February 12, 2001

Dear Mr. Stark:

I feel personal responsibility is a key factor in the future of our country. That is, I believe simply going to the polls every few years is not enough. Politicians and the news media suggest to Americans that voting is everything...get out and vote, let your voice be heard, be part of our democracy. I don't believe simply voting is enough.

I believe that before you vote, you need to be educated on the political system, the candidates, and on the issues that are important to you and America. Simply getting out and voting for someone because they are a Democrat or they are a certain race or sex is not what voting is about to me. If I was an elected politician I would rather have been elected by a small number of politically and issue educated individuals who judged my track record and my personal character, than a large number of individuals who simply voted for me because I belong to a certain political group.

What I'm doing when I write you is just that: I'm educating myself on the political system, you (since you're my representative in Congress), and the issues I feel are important.

Part I:

In your letter to me dated February 6, 2001, you said, "It is the responsibility of investors to hold financial news services accountable for providing poor information by not using their services." The way I look at government intervention is by asking myself what can I do for myself vice what I can't do for myself, or what's in my personal control and what's not. For example, you are a strong proponent for Social Security, that is, you believe that when I turned 18 (and could possibly be drafted since I'm a male and be sent off to fight in a war, I did serve 6 years of active service in the US Military) that I am not capable of providing my own security when it comes to disability and my retirement, I need the government to do that for me (Social Security is due to the government's belief that most individuals are not capable of providing for themselves when it comes to their financial security in the future).

I disagree, I can take care of that on my own. What I can't do is take on Wall Street and the financial news services, I need the help of the government. As you stated, "I believe that one reason for why our tax laws favor larger business is because these businesses donate a great deal of money to each party's political campaigns." Meaning, the big money controls Wall Street and the financial news media as well as the politicians. I knew a long time ago that Microsoft was a monopoly. McNeely, CEO of Sun, asked numerous times when he gave a speech, "How many of you in the audience don't use Windows?" Only a couple people would raise their hands. However, I had no power to do anything about it, but maybe write my congressperson or write the media, and again, those seem to be controlled by money.

I have a hard time understanding from a logical point of view anyway, why the government feels I need help saving for my future retirement or disability, but that on my own, I can take on Wall Street and the financial news media. I see it just the other way around.

Part II:

You stated, "The Congress and the President did not make the Federal Reserve directly accountable to them because they wanted the organization to make decisions based on economics rather than politics." I want to point out that I stated that I'm comfortable with that, what I don't like is the fact that the politicians don't challenge Greenspan. Greenspan was aggressively raising rates stating he was doing it because of inflation concerns. Mr. Stark, looking at it economically, Greenspan raised rates when the CPI, unemployment, and oil were at a certain levels, those levels have actually, overall, gotten a little worse (oil is higher, there's even an energy crisis in the Bay Area, natural gas has gone from $2 per to $8 per, CPI is higher, and unemployment only up slightly), but last month Greenspan started aggressively cutting rates. That doesn't make economic sense (aggressively raising rates one after another, even before the previous rate increases could even begun to be felt by the economy and then lowering rates a half point and then turning around in less than thirty days and lowering rates by a full half point again).

For your constituency it could be devastating for the Federal Reserve to suddenly flip-flop from very aggressive rate hikes to rate decreases: a two bedroom townhouse where I live is $400,000, heating and electrical bills have gone up fourfold, unemployment in the Bay Area is much lower than the national average, and I could go on.

I believe Congress needs to challenge Greenspan on some of his policies and the logic behind them. He says he raised rates due to inflation fears, but then turns right around and aggressively cuts when inflation isn't under any more control than it was before, he doesn't even seem to let changes in rates be felt by the economy before he moves again and again.

You stated "These hearings provide Congressional members the opportunity to voice their opinions on Federal Reserve actions and possibly sway the organizations' future policies." When I watch the Federal Reserve Chairman testify, the politicians seem to spend more time congratulating him than they do at asking him challenging questions. One time I watched Phil Gramm praise Greenspan for 5 minutes as he opened the meeting and then I had to watch virtually every senator use up some of their precious personal time congratulating Greenspan even more. The fact is, no one, including all the senators, know for sure if Greenspan is really doing a good job or not, truly knowing what GDP growth is optimal or even close to optimal is impossible. (You would have to play out several different scenarios to have even an educated guess at what was optimal and since you can't play out but one scenario, there is absolutely no way for the politicians or the news media to know just how effective Greenspan's plan was or is going to be, and to overly congratulate Greenspan is misleading to the public and is giving credit where it's not earned or due.)

My first question for you: how do you personal feel about Greenspan's sudden flip flopping and your constituency, that is, do you feel that the Fremont Area could be severely impacted if Greenspan now aggressively reduces interest rates? The people in your district are already facing extremely low unemployment rates, huge housing costs (the largest in the US), huge rising energy costs, and government jobs as well as small businesses are consistently challenged by private companies with their lucrative stock option plans that they seem to give away freely to employees. (This is another issue I raised with you that you have consistently avoided, those large businesses that you state give large donations, are taking capital away from the smaller companies even though they don't deserve it. Fidelity Investments has lost billions more in Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, Oracle, Sun, HP, and Applied Materials then all the small companies they own put together. Why? Because for every dollar investors give Fidelity only a few cents are invested in smaller companies because of liquidity issues, not because the larger companies deserve it, just because they are big, that's not sound investing practices and the SEC should be getting involved before, not later, and it's already later, Fidelity's investors have lost billions in those overvalued tech companies Fidelity's fund managers were buying.)

Part III:

My second and last question is what were; 1) the total tax revenues, (2) the surplus or deficit, and (3) the total national debt for the years ending 1991 through 2000? I have already tried to find this information, but have had no luck. I'm even willing to pay for it or do community service, just let me know when and where because it is essential for me to find out before I even think of voting. I am serious about doing community service for this information.

Conclusion:

I need all the help I can get when it comes to voting, like I said I can't vote for someone just because they are a Democrat.

Voting is hard. Three months ago, the Democrats were telling me based on future surpluses my Social Security is sound, the ex-president was telling me the National Debt will be paid off by 2010 based on future surpluses. Now the Democrats are saying that it stupid to try and predict what future surpluses are going to be a few years down the road, let alone, ten years down the road (with regard to tax relief). Which one is it? Obviously, predictions and estimates are necessary to plan, but we must prepare and be ready for the unexpected. In the future the Democrats as well as the Republicans should keep estimates just that, estimates, and not promise Americans anything based solely on estimates.

Voting is hard, the government wants to help me with my retirement which I could do on my own, but won't lend a hand at taking on big business when it comes to investments and when I asked them why not, they said because big business is fueling political campaigns and therefore the politicians. Even when it comes to smoking, the government gets involved. If I don't want to smoke no one is forcing me to smoke. When I was six years old my grade school in Walla Walla, WA showed me at an assembly black lungs in jars. In 1961 grade school administrators were telling six year olds, smoking was bad. I believe some adults outside of those in the smoking industry have to take responsibility for their own decisions, if grade school administrators felt six year olds could get the message, surely, some adults should be responsible for getting the message as well. My opinion, let the government get involved when an individual is powerless on his own, for example when it comes to health, let the government get involved with a patient's bill of rights, I can't take on the HMOs by myself, but I sure as hell can quit smoking without the help of the government. (Or how about dealing with the pharmaceuticals companies and their obvious marketing of prescription drugs, what Americans need to start doing more than anything is E-X-E-R-C-I-S-I-N-G and maintaining healthy diets. Then, if that doesn't work try prescription drugs. The thing you don't want to do is to start hindering new drug research by telling pharmaceuticals companies what to charge for drugs, drug companies have to make profits to pay for research. Clearly, where the highest return on investment would be for the government is to get Americans to exercise and eat better and for them to tell the pharmaceutical companies to tell customers, and not just in small print you can't read, that maintaining an exercise program as well as a healthy diet should be the first course of action and may be all that's necessary for certain conditions.)

Voting is hard, when the Republican Party wants me to feel sorry for the wealthy in America, and they want me to believe the wealthy with all their tax loop holes and write offs deserve tax relief as much as the American middle-class is ridiculous. In no way am I going to vote for anyone who believes that.

The only thing that does make sense. It's all about money, and if that's the case the only thing my voting is going to do is to say I support that, but I don't, so no voting for me...yet.

Respectfully,