Our good ol' greenback isn't the robust currency it once was, and as its value falls in the world market, the number of dollar defectors is rising.

On Monday, reports surfaced that Gisele Bundchen, the Brazilian-born supermodel, was insisting she be paid in almost any currency except U.S. dollars. Gisele and I aren't the only ones who doubt the dollar. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates do, too. Great minds, and all that.

A litany of financial folly is catching up with our currency, combined with the administration's de facto weak dollar policy.

The dollar has lost 34 percent of its value since 2001, and currency forecasters predict the decline will continue because of global concern that last month's interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve and softening home sales point to larger economic woes for the U.S.

Just this week, the dollar fell to record lows in world currency markets as writedowns for bad debts mounted at big financial institutions such as Citigroup and Merrill Lynch.

The big fear, though, isn't that business columnists and supermodels will turn their back on the dollar, it's that dollar-holding countries will.

China, for example, has amassed much of its reserves in dollars, and it now sees those cash piles losing value.

Political murmuring from China calling for the government to buy more euros and fewer dollars sparked global concern, adding to the dollar's decline this week.

Facing trade sanctions over what many economists contend is the manipulation of its currency, the yuan, China has threatened to dump massive amounts of dollars on the world market, a move that could send the greenback into a free fall.

When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.

I can hear an irritated counterthrust already. The president has not driven the United States into a recession during his almost seven years in office. Unemployment stands at a respectable 4.6 percent. Well, fine. But the other side of the ledger groans with distress: a tax code that has become hideously biased in favor of the rich; a national debt that will probably have grown 70 percent by the time this president leaves Washington; a swelling cascade of mortgage defaults; a record near-$850 billion trade deficit; oil prices that are higher than they have ever been; and a dollar so weak that for an American to buy a cup of coffee in London or Paris—or even the Yukon—becomes a venture in high finance.

And it gets worse. After almost seven years of this president, the United States is less prepared than ever to face the future. We have not been educating enough engineers and scientists, people with the skills we will need to compete with China and India. We have not been investing in the kinds of basic research that made us the technological powerhouse of the late 20th century. And although the president now understands—or so he says—that we must begin to wean ourselves from oil and coal, we have on his watch become more deeply dependent on both.

Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle “worst president” when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed office and reversed Hoover’s policies, the country began to recover. The economic effects of Bush’s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America’s being displaced from its position as the world’s richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush.

Congress delivered yesterday its first override of a veto by President Bush, giving final approval to a $23 billion bill that authorizes water projects sought by lawmakers of both parties.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly to override the veto, with a majority of Republicans and Democrats rejecting Bush's assertion that the bill is fiscally irresponsible. The House voted to override the veto earlier this week.

The override vote is likely to intensify the battle between the White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the federal budget.

President Bush’s church, long at odds with him on matters of public policy, called on the United States and its partners today to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq immediately.

The Bishops of the United Methodist Church approved a resolution calling on Bush, Congress and leaders of the other coalition partners to begin the “immediate safe and full withdrawal” of all troops, declare that there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq, increase support for veterans of all wars and initiate a reconstruction plan to address the humanitarian, social and educational needs of the Iraqi people.

The 125 current and retired bishops now meeting in the Great Smoky Mountains in North Carolina represent more than 11 million Methodists worldwide – including the current occupant of the White House, a member of Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas.

Let me simplify . . . and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It’s not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9-11. That’s the next coup that completes the first.

The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution . . . what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world—in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment. . . .

It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 1970s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but [they] have believed in executive government, single-branch government under an executive president—elected or not—with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint.

When I say this, I’m not saying they are traitors. I don’t think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country—but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country [and the Framers of the Constitution] thought.

They believe we need a different kind of government now, an executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we’re getting with ‘signing statements.’

Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says: ‘I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate.’

It’s [the same] with the military commissions, courts that are under the entire control of the executive branch, essentially of the president—a concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one branch, which is precisely what the founders meant to avert, and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in the Constitution.”

Now I’m appealing to that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders had it right. It’s not just ‘our way of doing things’— it was a crucial perception on the corruption of power to anybody, including Americans.