|
It's Troublesome to Do Right
By David Glenn Cox
"It’s troublesome to do right and it ain’t no trouble to do wrong and the wages are just the same." (Mark Twain) Sometimes that’s true and sometimes it’s just an excuse not to do the right thing. Our political leadership, of both stripes, ignores that; that sometimes it’s important to do the right thing just because it is the right thing. Maybe it’s neither politically expedient nor popular but, in the end, it might be the only rope to hold on to.
The preamble to the Constitution begins with, "We the people, to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare." Not a word about banks or banking or bailing them out if they get in trouble. The Federal Reserve’s move to trade bad paper for good is, in effect, a 200 billion-dollar, no strings attached, giveaway. All the talk about poor consumers and people making bad decisions, the condemnation of people buying houses that they couldn’t afford. You know them, don’t you? "We the people", the constitution speaks quite a lot about them but our government doesn’t seem to know them.
Maybe the Fed thought it was the right thing to do since the Bush administration was doing nothing and actually that’s probably the only thing this administration has a talent for, doing nothing. Or, to paraphrase Churchill, never have so few done so little for so many. The Democratic leadership in Congress angles for the '08 elections, so they’ll talk a great deal about helping "We the people" but won’t actually do anything until after November. It never occurs to them that by doing the right thing now, they might prompt a landslide. No, this bunch, they play the angles, no straight shooters here.
For the same 200 billion dollars, the federal government could have established a program similar to one during the New Deal where the government bought up the mortgages in trouble and helped the homeowners to stay in their homes. The program was discontinued in the 1950’s because it was no longer needed as prosperity had been restored. The cost to the US taxpayer for this big government boondoggle? Zero, zilch, nada, nothing. In fact, it turned over a small surplus to the treasury as it folded its tent.
By helping the homeowners, the government helped the banks and by helping the homeowners to keep their homes, they helped the Real Estate market to stabilize. By helping the Real Estate market, they helped the bond market and helped to stabilize the markets, overall. The message sent to the public was: you are not alone, you will not be thrown to the wolves, that we are, "We the people" and maybe we can’t help everybody, but we’re not sitting on our hands.
Giving the banks 200 billion dollars, the same banks that made the bad loans in the first place, does nothing to help the Real Estate market. It won’t help home prices in decline nationwide, it won’t help keep a single person in their home. It most certainly won’t encourage the bankers to help homeowners to keep their homes. Why should they? They can trade bad paper for good now, let Uncle Sucker take the hit. When I say Uncle Sucker I mean, of course, you and I, "We the people."
I credit the Fed for at least trying to do something; it is beyond the scope of their authority to do much more than they did. They have made unprecedented statements encouraging lenders to cut principle on mortgage loans to help keep homeowners, now upside down due to declines in property values, in these homes. They realize the stakes we face but they fight two problems, the decline in property values and inflation caused by an administration that has turned the printing presses on and doubled the currency supply. The fact is, it’s not the Fed's job to rescue, "We the people," it’s the government's, but the government has no interest in rescuing, "We the people."
The President has made that clear, it's up to the banks to help the people and it's up to the Fed to help the banks. But before I blame this all on the President, let me ask this question. Who was it that let this President get away with Iraq? Who was it that had the reason, the cause and the calling to impeach this President? But didn’t, because they lacked the intestinal fortitude and the political will. Who assumed that by leaving him in office, stuck in the mire of Iraq, nothing worse could happen? That assumed that they would appear to the electorate as saviors? To me, however, they appear as handmaidens and accomplices.
By refusing to stop him when they had cause and good reason, they empowered him and have handed us over, lock, stock and barrel, "We the People." Why should the President do what’s right? The tables are turned now, why should he smooth Hillary’s or Obama’s path? Come November, he’s Texas-bound. By 2010, this will be called the Democrat’s depression, all Hillary’s fault or Obama’s fault. Are we so naive, seven-years in, to think George W. Bush will do the right thing because it’s the right thing?
Why should he? The Congress let him get away with murder so why should he now do something politically unpopular? It also explains why Congress is so silent on the issue, going after CEO’s and steroid pitchers instead of taking a good hard look at itself. But, some time, some day, in the very near future, all those who have dodged and avoided the hard path will be forced to face the truth. It will get no better until the right things are done. You can’t just bail out one side of the boat and wait for someone else to bail out the other side. You must address the problem where the water is coming in and stop it.
Not because it’s popular, or expedient, or even because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s the only thing to do and it’s our elected official's job to do it. They ran for the office, they cash the paychecks. I don’t want to hear about majorities or committee assignments, but action, clear action to help "We the people".
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(854 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
