Greed and risk

There was a viral activism campaign a few months ago about urging Obama to Get FISA Right. The latest one picking up steam is No Blank Check for Wall Street. True to Bush administration form, they are dumping a gigantic mess on Congress just before adjournment (rumors that Bushies have been sitting on it for a month, at least), demanding it be passed pronto without revisions, and being rather vague about what it will really do. Along the way they say there can't be any oversight.

While FISA's provision of telecom immunity had many people upset, this financial meltdown hits a lot closer to home and people are angry. They want oversight and they want to make sure the people who got us into this mess don't profit from it. Congress is definitely hearing from the people (and it wouldn't hurt if they heard from a few more).


A commentator likens the financial mess to the Berlin Wall coming down. Just as that signified that most Communist governments don't work (China being the notable exception as North Korea proves the rule), the last of the investment banks allowing government oversight as they become regular banks means that unregulated financial systems don't work. And the big missing piece of regulation is that the greedy don't face the risks they take on. With a bailout plan that insists on no regulation they won't face those risks. The American public will. Then the scary thought: What if this plan doesn't work? What if it isn't enough? Does Wall Street ask for more? Maybe a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the rich was the idea all along.


There is a great opening image on this posting (about how Democrats are balking at the bailout plan).

I am old enough to remember that Ronald Reagan knocked the socks of Jimmy Carter by campaigning on the question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Perhaps Democrats should dust that one off and ask it of Republican voters. Just don't ask investment bankers poised to reap a golden parachute from the bailout.