I put a credit fraud alert on my credit reports: Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian because Chase bank called me saying someone with my information tried to open up 5 credit card accounts at once. I was grateful for them calling me, because I would never have suspected it.

When I put that alert on there, they warned me it would be harder to get credit if I did so. Kind of like, "You'll be sorry!"

Sorry for what? That I can't get more than what I need? I have one credit card for situations when I can't use anything else, and I pay it off when I get a balance on it. That's what a credit card is for, right? Why would I want more than one?

Maybe they mean I would have to wait while my credit was scrutinized for such things as a loan--like a house loan or a car loan. Sorry, that requires a credit report pulled anyway. The bank's gotta make sure I can pay the money back that I borrow. Credit card companies don't. If it cuts down the amount of junk mail I receive, that will be a bonus over and above protecting my credit information.

One outcome of this financial crisis and the bailout is that stricter rules are made about getting house loans, especially, and other loans as well.

I'm really grateful for the HUD-approved home-ownership classes I took, if nothing else but to learn more about financial ins and outs. I might never get a house. But I know a lot more about how financial institutions work.

So I told my congressman, John Yarmuth, and my senators, Jim Bunning and Mitch McConnell what I wanted in order to get our financial institutions on their feet. When I wrote it out, I was amazed that I actually knew what I knew.

I want:
Criteria to determine when a financial institution can cover its own assets.
Proof that they are doing what they can to cover their bad assets.
Anyone applying for a home-ownership loan to complete HUD-approved home-ownership classes.

And not to spend all 700 billion dollars. Have a definite plan for what to do with money left over. I said to put it into other government concerns that need help such as local transit, health care, veterans affairs, etc. etc., but my mom wants us to pay down the national debt with it.

I hadn't thought about that. That is a good idea, too.

I had been trying to figure out how to mitigate tax burden when not all 700 billion dollars was needed, but I didn't remember the national debt. Mom has some great ideas.

You have great ideas, too. Tell your congresspeople and senators. They really only hear from a small portion of their constituency. Dad told me one time that a phone call from one constituent represents 10 constituents. A handwritten letter represents 100 constituents. That was before e-mail. The statistics might have changed.

In certain cases--like the current pending bailout bill--it goes too fast for me to send a written letter. I use e-mail and phone calls in those cases before something can go too fast through Congress.

I tried to e-mail Mr. Yarmuth my views, but every time I tried, the site went down. This guy is swamped. So I called his office, and the gentleman there took down my comments in a computer, and he'll send them on. I feel like I'll be heard because I made the effort to contact him and my two senators. If nothing else, I figure it will slow them down so they'll rethink things and not be in so much of a hurry. Legislating in a hurry is always a bad idea. Legislating in a panic even moreso.

More in my next post

700,000,000,000 bytes is 700 GB. That's storage on a computer that can play some serious, graphic-intensive, elaborate RPG games.

Now think of that in dollars. It's quite a lot of money the government wants to use to save financial institutions. The bailout bill was designed to put it all in the hands of one person.

If you had 700 billion dollars in your hands, what would you do with it? Buy a house? That only costs half a million for an estate mansion. Bill Gates' house cost only 97 million dollars. Brewster's Millions was a movie where Richard Pryor, in order to be heir to 300 million dollars, had to spend 30 million dollars in 30 days, responsibly, without getting a return of any sort on it.

If 700 billion dollars is set aside to rescue financial institutions, how much will be spent? Will there be extra? Will it go to other programs to alleviate the impact it will have on taxpayers? (The money's gotta come from somewhere.) And who will be allowed to parcel it out?

In the language of the bailout bill that failed this week, there was no provision for criteria for doling out the money. One person could spend 700 million dollars in any way he chose, so long as it went to help a financial institution. There was no provision for extra money left over.

Institutions cry out that those in ideal financial countries like Sweden used public monies to bail out their companies; therefore we should do the same here. What they don't say is that many have bailed themselves out. There are financial institutions in countries considered less ideal--such as in Chile (http://gata.org/node/6688)--who cinched their belts, covered their bad assets, and became solvent again on their own.

So when is help help enough? When do we know a financial institution is solvent? How do we know the person responsibile for doling out the money will, indeed, be responsible? When do we know the financial institutions can cover their own bad assets and recover more strongly on their own? And what is being done with the extra taxpayer  money left over? These are questions I am asking of my congresspeople and senators.

More in my next post.