The turmoil in the financial markets continued today as questions abounded over the government's mortgage lender bail-out proposal.
I haven't had enough time to truly digest all of the possibilities and ramifications of the plan, but a couple of things have been bothering me about it.
First, I question whether or not the average Senator or Congressman has a sufficient understanding of economics to render competent decisions regarding the plan. I shudder whenever there is large-scale legislation or government intervention regarding the economy. The Law of Unintended Consequences almost always rears its head in these situations. This is particularly true because our government officials and legislators cannot resist the temptation to pursue political advantage through such efforts.
Lets not forget that a good part of this crisis had its genesis in legislation. The early nineties saw legislation which eliminated distinctions between types of financial institutions in order to 'level the playing field". We also saw lenders being jawboned by government into lending to lower-income, higher risk borrowers on the threat of being called "red-liners". Those efforts set the table for the practices which brought us to the current crisis.
Further, the entire concept of a "bail-out" troubles me. I understand the argument that the situation is so wide-spread that we cannot afford to sit idly by. But what ever happened to the bedrock values which underpinned our country and economy for so long? Concepts like hard-work, thrift, and personal responsibility appear to have become passe.
If all of these bad loans are forgiven, what does that say to the vast majority of borrowers who have cut corners, taken second jobs, scrimped and saved, and paid their bills on time? We will once again be rewarding behavior we do not want and "punishing" behavior we should be promoting. Can the government (meaning us taxpayers) really afford to cushion every economic failure?
Once again, I guess its too soon to really know whether or not this plan is the right move. I just have to wonder if Capitalism is on its deathbed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I was wondering how you would spin the latest financial challenge. All that de-reg that Republicans have insisted upon for years. The promises that the market would take care of itself. Oops.
As for the latest plan proposed by this admin: 3 pages with no accountability, no oversight, no mention of all of the people who stand to lose their homes, no limits on executive compensation, and no limits on Paulson's power. Oh and let's not forget the notion of having contractors come in to work on this latest Bush debacle (probably no-bid contracts).
I'm not stupid (tho perhaps naive). This way, when all those things are put into the plan, it will be those dang, liberal dems who do it (prevent more foreclosures, accountability, executive compensation). Its all a bunch a political poop.
Polls suggest that the American people find the Republicans more responsible for this mess. And so we should. It seems that less government only applies to business and commerce. But many of the people who scream less government are the same people who want government to dictate a woman's right to choose, my right to marry, the right of scientists to do embryonic stem cell research. You get the idea.
I read the link you posted about why John McCain can't do email. Bunk. I just watched him pound a podium with his index finger. If he can do that, he can type an email. The email thing is not an indicator of disability, it is an indicator of how out of touch this candidate is. (The fundamentals of the economy are good.)
I liked McCain. I really liked him in 2000. And as you know, I am no fan of Obama. Had McCain picked a Tom Ridge or an Olympia Snow as his running mate, I might have voted for him. I say that because he would have gone against his base (something Obama hasn't done either). Instead, he has shown me that he will reverse himself on any and every value or policy he ever had to win. He is no maverick and Obama never was.
I am the perfect embodiment of the angry white woman over 50 who believed, and still believes, that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified person to lead this country in these awful times.
BUT, I could never vote vote a ticket with Sarah Palin on it. She is too far right and has never done a single thing for any issue of concern for women. (As an aside, she credits her success as a woman in politics on Title IX. Ironic, since Title XI is a democratic accomplishment and something she would certainly oppose if it were proposed today.)
I found Palin's selection to be insulting and more importantly, dangerous. Sarah Palin is one bad sunburn away from becoming president. That is truly scary. That McCain would select her suggests just how little he cares for our country and its security.
I am lucky I live in Maryland. It is not a swing state, so it doesn't matter who I vote for and I therefore have no crisis of conscience. I will write in Hillary and let the chips for where they may.
I left the democratic party the week after the rules committee met. It is a very liberating feeling not to have the defend a party when its actions are indefensible. You should try it.
But knowing that you won't, I can't help but wonder how you can look back at these 8 years and not shudder with mortification.
Still, I love you Johnny Di. And I always will.
Rubes
Rubes:
I tried to stay away from partisan blame for the mortgage crisis. There is plenty of blame on both sides of the aisle. Most of it is the usual ostrich "head in the sand" variety; some is more pernicious.
Before you get too far down the road, though, read this column by Kevin Hassett in Bloomberg News online.
One last thing, remember which president made deregulation his marquee policy. It was Jimmy Carter. Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton just followed suit.
I guess my link didn't work. Here's the address for the Hassett column.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Post a Comment