The Wall Street bailout bill was a Democratic bill from the beginning, proposed by Democrat Hank Paulson to impose a central lplanning, Big Government "solution to problems created by the failure of central planning and politicians/bureaucrats (including Paulson himself, who should have been fired rather than allowed to craft a "bailout" plan. You know Paulson is a corrupt Democrat favorite because Democrats and the mainstream media have failed to savage Paulson over the obvious conflict of interest in Paulson proposing to bail out his own former firm (for which he was CEO for a much longer time than Cheney was CEO of Halliburton)--not to mention Paulson's utter failure to act in less socialistic ways to prevent us from getting into this mess (Paulson being Secretary of the Treasury for the whole 2 years this housing "bubble' has been an obvious problem). As I have said: Paulson is a corrupt failure, both in the way he "built Goldman Sachs and his actions as Secretary of the Treasury. What kind of dishonest hypocrite do you have to be to talk about the greedy, corrupt people on Wall Street, and fail to notice that Paulson (and so many others of the greedy, corrupt people, including so many Democrats connected with Obama now, not to mention Chris Dodd and Braney Frank--the partisan Democrats talking the lead to push the partisan Democrat bill that has emerged) is one of the corrupt, greedy Wall Street people you are talking about. Paulson did the same things as CEO of Goldman Sachs that are now supposed to make present Wall Street people criminals. How can you be intellectually honest and excuse Paulson from being part of the problem. You can't. You certainly can't by saying that Paulson made up for it by becoming Secretary of the Treasury and exposing the excessive risk taking in Goldman Sachs and elsewhere. He did the exact opposite. He came to Washington, exposed nothing, seemingly clueless, and utterly failed. Then he used that failure to propose a government bailout of his own old firm (among, of course, others). "Corrupt" and "incompetent" are kind words for Paulson. Democrats would be saying so, if they did not consider him a Democrat, and if he were not proposing a Democrat "solution" to Big Government failure: more Big Government.
Then Paulson's bailout proposal went to Congress, and the Democrats there turned it into a totally partisan bill imposing even more government controls and intervention (an "oversight" board was always inevitable, but Democrats have imposed two) Democrats have turned to bailout from a "blank check" to the most intrusive, socialistic proposal in the history of the U.S. It is extremely doubtful the Democratic bill has any chance now of working, Christmas tree of Democratic proposals that it now is, but Democrats don't care. Once this principle (of total government control over the economy) is established, they will simply propose more government after this fails. That is how this bill has become a totally partisan, Democratic bill. It has become a "poster child" for massive government intervention in the economy to "solve" economic problems. It has further revealed why most on Wall Street are now Democratic. They regard the government as a source of money for them, and they don't regard this stuff about "executive compensation" as serous. Franklin Raines, Democrat, took 90 million in compensation while running Fannie Mae into the ground. Democrats expect a lot of this taxpayer money to stick to Democrats (overreaching with a direct provision in the bill to to give 20% of the "profits" to Democratic "acitivist" organizations). Tom Tancredo (whose main issue was illegal immigration) has noted that many of these "acitivists" obtained fraudulent loans for illegal immigrants to get houses they could not afford, and which they are now abandoning. This has become a fairly significant part of the "housing/mortgage crisis", especially in combinations with so many others being "helped" by acitivists into housing loans they could not afford.
What have Republicans done to respond to this partisan, Democratic bill that betrays every conservative principle there is? Well, first they (President Bush and Senate Republicans) caved, and let Democrats put whatever they want in the bill to increase the Federal intervention, while Republicans proposed nothing to stand up for conservative, free market principles. They let Democrats make this totally a partisan issue over "deregulation", and imposing Federal controls, rather than pointing out that central planning got us into the mess and therefore we should hardly rely on central planning to get us out. It was the massive Federal, political takeover of the mortgage industry by means of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which created the whole problem, and enabled so many Democrats to make so much money and receive so much in political contributions. But Republicans were not out there making the partisan case (the better partisan case). They were too busy panicking, as they have done for at least four years. Even with the public apparently on the side of Republican/conservative principles (my own leftist daughter called this bailout Communistic), Republicans have left the partisan field to the Democrats--who have been as partisan as they can get. Now the Democrats are calling for "bipartisan" support of a Democrat partisan bill, even as Democrats are all over the airwaves spouting partisan rhetoric against ever conservative principle there is.
It just does not get any worse than this. Is it any wonder I have disowned the Republican Party once again. I can assure you that I will never call myself a Republican the rest of my lifetime. I am, and will remain, a conservative, but the Republican Party has abandoned everything in which I believe.
Enter the House Republicans. Yes, they are the "conservatives" in this "debate". But they entered the field late, and merely with "suggestions". I actually have heard their "leaders" explain, on several occasions, that they simply want their proposal "considered". That is not the way Democrats approached this. They demanded that their "suggestions" be adopted, even at the cost of putting in jeopardy this "emergency" bailout. And put it in jeopardy the Democrats have done, but turning a simple (if indefensible) "blank check" into a Democratic wedge to try to cement the policy of socialistic response to economic problems forever more. Democrats are still out today talking partisan, Big Government, talk, and suggesting that a "deal" is "close" adopting the very same things Democrats have demanded from the beginning. In other words, as I said, "bipartisan" means adopting the Democratic partisan version of this Democratic, Communistic bill--even while making clear that nobody really regards this as a true "emergency" by including any number of complex provisions that threaten the idea of injecting "emergency" fudns into the system.
Nope. Republicans (including John McCain) have botched this so badly that there is only one thing to do. Yes, Republicans have to vote against this bailout. It is the position I arrived at as a matter of principle. But it is now a matter of political survival for Republicans. They have let Democrats make this a partisan, Democratic bill. "Face saving", cosmetic changes will not longer work. I don't think the original Paulson plan, even with the overisght board, now works for Reublicans (even apart from being against Republican "principles". Republicans have put themselves in a box where they need to join the public against the bailout, and they need to do it strongly--by rejecting a central planning solution to a central planning created problem. They need to say that it is time to stop looking to Big Government every time Big Government fails, and time to stop listening to the Democrats on Wall Street.
Will Republicans do it? Don't hold your breath. If Republicans do it, will Democrats push through the bill as a partisan Democratic bill, on the theory that honorary Democrat George W. Bush, Hank Paulson, and the Senate Republicans provide enough cover? Maybe. But it is the only thing for Republicans to do, and they need to do it by coming out swinging--instead of leaving the partisan rhetoric to the Democrats.
P.S. Memo to Presidnet Bush: PEASE shut up and go away. Since 2004 you have done little but sabotage conservatives and the Republican Party. You are doing it again. It is Obama who is running for your third term on domestic policy. If you have any vestige of loyalty left to your own party, as conservatives like me no longer have any for you, you should simply stop embracing Democratic proposals. and stay quiet.
No comments:
Post a Comment