Mark Cuban is a self-made billionaire who owns/owned the Dallas Mavericks (I don't keep up with his purchases and sales)--amazing, is it not, how many of these really rich guys are leftists. Mark Cuban is also a left wing loon (a term I use advisedly) who financed Brian DePalma's disgraceful attack on the U.S. military in Iraq (the movie entitled "Reactged"). Yes, the movie was "anti-war", but anti-war in the sense of trashing the U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The movie had no redeeming social value.
The Governor of Montana is the leftist loon who was caught this summer suggesting in a speech that he had stolen the 2006 Senate election for a fellow Democrat--using the power of the governor to steal the election from REpublican Conrad Burns. The governor (Brian Schweitzer, if you must know) apologized, and said he was joking (can't make this stuff up).
Senator Charles Schumer is the hyper-partisan, left wing hack (and loon) who I referenced in my earlier entry today noting how Democrats were trying to take advantage of the Bernanke/Paulson "bail out" bill to add all kinds of pet provisions that would have the effect of sabotaging the bill.
What can these three men possibly have in common, besides all being left wing loons? Read that earlier entry where I talk about seeing Senator Schumer on television much earlier today. You can see my description of Schumer's rendition of the main left wing, Democratic "talking points" for today.
Don't you find it amazing that the governor of Montana was interviewed about the "anger" in his state over this "bail out" of Wall Street. He (the governor) was asked whether sometimes politicians had to do what is necessary, even when the public doesn't like it. He said (presumably in Montana, and I can't make this stuff up--this being a very accurate paraphrase): "Well, sometimes you have to make difficult decisions. But people expect you to act for them. For example, the taxpayers should at least get an equity stake if they are going to bail out these companies with taxpayer money."
The above is exactly (not word for word, but the very same meaning) the same thing that Senator Schumer said this morning in Washington (see my account earlier of what Schumer said,before I heard Governor Schweitzer.
Then Mark Cuban went on Greta van susteren tonight and said that the bail out was necessary, in his view, but only with sufficient protection for American taxpaers. The "protection" he specifically mentioned was internet "transparency". To Cuban (loon that he is), this meant that every single transaction of this new "bail out" entity buying distressed assets with taxpayer money must be immediately posted on the internet so that people on the internet can "police" the activities of the people spending taxpayer money as they are occurring. Amazingly (see my earlier entry again), Senator Schumer said the very same thing earlier today.
This raises several questions. One is how Democrats coordinate these taking points so well, and so quickly. You have a governor, a billionaire, and a senator all saying the very same things at widely separated locations. Well, let that one pass.
The more important question: Do Democrats really want a bill passed, or are they--as usual--only about deception. Would Democrats prefer to kill the bail out, but in such a way that they can blame Republicans for the consequences. In other words, are partisan leftists, who would prefer to risk the country rather than risk their political future, trying to get in a position to oppose the bill because Republicans fail to agree to "reasonable" provisions to "protect" and benefit the taxpayers. The evidence is that this is exactly what many leftists are doing. At the very least, you can expect "endangered" leftists running for office to vote against the final bill on this basis, even if they arrange for just enough votes to pass the final bill.
Now let me be clear. I oppose the bill. I have no problem if Democrats--even leftist Democrats--want to oppose the bill because the Federal Government should not be using taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street and banks. But be honest about it. To pull the kind of deception that House Democrats pulled on the recent energy bill would be shameful, and shamefully trying to take political advantage of a national crisis, even it is what leftists are conditioned to do (deceive).
Nope. These are not "reasonable" provisions (the ones Schumer advocated, and referenced above). They are "killer" amendments. Even if passed, they will sabotage the legislation (worse than no legislation at all, by far) by making it ineffective.
Take the "equity" idea. The problem is that this Federal entity is supposed to be able to inject "liquidity" quickly into the system. If the Federal entity is required to negotiate an equity stake (or executive compensation) every time a purchase is made, or as a pre-condition to making a coporatin eligible for having its problem assets purchased, this has two terrible effects (fatal, really). First, it discourages corporations from trying to use the Federal money--meaning that only the most desperate will apply, and then probably too late. Second, it delays the injection of liquidity into the system, which defeats the whole purpose of this "emergency" legislation. At the very least, you cannot be confident that legislation with this provision in it will do any good at all. That makes the legislation essentially a fraud.
Then there is Cuban's, and Schumer's, "transparency" provisiion. That one is so loony that anyone who advocates it should probably just be locked.up. How can you do business if every transaction you make is immediately made public. Senator Schumer was already complicit in the failure of IndyMac bank by causing a run on the bank. Does any sane person really think that businesses can survive having their transactions with a "bail out" entity spread all over the internet? AT the very least, this reveals to everyone which corporations may have difficulties. It could easily cause runs on banks for that reason alone. Then there is the problem of internet people conducting attacks on transactions. These may be attacks with some merit, or no merit. It hardly matters. The whole "system" will soon be paralyzed in infinite second guessing and fear (fear by corporations to expose themselves to this, and by the Federal bureaucrats to engage in almost any transactions at all, beyond the simplest (if any is that simple).
Nope. The provisions above sabotage the bill, and the suspicion is that they are meant to sabotage the bill (or at least provide cover to Democrats to vote against it). They are insane provisions, proposed by loons (or people being too clever by half with the future of their contry).
Again, I have no problem with strong opposition to this whole "bail out", central planning concept. To me, central planners (governemnt and corporate) have failed, and now they want to try central planning on an incredible scale, using taxpayer money. This sets a precedent from which I don't think we can recover. Democrats, even though they are mostly central planners at hear, can legitimately oppose this bill as bailing out corporate American for no good reason, or not a good enough reason. They, and I, might suggest there is a better way, or ways, that do not involve much taxpayer money or bail out all of the failed executives.
Challenge for leftists: Be honest about what you are doing. If you oppose this bail out, oppose it. Do not deceive as to what you are really doing . That kind of deception endangers the country more than either being for or against the bill Sure, some provisions you can argue about. But I am absolutely right about the above provisions, and once leftists get started they can come up wilt a lot more unreasonable ones.
Challenge for Republicans like McCain: Don't let leftists blackmail you into a fraudulent bill, just to say you did something. It will fail, and you will be blamed. Similarly, do not let Democrats make this a "Repubclian" bail out. Let me be blunt again: I could easily end up disowning the Republicans, and McCain, all over again over this one.
Item 1: I don't like this central planning bail out in the first place, and conservatives should vote against it. Item 2: Even recognizing that McCain is not really a conservative, I am unwilling to take much from McCain. If he goes too far in "selling out" to leftist Democrats in the name of "bipartisanship", it will be all over for me. And it woon't work, in the end. Wall Street will see through it They are smarter than "journalists" (although I have some doubts about Cuban, even though he knows more about making money than I do).
This whole "emergency" push for socialism for the wealthy has any number of suicide? bombs in it for Republicans. It probably has some even for Democrats. However, I suggest that the people whose names could really go down in infamy for all of human history are any Democrats or Republicans who try to deceive about the final bill, and about their actions on the final bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment