The Great Divide

I would just like to add one thing to the commentary on the bailout by the colonel. This is, essentially, socialism - for the rich. I've never been an opponent of socialism in and of itself, but this is the most nefarious kind, and should not go unquestioned. Some food for thought: Washington is willing to dish out $700 billion for the rich on Wall Street - just think about how many times over the people of New Orleans could have been saved from Hurricane Katrina by $700 billion, or even a fraction of it.

-the ambassador

Thirty Years Unseen

The motto of deregulation that has been the undertone of the financial industry for the past 30 years has been proven a) not to work and b) a mirage.
Financial institutions are facing serious trouble. Bad assets are slowly crumbling the powerhouses on Wall Street. People are losing money on the stock market and the foreclosure rate is scary.
Clearly "deregulation" has failed. The government however, has jumped in. Proving that deregulation was not so much in use for the benefit of the country but more for the benefit of big business, news flash right? Big business will continue to have the benefit of the doubt, even after failing miserably.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke in conjunction with the Bush administration have proposed a $700 billion dollar bailout. The proposition was for the government to buy the bad assets that are plaguing Wall Street.
Being the money huungry force that Wall Street is, lobbyists for the financial industry are already trying to find ways to cover all forms of troubled investments, not just bad morgages, according to the NY Times.
Something must be done.
Simply bailing out the financial industry is like giving them a carte blanc to start all over again carefree, make ridiculous sums of money and when they screw up, the good ol' boys in Washington will bail them out.
Congress said that to pass the bill suggested by the administration, it must meet three requirements: limit executive compensation, reduce foreclosures (help average Americans) and make the comptroller general and Government Accountability Office monitor future procedings.
This is a noble idea, but it has a couple flaws.
First, something has to be done and we all know the George Bush is arrogant enough to veto a bill if he doesn't get want he wants. Tacking on special requirements will slow the process, forcing Congress to remain stagnate like it has been since Democrats took over. If the Democrats want to help people, they should really take small steps toward a larger reform. One bill cannot save the market, make regulation policies and save people from foreclosure.
The second problem, and most alarming, is how will the government pay for their newly acquired $700 billion in bad assets?
Taxes.
Probably not taxes on financial institutions considering the majority of tax revenue comes from the "average American," and certainly not from those who can afford to pay more taxes if John McCain is elected. The burden of the $700 billion will fall squarely on the middle and working class of society.
What happened to lesson we all learned in elementary school about being responsible for our own actions?
Thanks Washington, glad to see your doing your job and protecting the interests of the American people.

-The Colonel

2008 Presidential Politics re: 1972

In an Op-Ed piece today in the New York Times, David Brooks makes the argument that the way to win the presidential election this year is to be the weirder candidate - the one that surprises voters the most. He talks about how Obama, throughout the primary season, was the weird candidate - he ran an essentially unconventional campaign using the internet in ways not seen before (and in ways that the Dean campaign of '04 attempted, but fell short on). He was running a campaign of change. Now, however, it seems that his platform of outright "change in Washingtonian politics" has regressed into "change from a Republican president to a Democrat." The rub is, that's simply not change. At least, it's not change in the fundamental sense that Obama stressed so much during the primaries.

Unfortunately, someone has latched onto this idea of fundamental change in the way things are done in Washington - and it's coming from the presidential candidate of the same party as the current president. McCain is, quite suddenly, the Change Man. It seems to be working, as some polls show him gaining an edge on Obama.

Mr. Brooks gets all of this, and points it out in his column. He does leave out something, though: this has happened before. In the 1972 presidential campaign, George McGovern ran a wildly successful primary season that saw him transform from the fringe candidate who happened to be popular with the youth vote into the darling of Democrats in America. He beat out a more widely known candidate (Hubert Humphrey) on a platform of - you guessed it - change. Fundamental change in the way business is done in Washington. After securing the Democratic nomination for president, however, he subsequently attempted to unite the party by playing nice with other Democrats who, not long before, had been derisive of his entire campaign. He also chose an entirely mainstream senator as a vice president - a moderate - alienating much of the more liberal new voters who got him the nomination in the first place. By reneging on his promises of real and fundamental change he allowed Nixon, the Republican incumbent, to make a few smart moves and take the election in a landslide.

Obama, with his choice of Senator Biden as vice president, has made the exact same mistake. The election season has sounded and felt familiar, but previous to reading the Brooks column this afternoon I hadn't realized why. Anyone can promise change when it is safe to do so. Few can deliver on it when doing so means taking a political risk - even when not doing so constitutes a bigger (albeit seldom recognized) risk.

-The Ambassador