Here's a letter that I sent my congressman. I'm interested to hear opinions on my ideas for a bailout alternative: I was greatly disappointed to see your vote

Here's a letter that I sent my congressman. I'm interested to hear opinions on my ideas for a bailout alternative: I was greatly disappointed to see your vote of "Aye" for the bill entitled "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes". The bill, of course, includes the provision for the "bailout" of the financial sector. My first problem lies in the title of the bill. As a friend of mine said, "If that kind of doublespeak don't get yer hackles up, I can't imagine what would." Have you read George Orwell's 1984, sir? I would not like to imply that we are in such a situation, but to allow a bill to pass which is so clearly titled in an obfuscating way is a mistake, one that is insulting to the American people. My second problem lies in the bailout itself. Instead of punishing those companies that mismanaged their finances, we are instead calling for the entire country to pay for their mistakes. A massive tide of bankruptcies would have 3 major effects: 1. People employed by such companies would lose their jobs. These people are largely white-collar workers who should have some savings put away and should be able to find another job without much trouble. Surely it is better for these individuals to be out of work than for the entire country to be handed a debt that was created by the private sector. 2. It will be harder to get low-rate credit. In a nation that is addicted to such credit, I consider this to be a good thing in general, as it will encourage saving (or filing bankruptcy and starting over without a penchant for overspending). This still poses a minor problem, which I will address below. 3. Some people will lose their retirement investments. This, of course, is a bad thing. Based on points (2) and (3), I think that $700B+ would be better allocated to: 1. Subsidize home mortgage interest rates and/or offer tax credits for people in low tax brackets. This will allow lower- and middle-class individuals to still be able to purchase homes and spaces for small businesses in spite of the inevitable credit crunch. 2. Create a program for individuals meeting certain criteria (age, total assets) that uses government funds to restore some of their lost investments. This will bring some relief to those who depended on the ill-run companies for their retirement. I believe that my ideas are better than a bailout because instead of punishing the entire country for the mistakes of a few, it offers relief to the uninvolved parties who will be hit the hardest, while allowing those responsible for this mess to receive the brunt of the punishment. If, instead, the government proceeds with the bailout, the government is subsidizing the risk of high-risk business practices, which causes companies to take irrational risks and unfairly rake in short-term profits, profits which are later paid for by tax payers who bail the company out when it inevitably goes under. I plead with you to consider the fair course of action in this case, the one which does not punish everyone for the mismanagement of a few. And if the bailout package is allowed to go through, at least ensure that the bill is correctly titled.