreement was going to be a disaster. On the other side we had 
the President, we had the Republican leadership, we had virtually 
every major corporate newspaper in America, who were telling us 
what a wonderful deal NAFTA was going to be for American workers, 
for Mexican workers, and for the people in general.
 
Fourteen months have come and gone, and sadly, sadly, virtually 
every concern that we had at that time has proven to be true. And 
after the 14 months, instead of our friends who supported NAFTA 
coming forward and saying, "O.K., we admit it, we made a mistake, 
we were wrong, everybody is wrong, they were wrong"; but instead 
of coming forward and saying they were wrong, what they now come 
forward and say is, "Hey, we need a $40-plus billion loan 
guarantee to Mexico, because NAFTA has been such a success that 
the Mexican economy is disintegrating, their Government is 
extremely unstable, and therefore, at a time when small business 
in America is in trouble and we do not offer them loan 
guarantees, family farmers in America, we do not offer them loan 
guarantees, we have a $200 billion deficit."
 
And what irritates me very much is every single day on the floor 
of this House, Members of Congress say, "Hey, we have to cut back 
on Social Security, on Medicare, on Medicaid, on nutrition 
programs for hungry children and hungry senior citizens. We have 
got to do that." We do not have enough money. And yet apparently 
there is not quite that concern for putting $40 billion of 
taxpayers' money at risk for this bailout.
 
The first point I would like to make this evening in terms of 
this bailout is it is very interesting who is for it and who is 
against it. Polls indicate, I think the latest poll I saw is that 
some 80 percent of the American people are against this bailout. 
Maybe some of the viewers would say, well, obviously all the 
Mexican people are for this bailout.
 
Wrong. Polls indicate, as I understand it, that a healthy 
majority of Mexicans are against the bailout because they are 
concerned about the sovereignty of their nation.
 
 
MR. BROWN of Ohio:
If the gentleman will yield, including one of the major 
presidential candidates in Mexico who has come out against and 
spoken at a rally of literally tens of thousands of Mexicans, I 
would add.
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
So you have the American people against the bailout, you have the 
Mexican people against the bailout. And one of the frustrations 
that all of us share is that we know that, if that vote had come 
to the floor of the House, the U.S. Congress, House and Senate, 
Republicans and Democrats, and the only independent, were all 
against the bailout.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
How did the gentleman vote on this issue?
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
Well, that is a very interesting question. I was about to vote no 
for the bailout. Unfortunately, it never came to the floor of the 
House. I have not yet voted on it.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
How did Ms. Kaptur vote on the issue?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
On this bailout issue, we have not had a chance to vote on it.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
How did the Speaker of the House vote on the issue?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
The Speaker of the House has not had a chance to vote on this 
matter.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations I spoke with the 
other day. There has been no bill referred to his committee. 
There is not a bill that has been brought up here to the 
Congress.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
Twenty billion dollars of American tax dollars, and there was not 
a vote in the Congress of the United States. Is that what you are 
telling me?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
There has not been a vote here in the Congress of the United 
States.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
When will Congress get a chance to vote on this?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
We were trying very hard to get a vote, hopefully tomorrow. We 
introduced a bill on Friday. Because the Speaker will not bring 
up the bill, we have to use very unusual procedures to force a 
bill on the floor, which we expect will come up tomorrow sometime 
after 11 o'clock, under very prescribed rules where we will have 
very little opportunity to debate. But we have not been able to 
get any hearings in the committees of any significance. We have 
not been able to get a bill. The executive branch did this 
completely on their own, without the Congress being involved.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
Ms. Kaptur, is it really fair to say the executive branch did 
this entirely on their own? Let us go back the 13 months that my 
friend Mr. Sanders made reference to. What was then minority 
whip, now Speaker of the House Gingrich's position on NAFTA?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
Mr. Gingrich was a very strong supporter of NAFTA, and in fact 
when NAFTA got in trouble, he ended up rounding up the votes to 
ultimately pass it. There were I think 43 votes that were 
switched at the end.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
So again going back to what Mr. Sanders had to say, what 
incentive then does Speaker of the House Gingrich have to bring 
this to a vote? After all, his folks got their $20 billion. The 
American people are left holding the bag. Four hundred and 
thirty-five Congressmen never voted on it. Folks back home do not 
know if they were for it or against it. What recourse is there 
for a Member of Congress who feels like his constituents have 
gotten the short end of this stick and that his constituents' 
children have gotten the short end of the stick? After all, they 
have already lent $20 billion. But it is my understanding, please 
correct me if I am wrong, there is $35 billion in this fund. That 
means there is $15 billion still to be left at the whim of the 
President. To put that as a reference to the citizens of this 
country, $35 billion is roughly what this Nation will spend on 
its veterans this year. Yet, you are telling me, without a vote 
in this body, up to $35 billion can be pledged by the United 
States, with little or no guarantee that it will ever be repaid. 
As a matter of fact, I have heard the Mexicans have made only one 
debt payment one time in the past dozen years or so.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
If the gentleman will yield, what has been very interesting is if 
you look back over the decade of the 1980s, this fund was used 
every once in a while, especially around the 1982 Presidential 
elections in Mexico, to prop up that Government. There were loans 
made from this fund, $500 million, $1 billion. Then you went up 
to 1988 when there was another Presidential election in Mexico, 
and they used $1.1 or $1.2 billion out of the funds to prop up 
the existing Government there.
 
Now the Presidential elections of this past August 1994: The fund 
was used again over these numbers of years. Mexico has never 
really paid back its money. It has refinanced its debt, which is 
getting larger and larger and larger.
 
That is like if you had a credit card and you never paid the 
principal and you just kept adding more and more debt and then 
you were charged a higher interest rate.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
So if you would explain to the Members who might still be 
watching, what is it that you are trying to accomplish tomorrow?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
What we are trying to accomplish tomorrow is to give the 435 
Members of this House a chance to vote against the Mexican rescue 
package. We have essentially been muzzled. The executive branch, 
in conjunction with the leadership of this institution, went 
around the other 434 Members of the Congress of the United 
States.
 
We want our chance to vote.
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I would 
like to clarify, I think that we do not even have to characterize 
it in exactly that fashion. We are asking the basic questions 
regarding the extension of these credits to Mexico. How much 
money is involved? What risks are there for the U.S. taxpayer? 
And the series of interrogatories, someone could vote in support 
of our resolution tomorrow, not having made up their mind but 
saying as a representative of the people they need more 
information.
 
So I would say that the Members who would support our resolution 
would be both Members who already feel that they have enough 
information to say no to the bailout for Mexico, but I would say 
for the other Members of this body, I cannot imagine that any 
single person in this body who has not had those questions 
answered could vote in support of it.
 
I can see where you could still have an open mind and say, I 
would like to know what risks we have, how much it is costing, 
what the terms are, what our exposure is. But we do not have 
that. So I would characterize the vote tomorrow a little 
differently.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
The gentleman is correct. If one reads the resolution, it asks 
for us to have the constitutional authority retained here as we 
would hope we could tomorrow, and then it asks the Comptroller 
General to report back on the specifics of the package that was 
negotiated by the administration. I think the gentleman from 
Mississippi would like to comment.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
I wanted to get back to something the gentleman from Vermont 
mentioned, when he said that Wall Street was all in favor of 
NAFTA and Wall Street was all in favor of the bailout.
 
In fact, former U.S. Trade Representative, Ms. Carla Hills, who 
used to come regularly up to Congress and tell us what a great 
deal NAFTA was, has written an article for the Washington Post 
saying we have to bail out these poor people.
 
It was funny that just 1.5 years ago, when Ms. Hills came before 
the Merchant Marine Committee and I brought to her attention that 
a lot of shrimpers in the gulf coast, a lot of people in the 
garment plants would probably lose their jobs as a result of 
NAFTA, she said, "that is economic Darwinism. You just have to 
have some people who are going to suffer when things like this 
happen, but it is for the benefit of everybody that this 
happens."
 
Would someone explain the wisdom to me why it is O.K. to let 
somebody who makes $5.50 an hour working at a sewing machine all 
day lose their job, but when some Wall Street investor loses a 
couple of bucks on his investments down in Mexico, or maybe a lot 
more than a couple bucks, that it suddenly becomes the 
responsibility of the working people of this country, the very 
same working people that you may have put out of work to bail 
them out, to go on the line and cosign that loan? And above all, 
why is it right that this huge expenditure, the equivalent of the 
Veterans Administration budget, is being made available for the 
President alone to spend and the Congress of the United States, 
which is given the constitutional duty, not privilege but the 
constitutional duty to see how our money is spent, what kind of 
debts we incur, where is the Speaker? Where is the minority 
leader? Is this not crazy that neither party's head is demanding 
a vote on this and that 6, 7, 12 Members have to be the ones to 
come forward and, by using the rules of the House, demand a vote 
on this? It is just not right.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
It is interesting, because I come from the Midwest, midwestern 
part of our country, as did the gentleman from Ohio, Congressman 
Brown, who has joined us, the gentleman from Vermont, Congressman 
Sanders, comes from the northeast, the gentleman comes from the 
Deep South in Mississippi, the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 
DeFazio, it has been very interesting to me to see the breadth of 
support inside this institution on this issue.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
If I may interrupt, on both sides of the aisle.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
On both sides of the aisle.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
There are, I believe as many Republican sponsors of this 
resolution as Democrats. I think that is very important, because 
I think a number of the Republicans are at odds with what their 
leadership has done, which is, again, to deprive the majority of 
the Members of this body just expressing this sentiment, yes or 
no, this is a tremendous obligation.
 
I know it is more than three times the State budget for a whole 
year of my home State.
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
If the gentlewoman would yield further, I was talking to a 
freshman Republican Member today, and that freshman stated 
unequivocally that they had done a whip of their own group and 
there were 3 Members of the 73-Member Republican freshman class 
who were prepared or leaning toward voting for the bailout of 
Mexico.
 
So I think what has happened here is the leaders on both sides 
can count, and they did count. When they counted, they found 
probably out of this entire institution, the representatives of 
the people of the United States of America, duly elected and all 
equal under the Constitution, that probably less than 100 were 
willing to vote for this bailout.
 
Now I guess what we are being told is we just do not know, we 
just do not know the facts. Well, then, give us the facts. That 
is what we are asking here. If there are facts that would change 
my mind, bring them forward. But there is an absence of fact and 
we are being treated as though we, as elected representatives of 
the people, well, we just do not know better. This is something 
that the big folks on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve decided in 
secret, Robin Rubin, managing director of Goldman, Sachs and the 
President behind closed doors, and public discussion is 
foreclosed and votes of the people are prohibited.
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
My friend from Oregon is exactly right, as is my friend from 
Mississippi.
 
My friend from Mississippi makes an interesting point, if he will 
allow me to amplify his statement a little bit, that all over 
this country there are people who work for $5 an hour and $6 an 
hour and $8 an hour. And they go to work every day and many of 
them do not have any health insurance, and we are told that the 
Government does not have the money to provide health insurance. 
Their jobs are uprooted and taken to Mexico or to China and we 
are told, "Hey, that is the way life goes, that is what the 
market system is about, no security, you are out on the street." 
They pay unfairly too much in taxes, that is the way the system 
goes.
 
And nobody is hearing their pain. And then suddenly our friends 
from Wall Street, who by the way, let us be honest about this, in 
the last few years have made out like bandits in their 
investments in Mexico. In the city of Burlington, Vermont, people 
put their money in the savings bank to make 3 percent, 4 percent, 
5 percent, safe investment; in Mexico people were making 50 
percent, people were making 100 percent of their investments. And 
then suddenly, for reasons that we do not fully know, we know 
some of them, the economy of Mexico took a tumble and their 
investments went sour.
 
And how amazing it is, and I remember this when I was mayor of 
the city of Burlington, it was not the poor people and the 
working people who came into my office to ask for help. It was 
always the powerful and the wealthy who tell us, "What can you do 
for us?" and they are back again. These people who have the 
money, who have made out like bandits, have suddenly taken a 
loss.
 
Well, when you invest in a risky proposition, that is the nature 
of the game, is it not? You stand to win a lot if things go well, 
you stand to lose if things go badly.
 
I absolutely agree with my friend from Mississippi that it is an 
outrage to go back to the working people in this country, some of 
them who have lost their jobs from these very same folks who have 
taken their plants to Mexico, and then to ask working people of 
America to bail them out.
 
To pick up on the point from my friend from Oregon, what makes me 
really sad is not only the horror of this whole agreement, but in 
fact as a result of it there will be even more people giving up 
on the democratic process. We just had an election recently and 
62 percent of the people did not come out to vote. They no longer 
believe that the Government of the United States represents their 
interests. What do you think this action on the part of the 
President is going to do to the political process?
 
You are standing up from Oregon, you are standing up from 
Mississippi, you are standing up from Ohio, many of us are 
standing up and the people are saying, "What difference does it 
make? Thanks for standing up for us, but you don't have any 
power. We send you here to represent us but you can't do anything 
about it. Why do you want me to come out and vote for you or vote 
for anybody else?"
 
I think one of the other aspects about this agreement which 
disturbs me is not only the agreement itself, which we disagree 
with, but the process which denies the elected officials of this 
country to stand up and do what is best for their districts.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman raises some excellent, 
excellent points. I know that there are working people across 
this country who feel that they have lost voice at the highest 
levels of our Government.
 
What is equally disturbing to think about, Mr. Speaker, is that 
for the people of Mexico who have no voice, the working people of 
Mexico who have no voice, if our Government, and I think they 
were in cahoots with the top leaders of Mexico, has now caused 
the standard of living in Mexico to be cut by half, and it wasn't 
very high anyway, there are people who are hungry and there are 
people who are streaming across our borders now because our 
Government was too greedy for some of the interests that 
supported it and some of the top leaders in the Government of the 
United States, then shame on us as the most powerful economic 
force on this continent.
 
I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], who 
wanted to make a comment.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
The only point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, and I wanted to get 
back as to the very eloquent delivery by the former mayor of 
Burlington, could he not just vote against the appropriation for 
this when it comes up?
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
If the gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, if I had the opportunity to, 
I could and I would, but I do not have the opportunity. 
Unfortunately, as we have been discussing, we do not have that 
opportunity.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting that every group -- there are 
groups like the National Taxpayers Union, Common Cause, groups 
that represent the defense industry, groups that represent the 
homeless, everyone has a score card on how you voted. You hear 
the Nation has incurred at least a $20 billion liability and 
there was not even a vote on it, and there will not be a vote on 
it next year or the following year or the following year, unless 
something happens.
 
Mr. Speaker, I think the point all of us are trying to make, and 
maybe not saying as well as we can, is that the reason we need 
the information, the reason for the vote tomorrow morning, is 
that, No. 1, we find out just how far our liability goes with 
this; just what kind of assets, if any, the Mexicans have 
pledged. I have heard they pledged oil revenues that have already 
been pledged to pay other bills, so, therefore, they are really 
not available to get our money back. What kind of track record do 
the Mexicans have in paying things back? Where did this money 
come from?
 
Isn't it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that while everything comes 
before this body, from the amount of money we will have to mail 
letters home to our constituents, the amount of money we will 
spend on B-2 bombers, the amount of money we will spend on 
housing and urban development, the amount of money we will spend 
on veterans, all these things, sometimes much, much smaller 
amounts dealing in just tens of thousands of dollars, we will get 
an up-or-down vote on, but for $20 billion, neither the President 
of the United States nor the Speaker of the House nor the 
minority leader even thought we ought to have a vote. The only 
chance we get to rectify that starts tomorrow.
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
If the gentlewoman will yield further, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
makes a very important point. There almost seems to be an inverse 
relationship between the amount of money that is being spent and 
the level of discussion that takes place here.
 
We are seeing a whole lot of discussion on the National Council 
on the Humanities and Public Broadcasting, right? Every day, 
people are down here, some on one position, some on the other. It 
is a matter of a few hundred million dollars.
 
What we are talking about is more than $20 billion, and as of 
this moment, we do not have a vote on that, and that is clearly 
an outrage.
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, in an 
answer to the gentleman's earlier inquiry, there has not been a 
vote on an appropriation for the Economic Stabilization Fund 
since 1934, 60 years since an appropriation has been voted for, 
yet the fund has continued to garner money through Treasury 
withdrawals, through having money printed, and they exchange some 
sort of bizarre notes which they obtain from the International 
Monetary Fund. They give them to our Treasury in exchange for 
dollars which the Treasury orders printed at the Mint.
 
If you want to talk about creating something out of nothing but 
obligating the American people, and if Alan Greenspan is 
concerned about inflation, how about the inflation that is caused 
when you just run the presses overnight, running out whatever the 
largest denomination of bills is, I don't know, a thousand 
$10,000 bills, so we can shovel that money over to the Economic 
Stabilization Fund, so we can send it to Mexico, or so that we 
can secure the loans of Mexico?
 
Also, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman put together an excellent list 
in response to your query here. I have heard a little bit about 
this "We will guarantee these funds with the oil revenues." There 
is a list here put together by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur].
 
The gentleman is right, those funds are already 100 percent 
committed. In fact, they are so committed that the Mexican oil 
company has not been able to invest any money in exploration or 
maintenance, because their funds are so over committed already.
 
You go through the list: Pemex bonds, 7.75 percent; French 
francs, $750 million; Euro notes, Pemex, 8.375; $400 million, 
Austrian bond, dated July 23, 1993, due 1998. The list goes on 
and on and on. They are already well in hock for any oil they can 
pump until their supplies are exhausted, and we are going to take 
security out of this? You can't get blood out of a turnip.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
If the gentleman will yield on that, Mr. Speaker, Oil and Gas 
magazine also reported about that by the end of this decade, by 
1997, 1998, 1999, Mexico will be a net importer of oil because 
the number of barrels she has been able to produce has been cut 
in half, and because capital investment has not been able to be 
made in capital plant, and because of instability among the 
workers in the oilfields in Mexico, where conditions are just 
terrible.
 
Mr. Speaker, I think any wise investor would question that, oil 
being used as collateral.
 
If I might respond to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], 
who raised a good point, when it is a small item involving the 
budget, we get tied up in knots here, right?
 
When we are talking about $20 or $40 billion or however much the 
American people will be on the line, it is like the Stealth 
bomber. It goes through here, nobody saw it, we didn't vote on 
it. It happened, it is a happening in America, but we didn't have 
anything to do with it.
 
Mr. Speaker, I remember when the President came up here with his 
State of the Union speech. He didn't like the fact that the 
Department of Agriculture had spent a few thousand dollars trying 
to eliminate ticks. He spent a long time talking about ticks.
 
If you come from a rural area, a lot of my district is rural, 
that can be a pretty significant problem for people. In fact, we 
had one gentleman here in Congress, Berkeley Bedell, who had to 
leave Congress because he got Lyme disease. If you know anything 
about what can happen, it is a pretty serious area to be doing 
research on, so I didn't quite understand why he picked that 
particular few thousand dollar expenditure out.
 
Here we are talking about an enormous amount of money, and the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] said, "Could we vote on 
it in the Committee on Appropriations?"
 
I asked one of the subcommittee chairs of Appropriations, "Will 
this come up before your subcommittee this year? Will we get a 
vote? How will we get a vote on this?"
 
He said, "Well, you know, yes, the Treasury Department is under 
our sub-committee's jurisdiction, but this particular fund, I 
guess it is more like foreign aid, so we don't think it would 
come under us."
 
This is the kind of fund, it is like mercury. If you have ever 
seen mercury and you try to put your finger on it, it keeps 
moving around. You can't pin it down, really; $20 billion, maybe 
$40 billion, and it is rising every day.
 
So here we stand, at 9 o'clock at night Washington time, trying 
to say it is our responsibility to vote on this kind of money, 
and putting our taxpayers at this kind of risk.
 
I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
 
 
MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi:
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in the past 
couple of weeks this chamber has taken some steps toward getting 
our financial house in order.
 
Regardless of where you stand on it, the House has passed a line- 
item veto. The Speaker as we speak is holding a press conference 
bragging about how that is somehow going to save the House of 
Representatives from itself, but we passed it.
 
A few weeks ago we passed the balanced budget amendment, which I 
supported, because I think we have to be accountable. We passed 
earlier on the first day a resolution calling for an audit of 
every single House office and every single budget within the 
House of Representatives.
 
But going back to what Mr. Sanders says, if it makes sense and 
the Speaker will support an audit for a congressional office that 
has a budget of about $600,000, don't you think he would support 
an audit of a fund that has $35 billion in it; we think $35 
billion, because no one really knows for sure, and it is the 
taxpayers' money. It is not the Speaker's money, it is not the 
money of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], and it is 
certainly not my money.
 
But don't the taxpayers deserve to know where it came from, where 
it is going, and don't they deserve an up-or-down vote of their 
elected representative on how this money ought to be spent, 
especially when our Nation's veterans are being told, "There is 
not enough room in the military hospitals for you;" especially 
when every university within short order in the continental 
United States is going to get a letter saying "Don't ask for as 
much money as you got last year, money is tight;" especially when 
highway funds are getting ready to get cuts; especially when 
everybody's State's budget, at least the money they receive from 
the Federal Government, is going to get cut?
 
How on Earth can we say domestically we want all you people to 
share in the pain, but if you are south of the Rio Grande, or if 
you happen to be a big shot up on Wall Street, here is a blank 
check for $20 billion, and here is $15 billion more when you need 
it? And the vote tomorrow morning is the only chance the people 
in this body are going to get to have an accounting on that.
 
I hope the Speaker will rule that this resolution is in order. 
But if he does not rule it is in order, then we have got to 
wonder whose side is he on. Is he on the side of accountability 
or is he on the side of hiding all of this from the public?
 
I had an interesting call today from an Under Secretary of the 
Treasury, and he will meet with a number of us tomorrow morning. 
Interestingly enough, he said, "You know, I can't give you all 
that information publicly." Why? I can understand a military 
secret being kept from the public, we would not want our enemies 
to know our capabilities of our weapons or troop strengths, but 
why should not the public know how their money has been invested 
and where it has been invested and what kind of return they have 
on it, and what kind of promise we have to get this money back? 
That troubles me. That is sort of like the old Washington 
mentality, "We know it all and those folks back home don't know."
 
Tomorrow morning, the Members of this body will decide who they 
are with, whether they think the people of America are smart 
enough to know and ought to know where their money is coming 
from, and where it is going, or whether they just think a couple 
of guys, the Speaker, the President, the minority leader, a 
couple of guys from the Treasury Department, whether they think 
they alone ought to have the responsibility for $35 billion. That 
is really what the vote tomorrow morning is all about.
 
No. 1, I would certainly encourage the Speaker to rule that this 
resolution is in order so that we can have a vote on it. But, No. 
2, if he decides that he will not rule it in order, then I think 
he ought to at least be man enough to give us an hour to decide, 
to make our pitch in front of the full body before any sort of a 
motion is made to table it [i.e. kill it], because the people of 
America deserve to know what in the heck is going on, and they 
deserve an opportunity to fix this problem.
 
I want to thank the gentlewoman and both gentlemen for their 
time.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi for being the lead 
sponsor of this privileged resolution. The people of Mississippi 
should be very proud of the gentleman, an independent, strong- 
minded Member who stood up to the most powerful interests in 
America, both political and economic.
 
In response to something the gentleman said, let me just mention 
that I received a letter this week from a woman from Coral 
Gables, Florida. She supports us in our efforts to get a vote on 
this measure tomorrow. She sent this beautiful letter really 
saying the people of America understand what is going on and 
encouraging us in our efforts to get at the truth and to get the 
figures for the American public.
 
But it was very interesting. She attached a letter to her letter 
to me that had been written to her by the Chairman of the Banking 
Committee in the House 2 years ago, Congressman Henry Gonzalez. 
In this letter, and she even highlighted it in yellow ink for me, 
she quotes some of his statements which I think are so 
instructive I wanted to read them tonight, in which he said that 
during NAFTA, the NAFTA debate, that he endeavored to bring out 
that NAFTA was more than just a trade agreement. It is a free 
trade and finance agreement. And he underlined finance. And he 
was concerned that the finance and banking portions would turn 
out to be the driving force, backed by the largest banks and 
financial interests in this hemisphere. And he said NAFTA will 
have profound implications for the safety and soundness of the 
U.S. banking and financial services industries, the integrity of 
the basic banking laws of this country and counteraction against 
international money laundering.
 
Now that NAFTA has passed he said the stage may also be set for 
another savings and loan style bailout as United States bankers 
pursue risky investments in the unregulated Mexican market.
 
To his letter he then attached even more lengthy hearings that he 
has held in his committee. I just want to read one paragraph here 
by two gentlemen, Mr. Niko Valance and Mr. Andres Penaloza, who 
testified before his committee that the omission of an exchange 
rate stabilization mechanism in NAFTA was deliberate and a 
mistake. Mr. Valance argued that without an established exchange 
rate, stabilization mechanism, it is possible for foreign 
corporations to exert pressure on the Mexican Government to 
devalue the peso, thus lowering wages in terms of other 
currencies.
 
In addition, Mr. Davidson cautions that the relatively volatile 
currency in Mexico poses increased potential exchange and 
interest rate risks to U.S. financial institutions. The fact that 
these issues are not addressed in NAFTA was of considerable 
concern to many of the witnesses.
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
If the gentlewoman will yield, it is interesting to hear those 
statements from 2 years ago, because we have heard most recently 
from the proponents of NAFTA, the apologists for NAFTA, the 
Secretary of the Treasury and others, that no one could have 
anticipated the circumstances. But yet the gentlewoman is saying 
that letter from the chairman of the Banking Committee, a 
neighbor to Mexico who lives just over the border, who 
understands that country well and is sympathetic to the needs of 
that country, he discerned these problems. What was the date on 
that letter?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
The date on the letter was December 6, 1993, but the respective 
sections from the *Congressional Record* were dated November 15, 
1993, remarks by Mr. Gonzalez on NAFTA, page H9661.
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
That is absolutely extraordinary. So perhaps a rational person 
could have anticipated that the peso was overvalued, that there 
were problems with political manipulations of the currency values 
in Mexico, and, in fact, that inextricably tying the fate of our 
economy to Mexico, which seems to be what our administration is 
telling us, was a mistake.
 
I would ask the gentlewoman if she noticed the statement in the 
Washington Post last weekend where the Speaker said there was a 
relationship between the minimum wage and the value of the peso 
in Mexico and Mexican workers, and said he was hesitant to 
support an increase in the minimum wage in the United States of 
America for people who work in this country because that would 
probably drive more jobs across the border.
 
So we have seen the value of the wages in Mexico, which were 
pitiful to begin with compared to U.S. wages, dropped by 50 
percent, and now we have to withhold any increase in the standard 
of living for the people of the United States because we might 
lose yet more manufacturing jobs to Mexico.
 
What happened to the promise of hundreds of thousands of jobs in 
America as we sold goods to the Mexican people? I am puzzled.
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, in Sunday's 
Washington Post Raul Avila, president of the National Maquiladora 
Industry Council, said that during the first 10 months of 1994 
maquiladora employment increased 6.2 percent, over 600,000 
employees, and importantly enough, as the gentlewoman has just 
indicated, "The industry forecasts the opening of another 600 
assembly plants this year."
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
If the gentlewoman will yield, that, I believe, was because of 
the drop in the value of the peso.
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
The gentleman is exactly right. With cheaper labor it becomes a 
better investment in the maquiladoras, and we can expect more 
American companies to be going down there.
 
The gentleman and the gentlewoman raised interesting points a 
while ago. I am a member of the Banking Committee that dealt with 
the S&L fiasco, and as my colleagues will recall the concept "too 
big to fail." Do my colleagues remember that concept? What too 
big to fail means is that the taxpayers of America were obligated 
to bail out very, very large banks because if they failed, the 
repercussions of that failure were supposedly so great that it 
would have been worse than bailing them out.
 
I would like my colleagues to comment on this thought. It seems 
to me that that is precisely what is happening with regard to 
Mexico. We are now asked, well, not asked, but the President is 
proposing to put $40 billion of loan guarantees into Mexico. 
Maybe the President is right and we do not know. Maybe, in fact, 
this will improve the Mexican economy, everything will work out 
well, and there will not be a loss of taxpayer money. That may be 
true.
 
But let us look at the other side of the story. Maybe in fact the 
Mexican economy will not improve and we will lose that $40 
billion. What I would like to ask my colleagues is this: Is it 
not possible that a year from now or 2 years from now a President 
will come back and say we have got to provide even more loan 
guarantees to Mexico because we already have $40 billion in the 
hopper there; we cannot afford to lose that. We have to protect 
that investment and, therefore, we need to put even more money 
into Mexico?
 
And I think the implications of that are very, very frightening. 
This Congress and this President are having a difficult enough 
time running the American economy that we know something about on 
behalf of American workers. We are not doing very well at that.
 
The idea that we have the knowledge or the ability to sustain the 
Mexican economy, upon which we are dependent, is really quite 
beyond me.
 
But I am afraid that we are going to have this too-big-to-fail 
concept once again. Then we are going to have to pump more and 
more money into Mexico, because if it fails, then we have lost 
all the money we put into them last year.
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
I guess to bring it down to something smaller than billions, I 
think I heard very early on in my life and the old saw, you know, 
"If you owe the bank $1,000 and you cannot pay, you have got a 
problem. If you owe the bank $100,000 and you cannot pay, the 
bank has got a problem." That is where we are at here.
 
It is not only ultimately an obligation of the economic 
stabilization fund, and it does occur in here that losses can be 
incurred, and those losses would have to be made up, but also the 
interest earnings, gains or losses of the economic stabilization 
fund are reflected in the budget of the United States of America. 
So if the economic stabilization fund loans to Mexico, $20 
billion or so to Mexico go bad, then suddenly we are told that 
not only do we have to come up with the money but that counts as 
$20 billion more deficit for the United States of America.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
On that point, if you look at what we are spending on as a 
Nation, the very first set of categories have to do with Social 
Security, and especially Medicare, the cost that the taxpayers 
subsidize Medicare. Defense is a large expenditure. Then comes 
interest rates. Right after that, the fourth largest category of 
spending in this Government is to pay the interest on the savings 
and loan bailout which totals over $1 trillion. Our children's 
children will be paying for that.
 
So when we get in these debt financing arrangements, what we are 
talking about is obligating the people of our country so far down 
the road you can hardly even see the end of it.
 
But in this situation with Mexico, we are not talking about money 
we owe to ourselves. We are talking about money that is owed to 
investors and creditors to foreign nations. This is a very 
different animal than that exchange stabilization fund was meant 
to be used for in the past.
 
I think what we are seeing is a different form of foreign aid, 
which does not have to be voted on here in the Congress, and that 
is not how a democracy should function or a democratic republic 
should function. We should have the debate here. We as a people 
must make a decision about what our relationship is to various 
countries around the world.
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
My recollection -- and help me out here -- is that foreign aid 
that we do vote on is about what, $15 or $16 billion?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
That is right.
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
There is a lot of debate. Many people throughout this country 
think that is too much.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
Half of that is weapons.
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
All right. What we should appreciate is that this loan guarantee 
to Mexico puts us at risk for over double what our entire foreign 
aid package is today. Is that correct?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
That is correct. The gentleman is correct. I kept listening to 
the President when he said, "Oh, this is not anything serious. 
This is just cosigning a loan." I would say to the gentleman from 
Oregon and the gentleman from Vermont what if someone came up to 
you and said, "Would you sign a loan with me for $50,000? Right 
now, sign it?"
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
For you, Ms. Kaptur, absolutely
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
But maybe you do not know what my finances are like. I mean, 
would you not want to know the credit history of that person, 
what kind of assets the person had? And there is absolutely a 
risk that something might go wrong. Cosigning the loan does not 
absolve risk.
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
I was on a national television program the other day and one of 
the proponents of this bailout was saying, well, the Mexican 
economy is basically in good shape; they are having a short-term 
cash flow problem. But basically it is strong. One of my 
colleagues here talked about the national debt of Mexico. Is, in 
fact, the Mexican economy strong and stable?
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
The Mexican economy is not strong and stable, and the nation is 
not politically stable, which is why there is all of this moving 
up and down of the value of the peso. Mexico owes somewhere 
between $160 and $200 billion. That is with a "b". That is in 
public debt that is owed to other creditors. This is only one 
small piece of it. This is probably the piece that they thought 
they might be able to bite off without too many people 
disagreeing, but there is a lot more money owed, and then inside 
Mexico, because of the strange relationship between their private 
sector and their public sector and their banks, there are all 
kinds of debts internal to Mexico, and with interest rates going 
up there and with the inflation rates going up, it is a very 
unstable economic situation inside of Mexico.
 
The value of their money has just been cut in half. Lots of 
businesses there have loans. The relationship of those businesses 
to their banks, to the inflation rate, et cetera, is a very 
unstable situation, and the largest revenue generator to the 
Government is Pemex, the oil company.
 
Over, I think, nearly half the revenues of that Government are 
generated by Pemex, so that is another place that the oil 
revenues are pledged as collateral to their own Government.
 
I happen to believe that Mexico's main problems are not economic 
but, rather, social and political; in other words, if you could 
get a system there that operated in a more democratic fashion, 
could you begin to put the pieces in place of an economic order 
that shared the wealth with the vast majority of people rather 
than just a few people on top.
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
The main point I wanted to make very briefly is that it is not 
for sure that this $40 billion loan guarantee is without 
significant risk, and that is the main point I wanted to make.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
It is absolutely with significant risk.
 
 
MR. DeFAZIO:
I think this was a question I asked very early on when I was 
contacted, when I filed my legislation to withdraw from NAFTA. 
They brought up all of these concerns about how it would further 
destabilize the economic situation. They said we are only 
cosigning, and I said, well, I understood if someone had 
impeccable credit they would not need a cosigner. Usually you 
want a cosigner because no one else wants to extend you credit, 
and they think maybe you would not be good for it. If Mexico's 
credit is so great, I suggest they go to the same Wall Street 
financiers who have made 20- to 50-percent interest, nice rate of 
return, and perhaps say, "Look, you have been making a lot of 
money down in Mexico, how about extending some loans on favorable 
terms, maybe only 15-20 percent interest per year as opposed to 
what we have been paying you, still better than you can get 
generally in the United States stock market, S&P index, United 
States Treasury, better than you can get anywhere else."
 
I would assume the Wall Street financiers, thinking there is no 
problem, if they want the Government to cosign, why do not they 
just do it directly? Why do not they do it themselves? They are 
telling us we will make money on this. The taxpayers might make 
money on it. Might lose $40 billion on it, but, this is a river 
boat gamble. We are river boat gamblers with $40 billion of 
assets of the United States of America that belong to the people 
of this country. I do not think so. That is not our role here. 
Let the people on Wall Street be the river boat gamblers, not the 
people on Main Street.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
I am telling you, if those people on Wall Street and in the banks 
around this country made as risky investments as this group did 
down in Mexico, our entire banking system would be in a state of 
collapse.
 
 
MR. SANDERS:
Essentially what we want is two things. We need far more 
information about this bailout and, second of all, and most 
importantly, we want the U.S. Congress, which presumably was 
elected to represent the American people, to be able to vote this 
thing up or down, and in my view, the Congress would vote it 
down.
 
Now, I think if the American people are upset about this process, 
it is terribly important that they stand up, they tell the 
President and the Republican leadership that they understand what 
is going on, that they want a vote on the floor of the House, 
they want the Members of Congress to represent their interest and 
not put $40 billion at risk.
 
So we hope very much that the people will stand up, fight back, 
and start calling their Members of Congress, the President's 
office, and the leadership to demand a vote on this important 
issue.
 
 
MS. KAPTUR:
I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for 
joining us this evening, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], 
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], and the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Brown].
 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
 
*USA Today*, Feb. 8, 1995, very tiny item: Mexico Plan Foes Fail: 
Opponents of President Clinton's $20 billion rescue plan for 
Mexico's embattled peso failed to dramatize their opposition 
through a resolution seeking to reassert Congressional authority 
over government spending. Critics lost a 288-143 floor vote that 
would have allowed debate on the matter. -- Juan J. Waite.
 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
 
*Washington Times*, National Weekly Edition, Feb. 20-26, 1995: 
House will debate peso bailout: In a sharp reversal, House 
Republican leaders will accede to demands from GOP freshman [and 
others] and allow full floor debate on President Clinton's $47.5 
billion bailout plan, which bypassed Congress.
 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
 
*NBC News*, Bill Moyers commentary, Feb. 21, 1995 -- a good 
commentary in which Moyers asks good questions about the bailout. 
But notice that the commentary and the questions arrive after the 
thing is already a *fait accompli*.
 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
 
[Copies of The Congressional Record are normally available for 
viewing at your local library.]

 Brian Francis Redman    [email protected]    "The Big C"
--------------------------------------------------------------
    Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"        
--------------------------------------------------------------


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA00436; Fri, 24 Feb 95 05:36:35 -0500
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA26882; Fri, 24 Feb 95 05:35:40 -0500
% Received: from firefly.prairienet.org ([email protected] [192.17.3.3]) by argus.cso.uiuc.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id EAA47404; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 04:28:39 -0600
% Received: by firefly.prairienet.org (4.1/SMI-4.1)id AA10834; Fri, 24 Feb 95 04:28:33 CST
% Date: Fri, 24 Feb 95 04:28:33 CST
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Reply-To: [email protected]
% Originator: [email protected]
% Sender: [email protected]
% Precedence: bulk
% From: Brian Redman <[email protected]>
% To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
% Subject: The Mexican Rescue Package
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

the *Congressional Record* is now online via 
Mosaic or World Wide Web at http://thomas.loc.gov
 
The following are selections from some of the 1-minute remarks 
made by Representative Traficant of Ohio.
 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
 
COMMENTS ON MEXICAN LOAN GUARANTEE (House - February 23, 1995)
 
[Page: H2071]
 
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
   for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
 
   Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, Uncle Sam will not help Washington, DC,
   because of waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Let's see if I understand
   this: Down there in Mexico there is waste, fraud, mismanagement,
   corruption, larceny, kickbacks, bribes, and conspiracy. There is even
   an armed revolution to boot. But Uncle Sam can find $53 billion to
   bail out Mexico.
 
   Tell me, Mr. Speaker, who is now formulating the policy for the United
   States of America? The Three Stooges, or what? Beam me up. When Uncle
   Sam can say `Sorry, Charlie,' to Orange County, CA; Washington, DC;
   Youngstown, OH; and New York but find $53 billion for Mexico, that
   says it all, Congress. Think about it.
_________________________________________________________________
 
 
BARBIE DOLL HAS MOVED TO MEXICO ALONG WITH 700 UNITED STATES JOBS 
(House -January 19, 1995)
 
[Page: H334]
 
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
   for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
 
   Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, while Congress plays politics with Newt
   Gingrich, last night's trade deficit showed a record of $10.5
   billion. The 1994 trade deficit, Democrats, will hit a record $154
   billion, which is equivalent to 3 million high-paying American jobs
   with benefits lost.
 
   It has gotten so bad, Barbie Doll has moved to Mexico. Mattel Inc.,
   from New York, is laying off 700 workers. They will make Barbie Dolls
   now in Mexico.
 
   Mexico gets jobs, America gets pink slips, and Congress is debating
   Newt Gingrich and balanced budget amendments? Beam me up. There is
   no intelligent life left in the Congress of the United States.
 
   Where is the trade program of the Democrat Party? We are failing the
   American workers, and that is why we are in the minority, quibbling
   over the Speaker.
_________________________________________________________________
 
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS, 
NOT THE WHITE HOUSE (House - February 22, 1995)
 
[Page: H1972]
 
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
   for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
 
   Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution says only Congress can
   draw money from the Treasury. It also says only Congress can coin
   money, regulate the value thereof and regulate the value of foreign
   money. Only Congress, the Constitution says, can regulate commerce
   with foreign nations.
 
   The question I ask, Congress, is under what authority did Robert Rubin
   sign an agreement to bail out Mexico? To me it is unbelievable.
 
   Now, the Washington Times reported that our bailout is going to bail
   out the Mexican banks and Mexican companies. Ladies and gentlemen, we
   are bailing out Mexican banks, we are putting our banks on the line
   here and our taxpayers in the fire.
 
   I disagree with this. I think the Federal Reserve Board is subject to
   the jurisdiction of Congress, not the White House. It is time for a
   constitutional court case to determine that.
 
   I plan to challenge the bailout in court.
_________________________________________________________________
 
NAFTA, 1 YEAR LATER (House - February 07, 1995)
 
[Page: H1292]
 
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
   for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
 
   Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, NAFTA, 1 year later. Thirty-six thousand
   Americans have filed claims with the Labor Department. They lost their
   jobs due to NAFTA. That is right, and the list goes on. Woolrich up in
   Pennsylvania and Colorado, they laid off 450 workers, moved to Mexico,
   hired workers at $1 an hour. You have Magnatech in Indiana and
   Michigan. They moved to Mexico.
 
   Tell me, Congress, how can American workers survive when American
   companies can move to Mexico, hire people at $1 an hour, have no IRS
   or EPA or OSHA to pay them a visit? Is it any wonder the American
   worker is fed up with Congress? A Congress that will take care of
   Russia, but forget about Rhode Island? A Congress that will take care
   of Kuwait, but forget about Kentucky? A Congress that will worry about
   Mexico and forget about Mississippi and Massachusetts?
 
   Is it any wonder, Congress? Think about the American worker for a
   change.
_________________________________________________________________
 

     The Peso drops to an all time low and the Mexican government just
    passed a vote to accept 20 billion dollars in U.S. aid. The Mexican
    army is trying to beat down a peasant rebellion in southern mexico and
    the President of Mexico's brother has been charged with murder,
    stemming  from a political assaination. Boy do i feel really good about
    the U.S. giving our hard earned money to such a responsible bunch of
    politicians down there in Mexico, The Mexican government wouldn't
    default on these loans, no way.  

    
    
    U.S. dollar at an all time low...
    
    
    Ummmmm.... anyone know who's coming to our rescue???
    

    Sounds like one more nail in the casket which contains Bill Clinton's
    political career . I'm not genrally an isolationist but the government
    better start looking after matters at home, because our own economy
    leaves alot to be desired, what with the drop in value of the dollar
    around the world and the defeat of the Balanced Budget Ammendment.

    Japan was buying dollars to attempt to stop the slide.  A strong dollar
    is good for the world economy.

RE        <<< Note 274.78 by CSLALL::WHITE_G "you don't know. do you?" >>>

>Boy do i feel really good about
>    the U.S. giving our hard earned money to such a responsible bunch of
>    politicians down there in Mexico, The Mexican government wouldn't
>    default on these loans, no way.  

  Of course if we hadn't stolen Texas and California from Mexico back in the
2nd quarter of the 19th century they might be in a better position to work
these economic problems out themselves.

  "Remember the Alamo",
  George

    
    Um, George - what text editor do you use when revising US history ?
    
    Does it automatically demonize your country, or do you have to do
    it manually ?
    
      bb

re: .83

Thanks for the humour.

Bob

    >    U.S. dollar at an all time low...
    >    Ummmmm.... anyone know who's coming to our rescue???
    
     Our trading partners with whom we have negotiated free trade. Our
    products are now very cheap on the world market, and any countries we
    deal with that allow free trade will consequently sell more of our
    goods, thus reducing or eliminating the trade deficit. Could you
    imagine the US with a trade surplus? And talk about an incentive to buy
    US products; comparable foreign goods will cost us considerably more.
    This low value of the dollar has the effect of stimulating the economy
    since our export markets are so much more favorable.

    
    Actually, shouldn't this be good for Digital ?  We sell half+ abroad.
    
      bb

     It probably won't make all that much difference, as most of our
    competitors will get the same currency effect.

RE                      <<< Note 274.85 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

    
>    Um, George - what text editor do you use when revising US history ?
>    
>    Does it automatically demonize your country, or do you have to do
>    it manually ?
    
  Hey, I just call'em like I see'em. Even Abraham Lincold was against the
Mexican War when he was serving in the House of Representatives. 

  Think about it, what were Jim Bowey and Davy Crockette doing at the Alamo
anyway? They were Americans. Crockette himself was a former war hero and a
former United States Congressman. Why were they involved in what at the time
was a civil war in Texas that didn't involve the United States? 

  Prior to the 1830 Texas was part of Mexico. What had happened was that a
large number of settlers from the United States moved into Texas and started
farming the land. Then in the mid 1830's they decided that although they liked
the idea of immigrating to Mexico and they liked their land in Texas, they
didn't like the Mexican government so they started a revolution which they
eventually won. 

  Then 10 years later there was a report that the Mexican Army was threatening
Texas so Congress declared war against Mexico and the United States Army
invaded. They not only invaded Texas which at the time was a Republic they keep
on going right down to Mexico City. Another branch went out west and
"liberated" California from Spanish control. 

  So now Mexico is trying to get buy without their former territory, thanks
to the good old United States yet when they ask for aid some of us feel they
don't deserve any.

  They most certainly do deserve aid. In fact, maybe we should think about
returning Texas. I've never been much of a Cowboy fan anyway, they can have
Troy Atkins, Emmit Smith, and the whole shoot'en match.

  George

    Seeing as how most of the so called American products aren't
    manufactured in the U.S., I don't believe it will have much effect. 

Bowie
Crocket

    RE:274.90
    
     GEROGE
    
     Yoe seem to forget the millions of dollars we poured into Mexico
    since then, including the money we PAID them for Texas and Calf.
    
    Dave

    Well, if we are bringing the whole neural(?)-net, prior victimization
    rationalization discussion up in here, then we need to talk about the
    Spaniards, Aztecs, and pre-Aztec civilizations and their possible
    involvement in Texas.
    
    HTH
    
    Dan

    Crockett

    
    It's all coming together now.
    
    Neural nets
    angry vets
    saftey nets
    death penalty nyet
    monkey vet
    
    jeff

RE                      <<< Note 274.94 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

>The fact that Mexico is such a mess is
>    directly due to it's political corruption due to it's leftest,
>    socialistic PRI facist dictatorship. 


  Woops, someone's flying upside down again. There is no such thing as a
leftest socialistic facist dictatorship. Some of those things are mutually
exclusive. 

  Facist are right wing. Communists and socialists are left wing.

  George

 El...

 ...Snarfo!

RE     <<< Note 274.93 by BSS::DSMITH "A Harley, & the Dead the good life" >>>

>     Yoe seem to forget the millions of dollars we poured into Mexico
>    since then, including the money we PAID them for Texas and Calf.
    
  Are you expecting me to believe that we paid Mexico an amount of money that
is equal to what they could have made if California and Mexico had remained in
their jurisdiction? 

  Think of all the oil and natural gas we've pumped out of Texas. Think of
the economic base out in California.

  As for what Mexico would have been like had they kept those states, who
knows. Had they kept Texas, California, and I believe they also had control of
the rest of the south west, the voters there may have had a profound impact on
the Mexican Government.

  George 

    
      To classify the oligarchy of thugs misusing Mexico as left-wing or
     right-wing obfuscates, not elucidates.  Nobody liberal or
     conservative in America would pick any of the last three presidents
     of Mexico for dogcatcher.
    
      bb

    
    re:101
    
     No George I don't expect anything of you..
    
     All I said was you left out the fact that we did pay them something at
    that time for the land taken from them.
    
    Also at that time the asset's under the earth were unknown so the value
    was not equal to what it would be worth if known.
    
    And a dollar was worth a dollar at the time......
    

  Any money paid to Mexico for Texas and California is a token amount and
hardly worth mentioning. The fact is we moved in, the army followed, we took
the land and set up new boarders. 

  It was the moral equivalent of holding someone up at gun point, taking over a
hundred dollars and their credit cards, then giving them back a couple bucks so
they could buy a Big Mac and a subway ride home. 

  George 

    
    Stop your whining George, at least you admit (finally) that we did pay,
    weather you agree with the amount has no bearing..
    
     And I'm sure over the years we have given them more that we'll never
    see again.....And you want us to pour more down the drain!
    
    BTW did you have any of your money invested in Mexico after NAFTA???
    
    
    
    

RE    <<< Note 274.106 by BSS::DSMITH "A Harley, & the Dead the good life" >>>

>    Stop your whining George, at least you admit (finally) that we did pay,
>    weather you agree with the amount has no bearing..

  No I do not admit this. As defense oriented as I am even I wouldn't suggest
that someone who robs someone at gun point be let go because he gave back a
subway token to allow his victim a ride home.

  And as for whining, I assume that you are making your bid for the Pot &
Kettle award. 
    
>     And I'm sure over the years we have given them more that we'll never
>    see again.....And you want us to pour more down the drain!

  ... after taking away Texas and California depriving them of resources that
they will never see again.
    
>    BTW did you have any of your money invested in Mexico after NAFTA???
    
  I fully support NAFTA. Free trade zones are well worth the investment.

  George

    
    Now there's a thought - let's donate California to Mexico as our
    contribution to the bailout.
    
    In LA, they'll never notice.
    
      bb

RE                     <<< Note 274.109 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    Now there's a thought - let's donate California to Mexico as our
>    contribution to the bailout.
    
  I don't think the word "donate" would be appropriate. If you take something
of value from someone at gun point and give them back a token amount worth
nothing compared to what you took, does the word "donate" correctly describe
the action of giving it back? 

  George

    
    Well whatever, George.  You should just love this idea, after all.
    
    Why, just look at all the problems it solves at one swell foop !
    
    Immigration, soaring property costs, the peso.  I'm sure the current
    Mexican crowd would clean up California in no time.
    
      bb

    
    
    George
    
     I don't want the to deprive you of your Pot and Kettle award. you have
    had it for so long it must seem like part of your family!!!
    
    
     If you want to bail Mexico and relive your guilt feelings send your
    pay check to Mexico!!
    
    Also I asked noy if you support NAFTA I asked if you had money invested
    in Mexico after NAFTA passed... Pay attention!
    
    
    Dave

RE    <<< Note 274.112 by BSS::DSMITH "A Harley, & the Dead the good life" >>>

>     I don't want the to deprive you of your Pot and Kettle award. you have
>    had it for so long it must seem like part of your family!!!
    
  Well in the opinion of my opponents I have the Pot and Kettle award but
that's hardly a non-bias claim. How many people who regularly vote Democrat
feel I deserve the Pot & Kettle award more than my conservative opponents?

>     If you want to bail Mexico and relive your guilt feelings send your
>    pay check to Mexico!!

  Why should I send my pay check? The United States took that land from Mexico
in a war that was declared by the United States Congress. We are all equally
responsible.
    
>    Also I asked noy if you support NAFTA I asked if you had money invested
>    in Mexico after NAFTA passed... Pay attention!
    
  I generally don't invest in the stock market so this question is moot. If I
did, I would have no problem investing in companies which had branches in
Mexico.

  George

    
    Well if we are equally responsible, why don't you set an example and
    send the first check.... See how many people follow your lead...
    
    Dave

re: .113

>  Why should I send my pay check? The United States took that land from Mexico
>in a war that was declared by the United States Congress. We are all equally
>responsible.

George, you may feel responsible, but I'm no more responsible for that than
I am for the imprisoning of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the dropping of
the A-bomb on Japan, the bringing of slaves to America during Colonial times,
or any of the other 'crimes' people in this country may have comitted in the
past.  You'll have to enjoy your guilt trip by yourself as I'm not coming
along for the ride.

Bob

RE    <<< Note 274.114 by BSS::DSMITH "A Harley, & the Dead the good life" >>>

>    Well if we are equally responsible, why don't you set an example and
>    send the first check.... See how many people follow your lead...
    
  I've already sent in my money to the U.S. Federal Government through payroll
deduction for taxes. 

  My fair share will go to cover the loans.

  George

RE    <<< Note 274.115 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

>George, you may feel responsible, but I'm no more responsible for that than
>I am for the imprisoning of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the dropping of
>the A-bomb on Japan, the bringing of slaves to America during Colonial times,
>or any of the other 'crimes' people in this country may have committed in the
>past.  You'll have to enjoy your guilt trip by yourself as I'm not coming
>along for the ride.

  It's not a guilt trip, it's a simple fact. We as a nation are responsible for
what we do as a nation.

  Mexico is in much worse condition today than they would be had we not ripped
off half of their country in our effort at empire building during the 19th
century. So to say that we owe them nothing is just not correct.

  Also it doesn't make much sense. With NAFTA we have turned all of North
America into one giant free trade zone. It makes sense to help Mexico get up
to speed so that we can benefit from them being part of that market.

  George

    
    
     Good two step there George....
    
    
    Dave

>  It's not a guilt trip, it's a simple fact. We as a nation are responsible for
>what we do as a nation.

George, when are you going to learn that neither you or I are responsible for
what others did in the past?

Bob

  Hey Meowski,
     I'm off on vacation tomorrow.  Could you send me some of whatever
       you take before you start noting?  It would start the weekend yust 
        right. 
:-) kb

RE    <<< Note 274.119 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

>George, when are you going to learn that neither you or I are responsible for
>what others did in the past?

  Well it depends. The United States of America is responsible for what ever it
does. Back in the 1840's, the U.S.A declared war against Mexico and the result
was that the U.S.A ended up with a whole bunch of territory that had belonged
to Mexico in the past. 

  So is the United States of America no longer responsible for the consequences
of that action? I think it is. The fact that the people living in the country
back then are different from the people who are living in it now makes no
difference. 

  For example, say General Motors gets taken to court and has a judgment
against them for $100,000 for a car built 10 years ago. Can stock holders who
just bought GM stock last week say that GM should not be responsible because
different stock holders owned the company when the mistake was made? No, GM is
still responsible. 

  It's not a matter of you and I being responsible, it's a matter of the United
States of America being responsible. You and I just get dragged in because we
are citizens of the U.S.A.

  George

    My ancestors were living in Europe when all this went down.
    I don't see why I and my children and their children, etc.,
    should have to pay in perpetuity for whatever idiotic or
    barbaric things the government of this country did so long
    ago.
    
    Actually, moving back to Europe is starting to look like an
    interesting proposition.  Let whoever wants this place have
    it, good luck to 'em, the rest of us are going back where we
    came from!  (Where I'm sure we'll all be welcomed with open
    arms...)
    
    For Americans, is there any place that we can call "ours"
    without having to apologize and/or get out our wallets?
    
    Chris

RE    <<< Note 274.123 by AMN1::RALTO "Gala 10th Year ECAD SW Anniversary" >>>

>    My ancestors were living in Europe when all this went down.
>    I don't see why I and my children and their children, etc.,
>    should have to pay in perpetuity for whatever idiotic or
>    barbaric things the government of this country did so long
>    ago.

  From a legal point of view there is a difference between an organization and
the people who own or belong to that organization.

  The people who are living in the United States are not responsible for the
actions of the people who lived in the United States back in 1845, however the
United States of America is responsible for what the United States of America
did back in 1845. 
    
  George

    Re: .123
    
    >I don't see why I and my children and their children, etc., should
    >have to pay in perpetuity for whatever idiotic or barbaric things the 
    >government of this country did so long ago.
    
    Yeah, your kids will be saying the same thing about your Social
    Security and environmental cleanup.

    
    From a legal point of view, Mexico ceded these terrotories by treaty.
    
      bb

RE                     <<< Note 274.126 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

    
>    From a legal point of view, Mexico ceded these terrotories by treaty.
    
   ... a treaty signed quite literally at the point of a gun.

  Sounds like extortion to me.

  George

>  I don't think the word "donate" would be appropriate. If you take something
>of value from someone at gun point and give them back a token amount worth
>nothing compared to what you took, does the word "donate" correctly describe
>the action of giving it back? 

I know this a silly discussion anyway, but do you honestly believe that 1995
California is a token amount worth nothing compared to what California and
Texas were when taken from Mexico in the 19th century.

RE        <<< Note 274.128 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>I know this a silly discussion anyway, but do you honestly believe that 1995
>California is a token amount worth nothing compared to what California and
>Texas were when taken from Mexico in the 19th century.

  I don't understand this question. What are you talking about?

  My point is that aid to Mexico is justified for 2 reasons:

    - Mexico is much worse off today than they would have been had we not
      taken Texas, California, and the rest of the South West away from them
      back in the 1830's and 1840's.

    - Due to NAFTA any improvement in their economy will benefit us in the
      long run.

  George

    
    And, as a matter of fact, "duress" is not a defense in real treaty
    law.  Most treaties (though not all) involve some sort of "duress".
    Treaties are NOT contracts - they are laws.  There are no police to
    enforce them, other than the parties.  Breaking a treaty is an act
    of war, whether you signed it under duress or not.  Breaking a treaty
    earns only such penalty as the other party can enforce.
    
    It is true that treaties signed long after the Mexican War, such as
    the United Nations Charter, bind the parties no longer to gain any
    territory from aggressive war.  But these are proactive only, and did
    not exist in the 1840's.  Legally, the land is American.  You knew
    that, George.
    
    You cannot have it both ways - if your claim is moral in nature, then
    it makes no sense to apply it to the dead.  If it is legal, it is
    groundless in the recognized law of nations.
    
      bb

    
    re:129
    
    
    "Mexico is much worse off today than they would have been had we not
    taken Texas, California, and the rest of the South West away from them
    back in the 1830's and 1840's"
    
     How can you assume that George, can anyone else look at that 
    crystal ball of yours. Sure is nice to be able to see alternate veiws
    of time lines.
    
    
    Dave
    
    

RE                     <<< Note 274.130 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    It is true that treaties signed long after the Mexican War, such as
>    the United Nations Charter, bind the parties no longer to gain any
>    territory from aggressive war.  But these are proactive only, and did
>    not exist in the 1840's.  Legally, the land is American.  You knew
>    that, George.

  Sure. And in fact under the rules of sovereign immunity the United States
could easily win any suit asking that Texas and California be returned to
Mexico. However because of the absolute nature of sovereign immunity it is
often the case that states will willingly give compensation when it appears
that a party in their same situation without sovereign immunity would be held
libel.

  To me this fits that situation. The U.S.A. doesn't have to give Mexico
anything but it should since Mexico is worse off now then they would have been
had they kept those states. 
    
>    You cannot have it both ways - if your claim is moral in nature, then
>    it makes no sense to apply it to the dead.  If it is legal, it is
>    groundless in the recognized law of nations.
    
  As I explained before this has nothing to do with the dead. It has nothing
to do with the individuals living then or now. It's a matter of what I believe
is the right thing for the United States to do based on what the United States
did back in the 1830's and 1840's.

  George

                     <<< Note 274.127 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>>    From a legal point of view, Mexico ceded these terrotories by treaty.
>    
>   ... a treaty signed quite literally at the point of a gun.
>
>  Sounds like extortion to me.

	Tut, tut, George.  Now you're not playing by your own rules.
    
    	What do court records show?
    
    	And that should be ALLEGED extortion.
    

RE     <<< Note 274.133 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>	Tut, tut, George.  Now you're not playing by your own rules.
>    	What do court records show?
>    	And that should be ALLEGED extortion.
    
  Not really. Because of sovereign immunity the only recourse for Mexico would
be a political action by the United States not a legal action.

  For the purposes of a political discussion we can talk about extortion
without the presumption of innocence.

  George

    
    The only difference to Mexico if they still 'owned' Texas and Calif.
    would be that Mexico would be larger than it is today.
    
    Texas and Calif would just be other Tijuanas.
    
    ed

RE  <<< Note 274.135 by SUBSYS::NEUMYER "Slow movin', once quickdraw outlaw" >>>

>    The only difference to Mexico if they still 'owned' Texas and Calif.
>    would be that Mexico would be larger than it is today.
>    
>    Texas and Calif would just be other Tijuanas.
    
  Not necessarily. The people who live in Texas and California would have had a
tremendous impact on the politics of Mexico for the past 150 years. Also there
are vast natural resources in those states.

  I believe it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that Mexico would be better
off today if they had kept that territory. 

  Although now that I think about it maybe you have a point. It's possible that
former California Governor Ronald Reagan might have been the president of
Mexico throughout the 1980's. 

  George

Natural resources aside for a moment, California and Texas, when taken
from Mexico, were just as worthless as the rest of Mexico. Mexico
today is still next to worthless, while California and Texas, as
states of the Union, have become formidable economic and industrial
assets. Had they remained Mexican, they would not be so, but would,
again, be as worthless as the rest of Mexico now is.

RE        <<< Note 274.137 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Natural resources aside for a moment, California and Texas, when taken
>from Mexico, were just as worthless as the rest of Mexico. Mexico
>today is still next to worthless, while California and Texas, as
>states of the Union, have become formidable economic and industrial
>assets. Had they remained Mexican, they would not be so, but would,
>again, be as worthless as the rest of Mexico now is.

  Well in fact Texas was not all that worthless in 1836 when they declared
independence. It was a booming agricultural area. As for California, I
believe that they were having some success as well.

  Remember, the entire politics of Mexico for the past 150 years would have
been much different had all those South West states been influencing the
government. 

  George

    
    
    George
    
    How about sending me some of that fairy dust so I can see in different
    time lines and know what would have been.
    
    
    

RE    <<< Note 274.139 by BSS::DSMITH "A Harley, & the Dead the good life" >>>

>    How about sending me some of that fairy dust so I can see in different
>    time lines and know what would have been.
    
  I'm curious. There are several people here predicting that if Mexico had
kept Texas and California they would have been dragged down to the current
level of Mexico. Why aren't you making degrading comments about their fairy
dust and crystal balls?

  Once again we see the typical conservative double standard where there's one
set of easy rules for the good'ol boys and a much tougher standard for everyone
else.

  George

RE                      <<< Note 274.140 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

>    It occurs to me that there is a sense of moral obligation in some
>    people about Mexico. Why? We are bigger and stonger so too bad. Where's
>    the obligation on our part to help Mexico? 

  The reason we are bigger and stronger than Mexico is because we stole part
of Mexico 150 years ago.
    
  George

Heard a European investment analyst on the radio earlier this week. He
said that the present world-wide pressure on the dollar right now (which he
described as lack of confidence) was because the rest of the world
believes the U.S.'s $20-$40 billion Mexico bailout is stupid.

RE                      <<< Note 274.143 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

>    So? We are bigger and stronger. We stole or 'stole' parts of their
>    country. What's your point? We bought Alaska and Louisanna too. Should
>    we revalue it in light of today's real estate prices and give France and
>    Russia the difference?

  Frank and Ralph are two identical twins who each decide they want some ice
cream. Frank goes into a convenient store and purchases a container of Ben &
Jerry's vanilla and pays the asking price of $1.50. Ralph goes into the
convenient store across the street, selects a pint of Ben & Jerry's, points a
.38 at the cashier and says "I'm taking this for 15 cents, is that ok with
you?". 

  You see no difference there?
    
>    Just how far back does this guilt trip of yours go?  

  It's not a guilt trip. If Ralph gets arrested is that because the police are
on a guilt trip?

  George

    <------
    
    More like an enormous cavity betwixt the ears...
    

RE   <<< Note 274.147 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    <------
>    
>    More like an enormous cavity betwixt the ears...
    
  Oops, excuse me, time to argue on someone else's level:

  SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI, you are an idiot.

  And now back to debating the issues.

  George

    
    Me an idiot????
    
    You come up with all these hair-brained scenarios and "victims" the
    last few days and you call me an idiot??
    
    Taking lessons from Mr. Bill again I see....
    
    
    BYW... you failed to mention all those poor folk what we pointed guns
    at in Puerto Rico, and Hawaii and ...
    
     Don't forget how we victimized those poor Russians when we stole that
    there gold mine up in Alaska!!! Shouldn't we be paying them back for
    all that????
    
      If I'm an idiot... then you're pathetic...
    

    
>>    Taking lessons from Mr. Bill again I see....

	no, see, then he would have called you a _stupid_ idiot.
	it's a subtle difference, but still...;>

    What happened was American settlers poured into the territory, and then
    decided they didn't want to be under Mexican rule.  Kinda like English
    settlers poured into the coastline territory, then decided they didn't
    want to be under English rule.
    
    This does not mean that the US wasn't aggressive.  Remember, this was
    the era of Manifest Destiny, when Americans were convinced it was their
    God-given right to settle and rule the continent.  But the situation
    was resolved appropriately according to the standards of that time. 
    The US does not have a legal obligation.
    
    As for moral obligations, one can always argue that it is always a
    moral obligation to lend a helping hand to those less well-off than
    you.  And on a completely different tack, one can argue that it makes
    sense to have relatively stable neighbors.
    
    As for whether the bailout makes sense, I haven't paid any attention,
    so I don't know what good we could expect the money to do, or what
    harm (to us or them).

    
    RE: .150
    
    Oooops!! You're right Di.... 
    
    I think him seeing I was Polish, I figured it was a given... ;)
    

RE   <<< Note 274.149 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    BYW... you failed to mention all those poor folk what we pointed guns
>    at in Puerto Rico, and Hawaii and ...

  What about them?
    
>     Don't forget how we victimized those poor Russians when we stole that
>    there gold mine up in Alaska!!! Shouldn't we be paying them back for
>    all that????

  Having trouble keeping up with the discussion I see. That's no surprise.
We've already addressed this.
    
      If I'm an idiot... then you're pathetic...
    
  A little testy are we. Of course it's a lot more fun being a conservative
when the other side doesn't fight back.

  George

                     <<< Note 274.145 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  You see no difference there?
    
    	It depends on if he opens the umbrella BEFORE it starts raining,
    	or after...

RE           <<< Note 274.151 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    What happened was American settlers poured into the territory, and then
>    decided they didn't want to be under Mexican rule.  Kinda like English
>    settlers poured into the coastline territory, then decided they didn't
>    want to be under English rule.

  No it's different. In the case of the 13 colonies English settlers poured
into English territory then broke away from their own country. In the case of
Texas American settlers poured into Mexican territory and then they took
Texas away from someone else's country.
    
  George

    The reason that the Texas and Calif parts of Mexico(had they remained
    there) would be as bad off as the rest of Mexico is because they would
    have been under Mexican rule.
    
    	How bad off would Calif be without the massive fed handouts.
    
    ed

RE  <<< Note 274.156 by SUBSYS::NEUMYER "Slow movin', once quickdraw outlaw" >>>

>    The reason that the Texas and Calif parts of Mexico(had they remained
>    there) would be as bad off as the rest of Mexico is because they would
>    have been under Mexican rule.
    
  Watch out, Davis is about to make all sorts of insulting remarks about
you having fairy dust and a crystal ball.

  Oops, maybe not. Different rules, you are on the conservative side of the
debate.

  George

                     <<< Note 274.155 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  No it's different. In the case of the 13 colonies English settlers poured
>into English territory then broke away from their own country. 
    
    	At the expense of the American Indians.

  Exactly.

  George

    RE: .155
    
    Nope.  Once they were in Mexican territory, they were under Mexican
    jurisdiction.  Legally, it was their own country.

RE           <<< Note 274.160 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Nope.  Once they were in Mexican territory, they were under Mexican
>    jurisdiction.  Legally, it was their own country.

  It's not clear that they all became citizens of Mexico. Take Davy Crockett
for example, he fought in the revolution against the Mexican army but when did
he apply for Mexican citizenship? I believe he died an American Citizen and
former member of Congress.

  George

    
    Thats Dave not Davis!!!!!
    
    
     I'll take some of anyone's fairy dust.. It just seems that you have
    the best stuff there George!
    
     Dave
    

    
    
     George
    
     How do explain the large number of Mexicans peasant's who fought
    against the Mexican Army???
    
    
     Dave

    .142> The reason we are bigger and stronger than Mexico is because we
        > stole part of Mexico 150 years ago.
    
    I don't need to make any insults, George, to inform you that this is
    utter nonsense.  We are bigger and stronger than Mexico for lots of
    reasons, mostly having to do with cultural differences (puritan work
    ethic onwards), far richer natural resources, our imperialistic
    treatment of our native peoples providing a 'frontier' to expand into,
    and our great good fortune to have estabished a governmnet of laws 200
    years ago.  Having taken some of Mexico's territory is a tiny part of
    that, and your "because" statement is nonsense.
    
    DougO

>  Remember, the entire politics of Mexico for the past 150 years would have
>been much different had all those South West states been influencing the
>government. 


Pardon? If they hadn't been American territory, they would have been peopled
and governed by Mexicans and would have turned out the same as the rest of
the 3rd World Nation to our south. Do you think for a minute that the major
American industries which have flourished in California and Texas for the
past century and a half would still have done so if those territories were
part of Mexico? And, if you do believe that, please be so good as to weave
for us the tale as to how that would have come about.

RE      <<< Note 274.164 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    I don't need to make any insults, George, to inform you that this is
>    utter nonsense.  We are bigger and stronger than Mexico for lots of
>    reasons, mostly having to do with cultural differences (puritan work
>    ethic onwards), far richer natural resources, our imperialistic
>    treatment of our native peoples providing a 'frontier' to expand into,
>    and our great good fortune to have estabished a governmnet of laws 200
>    years ago.  Having taken some of Mexico's territory is a tiny part of
>    that, and your "because" statement is nonsense.
    
  I agree with the part about richer natural resources but many of those have
come from the areas that we "liberated" from Mexico.

  I do not believe it has anything to do with our "puritan work ethic" being
better than the work ethic of the people of Mexico. Rather we just have more
to work with.

  George

RE        <<< Note 274.165 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Pardon? If they hadn't been American territory, they would have been peopled
>and governed by Mexicans and would have turned out the same as the rest of
>the 3rd World Nation to our south. 

  Not to single you out because several have said this but this is utter racist
nonsense. About what I'd expect from the extreme right wing.

  There is no fundamental difference between people of various cultures or
people from various parts of the world. If Spain settled the northern and much
larger part of North America and the English had settled the part that is now
Mexico I believe their positions in the would would be about the same as they
are now with a very large and powerful Hispanic United States as the one
superpower in the world.

  George

I think you're sadly mistaken. Were that the case, MExico wouldn't be a 3rd
World country.

  What makes you think that the U.S.A. is a superpower because of the
race and national origin of people rather than geographic advantages?

  George

race has little to do it.  ideas and culture have everything to do with it.

Texas and California were effectively seceded from Mexico before the
Mexican-American War.  That leaves New Mexico and Arizona as primary
land acquistions of the war.  While they do have their natural resources,
they weren't really widely mined until 1890s and for the most part.

While the United States was founded on the ideas of free enterprise and
individual rights, Mexico (thoughout its many governments) is barely
one step up from serfdom.  There is little or no middle class and the
power and wealth is in control of a few major families.  This is also
true for the majority of former Spanish colonies in Central America.

RE            <<< Note 274.170 by NETRIX::thomas "The Code Warrior" >>>

>While the United States was founded on the ideas of free enterprise and
>individual rights, Mexico (thoughout its many governments) is barely
>one step up from serfdom.  There is little or no middle class and the
>power and wealth is in control of a few major families.  This is also
>true for the majority of former Spanish colonies in Central America.

  Right, but now watch out, DSMITH is about to jump all over you because
things might have been completely different if the South Western part of
the U.S.A. had been part of Mexico for the past 150 years. As he says,
we just don't know how things might have been different.

  George

RE    <<< Note 274.163 by BSS::DSMITH "A Harley, & the Dead the good life" >>>

>     How do explain the large number of Mexicans peasant's who fought
>    against the Mexican Army???
    
  What's to explain? Would they have won without the support of the settlers
from the United States who had no intention of becoming Mexican? Would the
revolution have lasted at all if the U.S. Army hadn't interceded 10 years
later? 

  George

>  What makes you think that the U.S.A. is a superpower because of the
>race and national origin of people rather than geographic advantages?


What gives you the idea that I think that? As Matt has already aptly
stated, the problem with Mexico has to do with their government (and the
fact that they continue to idly sit by and let it have its way.)

How the hell do you figure that industries currentoly prosperous in
CA and TX would still be there if under Mexican rule?

    
    If tomorrow, you took all the people in, say, Switzerland, and swapped
    them with all the people in, say, El Salvador, each leaving all their
    possessions behind, then within 5 years, El Salvador would be richer
    than Switzerland.  Many of the most successful economic powers in
    history (the Dutch, the Japanese, Hong Kong) have effectively no
    natural resources.  It is simply routine teamwork.  You can put a
    man on the moon if a bunch of people work together.  If they don't,
    you can't, no matter how rich rich or smart you are.
    
    Virtually all the territory on earth has been seized from one group
    by another.  Almost none of the world's peoples are without some
    sort of migration and conquest history.  In some places, this has
    happened so many times the archeologists scratch their heads over
    who did what to whom.  There is no logical basis for any reparations
    for the actions of the dead.  As Chelsea points out, there is a
    rationale based on the "haves" helping the "have-nots", but this is
    true regardless of such irrelevant historical events.
    
      bb

RE                     <<< Note 274.174 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    If tomorrow, you took all the people in, say, Switzerland, and swapped
>    them with all the people in, say, El Salvador, each leaving all their
>    possessions behind, then within 5 years, El Salvador would be richer
>    than Switzerland.  

  Perhaps this is true, but in 150 years I believe they would be back the
way they were before. I believe that climate has a lot more to do with which
countries succeed in the long run than culture. In fact, I believe that culture
is a function of climate.

  The evidence that causes me to believe this is the following:

  First, look at a globe and see where all the successful industrial nations
exist. They are all in temperate areas. Countries that are tropical almost
never seem to become powerful industrial nations and countries in arctic
regions do ok but seem to struggle. The countries in temperate areas are
power houses.

  Second, I read an archaeology report about native Americans that lived several
thousand years ago in California. The layers of soil that were formed during
centuries in which the weather was tropical contained more artifacts of war
fare where as the layers formed during centuries that were more temperate
seemed to contain more artifacts like pottery indicating a relatively
industrial period for their technology. 

  And I see few counter examples that are not strongly influenced by outside
influence. There are relatively few "3rd world" temperate nations and few
tropical industrial powers. In fact, people I've met from northern Italy
which is more temperate than the south have frequently complained that their
neighbors to the south don't have a good work ethic while people I've met from
southern Italy which is much warmer complain of the workaholics in the north.

  Had Mexico kept the American South West their government would have been
strongly influenced by the people who lived in cooler areas and their entire
economic path would have been altered. My guess is that they would be much
like Italy is today, having problems but still one of the 10 richest nations
in the world.

  George

    .175 Interesting thought - but arn't there historical arguments against
    that?  Rome, while the temparate North was full of barbarians. Egypt?
    
    

    Re: .161
    
    >It's not clear that they all became citizens of Mexico.
    
    That would kinda depend on the citizenship laws of Mexico, no?

RE                     <<< Note 274.176 by AKOCOA::DOUGAN >>>

>    .175 Interesting thought - but arn't there historical arguments against
>    that?  Rome, while the temparate North was full of barbarians. Egypt?
    
  I believe that when Egypt was the economic and technological leader of the
world that the lower Nile was cooler and less arid than it is today. There were
major cities in west Egypt that today are covered with sand and erosion on the
Sphinx indicates that there was more rain in Giza then there seems to be at
present. 

  George

    It's not clear that the western parts of the US would have been part of
    a third-world nation had we not taken them.
    
    Probably the largest factor in the development of the revolution was
    geography -- the availability of land and the distance from the
    government authority.  Because of the distance, the colonists were able
    (indeed, had to) pretty much run their colonies themselves.  The
    revolution came when the Empire tried to regain control; the colonists
    were quite happy with the way things were going.
    
    Mexicans in the northern territories would have had similar
    opportunities (although the separation was not as great).  So it is
    possible that they could have developed along a different path. 
    Recall, South America was not significantly different than Mexico, yet
    it produced Simon Bolivar and an independence movement of its own.
    
    Culturally, religion was a major factor.  Catholicism is a more
    hierarchical religion.  Protestantism encouraged everyone (even common
    folk) to learn how to read, so they could interpret the Bible's message
    for themselves.  (Protestantism kind of assumed everyone would reach
    the same conclusion about what it meant, though.)  So it was more
    common for North Americans to be educated.  Congregationalism, popular
    in New England (the hotbed of revolution), ran the church according to
    something like a representative democracy.  Southern Americans were
    raised in a more hierarchical culture, and were taught not to think for
    themselves but to accept the wisdom of those above them.

    
      Not to mention that, technically, Texas rebelled against Mexico,
     won, and established a Republic of Texas, which at first the USA
     refused to admit.  There never was a US government policy that
     could have retained Texas to Santa Anna, assuming anybody in the
     USA would have wanted to help him, which nobody did.
    
      California etc were the result of the Mexican War.  Texas was not.
    
      bb

RE                     <<< Note 274.180 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>      Not to mention that, technically, Texas rebelled against Mexico,
>     won, and established a Republic of Texas, which at first the USA
>     refused to admit.  There never was a US government policy that
>     could have retained Texas to Santa Anna, assuming anybody in the
>     USA would have wanted to help him, which nobody did.

  Well technically yes, but who was doing the actual fighting? Were Jim Bowie
and Davey Crockett natural born Mexicans? How about Sam Houston?

  What happened is that Americans flooded into Texas and without ever really
intending on becoming Mexican citizens or working toward making Mexico a
better place to live, they just took Texas (Or Tijas as it was call) away
from Mexico.
    
>      California etc were the result of the Mexican War.  Texas was not.
    
  I believe that when Congress took up the issue of declaring war on Mexico
some of the boarder incidents that were alleged by those favoring war took
place on the Texas boarder. As a junior Congressman from Illinois, Abraham
Lincoln was critical of those accusations and asked for documentation which
he never got.

  George

RE                      <<< Note 274.182 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

    
>    fwiw - the season's in the northern hemisphere alternate with those of
>    the southern hemisphere

  What does this have to do with the discussion?
    
>    fwiw - Before WWII and Peron, Argentina was the 11th largest industrial
>    country

  Thanks for helping to demonstrate my point. Argentina is far enough south
of the equator to be in a temperate area. On average they seem to do much
better than the rest of South America.
    
>    question - what countries are as far south of the equator as Germany,
>    France, UK are north? In Africa, in Asia ?

  Well if you mean what countries are far enough south to have the same type of
temperate climate as Germany France and so forth it would be Australia, New
Zealand, and Argentina. Chile seems to be about in the same latitude but being
mostly mountains it's not clear if their climate is the same as those other
countries.
    
  So the southern countries would fit the theory.

>    [I can hardly wait for the ICE PEOPLE argument to pop up - it's
>    coming!]

  Who are the ice people?

  George

    .183 Hm - slight geographic correction - Australia, except for the tip
    of Tasmania lies north of 40 degrees and part of it extends into the
    tropics, the North island of NZ is entirely north of 40 degrees. 
    Europe, with the exception of parts of Spain, portugal and Italy lies
    north of 40 (North - if you get my drift - continental that is :-)
    
    It still doesn't invalidate your point so - it could be argued that
    Australia and NZ are simply transplanted English economies and have not
    yet settled to the correct climatic economy:-)

    
    Can somebody put the Texan and Mexican oil industry/resources in
    relation for me, please ?
    
    As for the swapping of poeple (Switzerland and El Salvador) this
    argument doesn't work for me. Take Kuwait and the Emirates on the
    one hand and Jemen and Jordan on the other hand, for example. 
    I believe they are very close in culture and society, yet their
    development has gone different ways.
    
    Back to the main topic. The US will benefit from helping Mexico in
    the long run. In the beginning of the European Trade Union, Spain
    wasn't exactly a powerhouse, but in the last years of the 80ies and
    the beginning of the ninties, Spain was the fastest growing economy in
    the EU, if I remember correctly.
    
    Heiko

RE                     <<< Note 274.184 by AKOCOA::DOUGAN >>>

>    .183 Hm - slight geographic correction - Australia, except for the tip
>    of Tasmania lies north of 40 degrees and part of it extends into the
>    tropics, the North island of NZ is entirely north of 40 degrees. 
>    Europe, with the exception of parts of Spain, portugal and Italy lies
>    north of 40 (North - if you get my drift - continental that is :-)

  Right, but think climate, not latitude. Notice that the more industrial
parts of Australia are toward the south which is more temperate than the
north and less arid than the "outback".

  And despite it's latitude, New Zeland is quite temperate, not tropical.
    
  George

    
    What's ever convenient there George!!!
    

  It has nothing to do with convenience. I'm simply stating facts to back up
my theory.

  If you don't agree, let's hear your argument.

  George

    
      Well, if we're going to engage in "what if", here's the swami's
     picks, assuming no Mexican War :
    
      1.  No Civil War, South not strong enough to attempt secession.
         Slavery at least into the 20th Century.  Mexican Civil War
         instead, fragmenting that country to many little Republics.
    
      2.  US invasion of Canada, much slower industrial progress in 19th
         century America.  Into the vacuum, Russia expands down west
         coast, all the way to Franciscograd.  No Russian revolution,
         no WWI or WWII as we knew them.  However, delayed confrontation,
         USA vs. Imperial Russia, with a North American front.
    
      3.  Delayed discovery of nuclear force, no chance to see the horror
         firsthand, so all-out destruction, mebbe 1960-ish.  You, I, and
         all the Russias turned to glass.  Chinese hegemony.
    
      Of course, all this is irrelevant to the matter at hand.  The whole
      concept of conducting American, or any, foreign policy on some idea
      of "guilt" is drivel.  The question is what policy affects the
      FUTURE in the right way.  The past, particularly the long dead past,
      is not a rational consideration for current policy.
    
       bb

RE                     <<< Note 274.189 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>      Of course, all this is irrelevant to the matter at hand.  The whole
>      concept of conducting American, or any, foreign policy on some idea
>      of "guilt" is drivel.  

  I agree. No one is doing that.

  Are murder and robbery trials all "policy [based] on some idea of guilt"?

>The question is what policy affects the
>      FUTURE in the right way.  The past, particularly the long dead past,
>      is not a rational consideration for current policy.
    
  Very convenient, but there are reasons why aid to Mexico is a good idea
today. By helping our trade partner we build up the power of the free trade
zone created by NAFTA.

  George

    Re: .189
    
    >Slavery at least into the 20th Century.
    
    No, slavery was on the way out when the Civil War started.  The
    economics changed; it wasn't profitable anymore.
    
    >US invasion of Canada
    
    Couldn't be done without some kind of pretext.  The border dispute over
    the Oregon territory might have served, but that got resolved.
    
    I'd say US intervention in the northern Mexican territories was pretty
    much a given, what with Manifest Destiny and all.  Americans genuinely
    believed they had a right to the continent, regardless of whoever else
    might have already gotten there.  They certainly weren't stopping
    before they got to the other coast.

    
    Yes, there are reasons for favoring the Mexico bailout today, but
    the history of Mexican-American relations is only one of them in
    so far as it helps us to predict the future results of policy.
    
    There are also very good reasons to oppose it.  Here's two :
    
     (1)  The government of Mexico has already caused billions of savings
         to disappear through catastrophic policies.  It is fairer that
         the bondholders, who took a risk speculating for big gains,
         apportion the losses among themselves, through an orderly
         Mexican default, rather than the US government apportion the
         loss among its taxpayers, who stood to gain nothing in Mexico's
         econmic bubble.
    
     (2)  A default would be more effective in ruining the idiots who run
         Mexico, and insuring massive reform in Mexican policies.  These
         ought to include, at least, frugality in government and some kind
         of independent Mexican monetary authority.  Perhaps a central
         bank.  It also would lead a sharper, but a shorter, Mexican
         recession, which is now inevitable.
    
      (And yes, I know there are big downsides to this harsh policy.)
    
      bb

    go tell George over in topic 49. ;-)
    
    DougO

A.M. ROSENTHAL: A true-life $20 billion thriller with an
unhappy ending


(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

(Jul 5, 1995 - 19:18 EDT) I spent the weekend reading a great yarn of
international intrigue reaching into high places -- very high. Stakes of
billions of dollars, manipulation of governments, that kind of thing. It was a
bit long -- 748 pages -- but it moves right along; highly recommended.

Only two things may spoil reader enjoyment. The perpetrators win and
justice is not done -- that's one.

The other is that since this story is all true and the money your own, it can
leave you with a heavy awareness that you have been taken for a ride
economically, morally and politically by the administration and Congress
you put in office.

In fact you are still on it -- a ride for which Americans had to gamble $20
billion of taxpayer money without ever being asked if they wanted to get
on board.

The narrative, chronology and documentation are all in this story -- a
report put out by Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, as head of the Senate Banking
Committee, about the Clinton administration's $20 billion loan to Mexico.
It is the result of undernoticed committee hearings and months of staff
research.

The reason given for the loan was to prop up a staggering Mexico because
any default on loans would end foreign investment in all developing
countries. That was malarkey then and is malarkier now.

The real reason was to rescue American and Mexican investors who had
thrown their money into the craps game of high-interest Mexican
government bonds. They saw their money disappearing. So they got the
U.S. to make the loan that would turn their risks into a guaranteed return
-- in American money. Some lighthearted day ask for the same deal on
your own investments in America.

Congress went along with the loan without a vote or debate.

From the beginning the issue seemed to me not so much the Mexican
government and its failures, but the conduct of the U.S. government. For a
year before the loan was ordered, on Jan. 31, 1995, top Treasury officials
and President Clinton were telling us how great things were going
economically in Mexico.

Didn't they know the truth, which they revealed only at the time of the
loan, that Mexico was heading to disaster? Who knew what? When?

The answer given here in several columns was gathered from available
information. It was a cover-up to prevent congressional defeat of the
North American Free Trade Agreement, to bolster the Mexican and U.S.
administrations in upcoming elections in both countries, and to protect the
major speculators.

Now the report puts reality beyond discussion: It was indeed a cover-up.
Scores of internal documents show that from February 1994, while the
administration was shilling for the Mexican "miracle," its top officials
knew that Mexico was in big economic trouble. Documents show that they
had information from their own statistics, from what Mexicans told them
privately and from the CIA.

The report puts chief responsibility for the charade on Undersecretary
Larry Summers. But obviously the Treasury secretary, then Lloyd
Bentsen, knew. If they knew, so did the White House.

Epilogue: The burden of the whole Mexican-American mess falls on
ordinary citizens in both countries. In Mexico, one million workers have
lost their jobs and inflation is expected to reach 50 percent this year.

For the U.S., according to the report, trade with Mexico has gone from an
American surplus to a deficit that may reach $15 billion this year. The
beneficiaries are Mexican, American and international companies that are
increasing their exports of cheaper Mexican-made goods.

The decision of Congress to go along, for fear of taking responsibility, was
a historic example of cowardice hiding behind bipartisanship.

When the first $10 billion was turned over to Mexico, the U.S. said no
more would be needed this year. Now Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin
says the second $10 billion is available to Mexico immediately.

D'Amato asks for a fight against that second $10 billion, since the loan is
a betrayal of Americans' trust in their government.

Sen. Robert Dole recently put to entertainment executives a question
every adult must face sooner or later. Now it faces all members of
Congress who permitted the betrayal: "Is this what you intend to
accomplish with your careers?"



    
    Quoted without permission from today's Toronto Star
    by Linda Diebel
    
    Massive human rights violations, including torture by electric shock
    and genital mutilation, continue in Mexico with "total impunity", says
    a new report by Amnesty International.
    
    The report shows that nothing has changed since Amnesty released a
    similar report about Mexico three years ago.
    
    This year alone, Amnesty has documented 40 case histories of extra-
    judicial killings by police and soldiers, as well as 35 cases of 
    torture.  Their findings belie claims made when Mexico became a free-
    trade partner with Canada and the U.S. in 1994.
     

 Maybe we need to send them more money

    
    
    Naaaaaahh... let's just send them "advisors"
    

    I said to myself that I would go to bed after finding just one little
    measly snarf.... my quest continues...

The Great Mexico Snarf.

Or is that the Great Snarf Bailout?

Chris.