« Well this Could be Interesting | Main | Little Caesar Strikes Again »
September 27, 2008
Memo to Republicans: One Depression was Enough
In actuality, neither party is covering themselves in glory on this one. Democrats are trying to load the bill with goodies for their leftist allies while playing politics and Republicans are pretending at ideological purity. Why do I say pretending? Let's just say that after spending their time in the majority passing pork-laden budgets and doing little to provide oversight for Frannie and Freddie, their recalcitrance at this point seems too little, too late as well as politically stupid. Guys, when even a party guy like Hewitt is telling you it's time to bite the bullet, it's time.
Things are getting bad, guys. And the storyline's already being written. Also consider this: after Herbert Hoover did little to prevent the Great Depression, the American people didn't elect another Republican president for 20 years, and it took them 14 years to regain control of Congress.
So yes, the Paulson plan needs some tweaking, and the Democrats shouldn't be playing the games they're playing. But the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good, or the necessary. Remember that the Great Depression led to the New Deal. What new government programs will this downturn call?
Posted by slublog at September 27, 2008 11:00 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.slublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3932
Comments
There's time to get a sensible bill. It's a matter of days. Artifical deadlines in dealmaking is part of what got Wall Street in to this mess. "Let's get the deal done so that everyone gets paid" is not an approach for good governemnt. While we should not let the "perfect" be the enemy of the good, we should recongize the bad as the enemy of the good. A mandatory insurance approach with the buy-and-hold option only where needed is a better approach. Turning the U.S. Treasury into a full stop bondtrader's hedge fund while ignoring less intrusive alternatives is just goofy.
Posted by: Happy Meal at September 28, 2008 12:06 AM
A mandatory insurance approach with the buy-and-hold option only where needed is a better approach.
That I can agree with. The question is who backs the insurance - the government or private industry? The plan I am not all that fond of is the one that depends on capital gains tax cuts and the like.
Posted by: Slublog at September 28, 2008 12:24 AM
Although it's a little late to be nit-picky, I worry over things that may get buried in all this as we rush thru it. But that's most bills, there's always some little thing, it seems, that gets included just to get another vote to get it thru. Anything that you try to question, comes with pointing -- no, no, this part over here . . . I feel like I'm watching a true shell game in progress.
Posted by: Kath at September 28, 2008 07:59 AM