Why should United States Attorneys not have ten year terms? There are many reasons not to appoint them for life but I can't think of any reason not to give them ten year terms. They can quit sooner if they want but if they choose to serve through two terms of any President they should be able to do so.
If there are other good ways to depoliticize what is now a politicized position, let's hear them.
And then let's put the good ideas into a reform law.
Another question not for the faint-hearted: What's happening to wages, from which those not in the top income quintile obtain the money to pay mortgages?
Take a look at the following from Wikipedia:
The formula for GDP measured using the income approach, called GDP(I), is:
GDP = Compensation of employees + Gross operating surplus + Gross mixed income + Taxes less subsidies on production and imports
Compensation of employees (COE) measures the total remuneration to employees for work done. It includes wages and salaries, as well as employer contributions to social security and other such programs.
Gross operating surplus (GOS) is the surplus due to owners of incorporated businesses. Often called profits, although only a subset of total costs are subtracted from gross output to calculate GOS.
Gross mixed income (GMI) is the same measure as GOS, but for unincorporated businesses. This often includes most small businesses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007
/03/11/business/11mortgage.html
Help me, readers, find that quote where Dr. Greenspan recommended that everyone take more risks in the mortgages they assumed. At least as to the information technology bubble, he could point to the "exuberance" warning, although he neglected to repeat the caution when it was warranted three years later, and instead supported the New Economy thesis.
Many things are new about the current economy, especially the phenomenon of increasing returns to technology firms that enjoy network effects (most recently, Google). But owing more money then you can pay is as old as money itself.
Some financial firms, their relatively well-paid investors and their well-heeled investors are losers as the "free money" mortgage bubble collapses. Congress will think about applying more regulation to the sector, although principally the Fed and the Administration are to blame for depending so strongly on consumption instead of investment and savings to drive growth from 2001 to the present. Meanwhile, the Fed and Treasury should worry about whether the bubble's pop triggers the much-discussed "hard landing" for the precariously imbalanced American economy.
The other class of losers are those forclosed upon, those whose lives are utterly disrupted by the failure of money to match obligations. Many moralists will blame the people who undertook the mortgages. But a closer look at individual situations will reveal the hard balances to be struck in the problem set of finding affordable housing, paying for transportation, avoiding hours of commuting, trying to build up equity in a house when there's a paucity of attractive savings plans offered to the middle class. It will be a challenge for Congress to rise to the occasion of this severe and unprecedented financial problem.
