Blarney, Blarney, Blarney!
First off, Beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig!
For our non-Gaelic-speaking readers, Happy Saint Patrick's Day!
For the record -- and no surprise to anyone who has made it to the end of one of my 10,000-word columns -- yes, I have kissed the Blarney Stone. It's at the top of Blarney Castle, which is lots of fun to wander around, and to kiss it you have to lean backwards over a death-defying drop of something like ten stories. An old Irishman will hold your legs for you, so you don't fall to certain death, and you better believe I tipped him well for the service! Then, while leaning backwards, you kiss the magic stone (and try not to think about the rumors you've heard of mischievous Irish lads sneaking up there and urinating on it at night).
But kiss the stone I have, and have hence been rewarded with "the gift of gab." So if you're looking for someone (or something) to blame, while endlessly scrolling through my usual blarney, blame the stone. As the Irish say: That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!
Speaking of blarney, let's talk a bit about Washington politicians. I won't even go into the media's blarney (or, in Gaelic, "shite"), which stinks so badly that it should be spread on the fields to help grow crops. Ahem. No, today, the media is just too easy a shot. Instead I will focus on the politicians.
You know what I have to say to any member of the House or Senate who is channeling fake populist rage over the AIG bonuses? Blarney!
You people seem to think these bonuses just appeared out of nowhere, with no warning whatsoever, and nobody could possibly be to blame (except AIG executives, of course), certainly nobody in Congress? Blarney!
You say it's Barack Obama's problem, or George Bush's problem, or Henry Paulson's problem, or Tim Geithner's problem? Blarney!
Blarney, blarney, blarney!
This is your fault. Congress' alone. You did this. And while you squawk and run around like chickens in a barnyard trying to distract everyone into thinking somehow somebody else is to blame, I call blarney on the whole lot of you.
Democrats and Republicans. Blarney and blarney.
I hate to get sanctimonious here... oh, heck, that's blarney too... I really enjoy rubbing your faces in the fact that I told you guys this at the time. Because this all came out of the first vote for TARP, which happened last September. Back then, I wrote the following:
But I will say one thing about the plan that is being floated by Bush and Congress right now -- laws that pass quickly almost always turn out to be bad ones. Think USA PATRIOT ACT (sorry for "shouting" in all caps, but that's the official name of the law, since it's an acronym). Almost every time there is a "crisis" or an "emergency" the politicians in Washington are whipped into a fever of "We have to act -- now!" and what we usually wind up with is bad laws that have unintended consequences down the road that nobody foresees. Because there simply wasn't time to think about the consequences in the rush to passage.
. . .
Think about it -- we're debating a plan which will give mountains of taxpayer money to the same people who three weeks ago were not warning us of imminent disaster. They didn't see it coming. They were, in a word, incompetent at doing their jobs. All of a sudden it becomes a full-blown "emergency" which must be acted upon within days (if not hours) or else the Great Depression is going to return in the middle of next week.
All I'm saying is that with a plan this gigantic, perhaps legislators in Washington need a little time to debate the relative merits of the plan, and perhaps attempt to vet it a little bit instead of just blindly rushing to pass it in the next twenty minutes.
Because -- from my experience at least -- bad laws usually are the ones that pass the fastest.
And so now, here we are. But the fault lies entirely with Congress, with equal blame going to both Republicans and the Democrats who were in charge. President Bush asked for $700 billion with absolutely no strings attached whatsoever. This was his right, as president, to suggest any legislation he felt was needed. Congress' job is to actually write the legislation. And Congress mildly balked at Bush's proposal, and inserted some very weak language which suggested that maybe, perhaps, the Treasury and the companies being bailed out might -- you know, if they don't have anything better to do -- tell us a little bit about how the money was spent. No pressure, mind you, just if you feel like it.
And now Congress is outraged over the misuse of the power which they so irresponsibly abdicated to the Treasury? Blarney.
Congress is supposed to write the laws, and control the purse-strings, and exercise oversight of how federal money is spent. Instead of doing this, they punted. They gave the Treasury (under Republican or Democrat, makes no difference) power that they should have retained themselves. By doing so, they are the ones who bear the entire blame when money is wasted. Congress and Congress alone bears this blame (to their shame).
The only extent that Barack Obama (or John McCain, for that matter) can be blamed for this is by their actions in the Senate at the time. McCain's actions during the week TARP was debated likely torpedoed his bid for the presidency. Obama could have stood up and said "wait a minute, maybe we should write some regulations into this which limit how these companies can use this money," but he didn't. So there is plenty of blame to go around, but President Obama is just using the same framework that President Bush did, and while both their Treasury heads have allowed Wall Street to walk all over them, that is indeed how the law was written, so even they can't be completely held to account for it.
The only ones blameless in this are the few who stood up and demanded better accounting and some strings (tougher regulations) to be attached to the money. And, of course, the freshman members of Congress who weren't around back in September. Everyone else in both the House and the Senate is fully culpable. Their phony outrage is all bluster, meant to distract us all from drawing this conclusion.
And it's all complete blarney.
Blarney, blarney, blarney!
-- Chris Weigant
And a happy Paddy's Day to you too!
Regulation, oversight, checks & balances - these are the things Congress is responsible for and they have not been doing their job. The larger the $ amount being requested the more likely Congress will fall over themselvs to give it to you but if you ask for anything less than a million they are calling it pork and asking all of the questions they should have asked the highrollers.
...Stan
I wasn't expecting a greeting in Irish! Good on ya, Chris!
Thinking about the speed with which the Dems and Reps joined in a bipartisan chorus of Shock and Awe over the Bonus Babies (so as not to be left behind) puts me in mind of another proverb:
Nuair a chacann gé cacann siad go léir.
Let one goose shit and they're all at it.
ChicagoMolly -
Is trom an t-ualach an leisce.
"Laziness is a heavy burden."
No, wait, that's not it...
Pionta Guinness, le do thoil.
"A pint of Guinness, please."
That's not quite it either.
An bhfuil tú ar meisce fós?
"Are you drunk yet?"
No, that can't be it!
Ná glac pioc comhairle gan comhairle ban.
"Never take advice without a woman's guidance."
Ahh... THAT's what I was trying to say.
As the Irish say: May the road rise to meet you, may the wind always be at your back. May your soul be in Heaven a half an hour before the Devil knows you're dead.
:-)
-CW
@CW
But the fault lies entirely with Congress, with equal blame going to both Republicans and the Democrats who were in charge
Sorry, CW but this is not accurate..
At the very beginning of the bail-out frenzy, it was the majority of Democrats who were pushing for the Wall Street bail out.. Every Republican and quite a few Democrats were against it until they were bribed. Repubs with juicy new Patriot Act measure and the reluctant Dems, with lots and lots o pork..
This was followed up by the great Auto Bailout, again pushed by Democrats.. A bailout, I might add, that I stated at the time would do absolutely ZERO good and would see Auto Companies coming back to suck at the taxpayer tit in 2-3 months time.
Did I call it or what!??
Don't get me wrong. You know that I enjoy a bit o bi-partisan bashing as much as you do..
But in this case, the majority of the blame lies with the Democrats..
Which isn't to say that the GOP is blameless.. They allowed themselves to be bought, so they DO share a measure of the blame..
Michale.....
This one's for you, Liz... :D
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03182009/news/columnists/spare_us_your_fake_fury__dc_hypocrites_160098.htm
Michale.....
Chris, Michale,
Congressional Democrats rushing to give a failed president, famous for universal incompetence, $700bn to do with as he pleased, without strings, two months before their own party takes control of the Presidency, was clearly the most monumentally stupid government action possible -- except for all the alternatives.
The TARP bailout was never really expected to solve any problems. Would've been nice, but let's be honest. The bailout's purpose was to prevent a panic, bank runs, the Great Depression -- to buy time.
Congressional debates, veto battles, and committee hearings would have been, not just counterproductive, but futile. You can disagree on the wisdom and need to buy time, but if you're tying to buy time there can be no serious disagreement on the need to act immediately -- and there wasn't.
Pretending otherwise is historical revisionism at warp speed! If you want to argue, as some do, that government should have done nothing -- just let banks fail -- That, at least is an intellectually honest argument. (OK, I'm being generous with the intellectual part, but its certainly more honest than the current discussions.)
There's been time, however, to begin actually addressing underlying problems -- and there is nothing "faux" about the outrage. Just because we handed over our money at gun point is no reason we shouldn't now go after the perpetrators -- or be outraged.
Congressional Democrats rushing to give a failed president, famous for universal incompetence, $700bn to do with as he pleased, without strings, two months before their own party takes control of the Presidency, was clearly the most monumentally stupid government action possible
Truer words were never spoken...
except for all the alternatives.
I disagree.. As I said at the time, doing nothing was probably the BEST course of action to take..
The reasoning being that, while doing nothing would have caused a catastrophic implosion of the economy, it would have been short-lived and the journey to recovery would have started MUCH sooner..
By delaying the inevitable, the economic crisis lasts 3 times longer and recovery takes a lot longer, if it ever comes at all..
They system is flawed and cannot be fixed with band-aids.
To paraphrase James T Kirk, "Let It Die!"
Only then can a truly viable economy be created.
and there is nothing "faux" about the outrage.
If you are referring to the Michelle Matlin article I posted, she was referring to the Faux outrage being displayed by the DC politicians who enabled and handed billions to AIG on a silver platter and then turn around and express shock and dismay for public consumption.
Do you know who the biggest recipients of AIG donations were??
Senators Dodd and Obama...
Did you know that Dodd secretly slipped in a claus for AIG in the TARP bailout that PROTECTED AIG's bonuses (bonusii?? bonusium??)???
I bet ya didn't... :D
Michale.....
Michale,
You really believe nothing was a viable option? And "while doing nothing would have caused a catastrophic implosion of the economy, it would have been short-lived?" That having largely created a global economic crises we could just sit on our hands and do nothing?
That with our global reputation already in tatters, China, for example, would calmly accept the loss of billions and our apparent indifference, and continue to loan us money? That Britain, Japan, and all the rest could just find their own way to survive the collapse while we whistle in the wind and the dollar would remain sound?
Granted, it WOULD'VE solved the deficit problem. You can't run a deficit when no one will lend you money. Businesses all over America are failing because their credit sources have dried up. But that couldn't happen to America could it? And being forced to go from trillion dollar deficits to a balanced budget in the middle of a recession/depression couldn't possibly make things worse either, could it?
Why, that would've also answered the question of how to craft a stimulus! We'd be broke, so of course we wouldn't even be considering a stimulus. And with our failing infrastructure and our largest economic sector, the banking/finance industry, in tatters, the road to recovery would certainly be brief.
Our dollar wouldn't collapse would it? WE may be outraged at Wall Street for causing the collapse and their apparent indifference to the damage they've done US but the rest of the world would never feel that way about America, now would they? Because they LOVE US. And THEY are stupid! Beside we can always survive with the industrial base we don't have anymore! Just like WWII!
And, of course, we don't KNOW bad things would have happened. No one can PROVE the stimulus was necessary. And nothing, apparently, says "fiscal conservative" and "financial responsibility" like a willingness to gamble with the entire economy! Right?
That's the spirit that got America where it is today! --? Wait a minute, -- that IS the spirit that got us where we are today! And the rest of us are trying to repair the damage.
P.S
Michale,
Dodd modified his amendment prohibiting executive bonuses at Treasury's request. Seems they'd concerns over litigation -- I know you don't agree, but seems reasonable to me.
We're trying to convince everyone to "move along -- nothing to see here..." Massive and prolonged litigation would hardly be helpful.
-- Lew
Lew,
I grant you that all those bad things may have happened, had nothing been done..
But I point out that, to a certain extent, all those things ARE happening now... It's hard to appreciate all the alleged bad things that could have happened when the alternative is all the bad things that ARE happening..
It seems that the Obama administration is being hoisted by their own petard. They are bringing about the very events they have sought to prevent.
The concept of doing nothing is epitomized in the current AIG fiasco and Auto Industry..
If AIG had been allowed to go under, the Obama administration would be facing this current Bonus crisis. But they are and the casualty may be the new SecTreas and AIG will probably STILL go under..
I argued for letting the Auto Industry fail. Once again, James T Kirk lends the wisdom, "LET them die".. My prediction was pathetic....er... prophetic :D. They took the tens of billions and then, a couple months later, need more... Had the administration assumed the more logical course a couple months ago, we would be 30+ billion dollars richer and a couple months further along in creating a VIABLE auto industry..
I am not an economist. No, really, I'm not... But when my mommy and daddy tried to instill fiscal responsibility in me, they gave me one piece of advice that I remember to this day. When you are in a financial hole, the VERY first thing one must do is STOP DIGGING...
The Obama administration has not only forgot that wise piece of advice, they have actually spent MORE money on tractors and backhoes to make the digging EASIER and more expensive..
"I'm trying to charter a spaceship!! Where is the logic in offering me a ride home!??"
-Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK III, The Search For Spock
Where is the logic in digging a deeper and deeper financial and economic hole?
Michale.....
Michale (1) -
Ah, but you're forgetting who was REALLY pushing the first bailouts -- George W. Bush. I believe he is a Republican, no?
Michale (2) -
We interrupt these comments for a special weather news bulletin from Hades. "Temperatures dropped precipitously this week and as you can see behind me, snow covers what used to be the Lake of Fire. That's right, we can now honestly report that Hell has officially frozen over."
Heh heh. Never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with Michelle Malkin over ANYthing. If she told me the sky was blue, I'd look out the window to check before believing her. But I have to admit, that was a pretty well-balanced rant, heaping scorn on both sides of the aisle. As was mine.
Cold day in Hell indeed...
LewDan (1) -
No, I'm not arguing that nothing should have been done. I'm arguing that the Dems in Congress should have taken a few more days, and beefed up their own oversight powers when forking over the $700b. You and I are free to be outraged at this point, but anyone who voted for it is not. At least, not in my book. Case in point: they DID put minimal oversight into the bill. Then they didn't even choose who would be in the oversight group for something like three months (these are Dems we're talking about). Meaning they bear one heck of a lot of the blame, here. And both Dodd and Geithner and Obama bear some blame for putting out what they thought would be "minimally sufficient" caps on executive pay, while knowing full well they weren't addressing the problem at all.
"Blarney!" in other words, to the whole lot of them.
LewDan (2) -
The thing that was terrifying in the midst of the last few weeks was little noticed -- China made some quiet news by telling America to get its financial act together. This could be the first in a very disturbing trend of statements that has wide-ranging repercussions in the future.
- CW
Ah, but you're forgetting who was REALLY pushing the first bailouts — George W. Bush. I believe he is a Republican, no?
Yep... And the fact that Democrats embraced Bush and his ideas should have been a WARNING SIGN to everyone...
Michale.....