Keith, Good post.
On Oct 2, 9:35 am, "Keith In Tampa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *Bonanza. Bailout. Bonanza. > *By Debra Saunders > October 2, 2008 > > Who do I blame for this financial disaster? Let me count the villains. > > Start with President Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. By their own > actions, they have shown that they believe markets have become too > vulnerable under their watch. > > The Bush administration has mishandled the $700 billion bailout at every > juncture. They pulled a too-large number out of the hat, then asked Congress > to write a blank check. Paulson even rejected limits on the compensation of > the geniuses who bought bad mortgage paper with other people's money. No way > was Congress going to go along with that scheme. > > Like many Americans, I am angry and have strong doubts as to whether the > bailout is necessary. Having proposed it, however, Paulson probably made it > necessary. If there is a 10 percent risk of an economic collapse without a > bailout, Washington probably has to pass something. > > I blame Democrats, who pushed to give government-supported mortgage giants > Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more flexibility to buy dicey home loans, despite > their accounting irregularities. It was Senate Banking Committee Democrats > who blocked GOP-backed reforms of Fannie and Freddie in 2003 and 2006 -- but > that doesn't stop them from disowning any role in this fiasco now. > > I blame Democratic leaders for larding the Senate version of the bailout > bill with what the national political news website Politico.com described as > a landmark provision that would require that "insurance companies provide > coverage for mental-health treatment -- such as hospitalization -- on parity > with physical illnesses." > > This bill is in trouble, and the Democratic leaders decide to add $100 > billion to the total tab -- as well as make a new enemy, insurance > companies. And they think Bush is dumb. > > I blame congressional Republicans for being addicted to pork-barrel projects > and driving federal spending so high that they lost control of the House and > Senate in 2006. In their greed, they forfeited their credibility. > > House Republicans didn't help themselves when they said that House Speaker > Nancy Pelosi's partisan pre-vote rant killed 10 Republican "yes" votes. They > showed America that -- like Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- > their instinct was to throw the blame at the other party first, then to > think about what is best for America. > > Oh, and you can thank Senate Republicans for a five-year, $3.3 billion rural > school aid measure packed onto the bailout bill. Shameless. > > Pelosi and Reid have played this as poorly as Bush. Last week, they said > they had a deal. Clearly, they don't know the meaning of the word "deal." > The leadership of the party that believes in more government regulation > cannot count votes (a simple accounting procedure) and cannot regulate > itself. > When she was supposed to be rallying all House members, Pelosi instead > brandished her dagger, as she parroted that lame old line about Republicans > believing in "no regulation." It is amazing how a party that flatters itself > for its intellectual wattage can disseminate such patently false drivel with > wide eyes. > > Sure, maybe two Republicans in Washington oppose most regulation. But look > at the party's nominee, John McCain. Not only did McCain push for improved > regulation of Freddie and Fannie, he also voted for the 2002 accounting > oversight measure, Sarbanes-Oxley -- that was supposed to prevent another > Enron -- and authored a measure to regulate campaign spending. > > I'm a small-government conservative. But I've worked for other people since > I was a teenager -- and that sort of experience leaves me with only a jaded > respect for how the "free market" works. It doesn't work without regulation. > > Most of all, I blame the financial masterminds on Wall Street, who have > justified their high salaries because they were supposed to be so clever -- > yet apparently had no idea that they were buying inflated paper. > > Although if Congress keeps larding the bailout to the point that America > will need a bailout for the bailout, then the order of my list could change. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
