With Bush Down, Demos Find Vigor To Fight Bailout

$700 BILLION BAILOUT JUST ANOTHER RUSE TO HELP RICH FOLKS BOTTOM LINE

It took the mainstream media about 72 hours to find the backbone to criticize the Treasury Department's $700 billion giveaway.

It actually took them seven years to finally stand up to President Bush the Bully. It shouldn't matter that his lame duckiness is at its lowest of lows or that he seemingly doesn't care about anything anymore. The Democrats are finally asking the pertinent questions with some vigor.

You might wonder how the dogged administration finds the wherewithal to trot out their oldest scheme: framing the issue around fear and perceived retribution against the left if the small possibility of what terrible thing might happen actually happens.

How many times can the Bush You Cried Wolf use this Machiavellian maneuver? Hopefully not this time.

It took until Monday for Democrats to vehemently question the wisdom of giving Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's unfettered control over what would be the largest sovereign fund in the world.

The New York Times ran four stories yesterday, including an editorial and opinion piece by Bob Herbert that laid into the idea of giving so much money to the very people who have nearly destroyed the economy.

Peter S. Goodman's probing page one news analysis featured three economists who blast the proposal.

Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, said “It’s almost amazing they can do this with a straight face. There is clearly skepticism and anger at the idea that we’d give this money to these guys, no questions asked.”

But, Allan Meltzer, a former economic adviser to President Reagan is closer to the real issue concerning bailing out private institution under the guise of the people's interests.

“This is scare tactics to try to do something that’s in the private but not the public interest,” he said.

It is a bit disingenuous for the President to hold the risk of recession over the public and Congress when it is very likely that a recession is in our midst regardless of the current near meltdown. The question now is how bad and how long.

What's good for business is good for America. Herbert Hoover believed so and our MBA-toting Commander-in-Chief believes the same.

The largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich has occurred under W's watch. The surging flow of dollars from creaky one-bedroom apartments to million dollar McMansion's has come with a price that, regardless of election year special circumstances, has fomented deep and latent anger in the 98% of Americans leaving in modest means.

The threat of economic meltdown if the status quo continues is too close to the silly arguments leading to the invasion of Iraq for the comfort of the electorate.

It's telling that the cost of this proposed bailout is nearly the same price tag as our adventure in Iraq. The same price that would shore up universal health care and probably fix up some of our school's that look like shanties with desks and mismatching chairs.

Like the war in Iraq, the mega-bank bailout leaves this question to be pondered: who stands to benefit?

Probably the same guys who financed and profiteered from the war--the banks-and you thought $3 ATM fees were steep.

You're Doing A Heck Of Job, Paulie

BUSH COVERS HIS ASS; PLAN TO RESCUE FINANCIAL GIANTS RESTS ON TREASURY SECY.

President Bush comes from a business background. Would you expect any less of him covering his executive ass than any other corporate hack?

The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg brings us the inside scoop on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's "plan" to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from financial oblivion.

The scoop is: It's all on you, Hank!

“He was all the way in the driver’s seat, and that was where the president wanted him,” said Tony Fratto, Mr. Bush’s deputy press secretary, adding, “The sentiment was, ‘You’re in charge, and I hope it works.’ ”

Hilariously, the author attempts to draw a distinction between Bush's regular sentiment as "The Decider" and this occasion when Paulson is determining the government's policy by saying the president is well educated in economics.

For a president like Mr. Bush, who holds a master’s degree in business administration from Harvard and has strong economic views of his own, Mr. Paulson’s emergence as the administration’s primary voice on economic policy is striking.

Like the war in Iraq, the events leading up to the bailout of these two mortgage giants is a story of government inaction and a suspension of government oversight and regulation.

In my previous life as a mortgage banker, I routinely encountered employees of various mortgage companies requesting customer information. When the figures did not measure up, it was common for employees to blatantly request sending faulty financial numbers. An average balance of around $500 could easily become $2,500 without any oversight.

The government conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is justified after the administration backed such lax lending practices, but not as a first resort.

At first impulse, a hard-line stand against lender and borrowers seems the most Darwinian method of weeding out this scourge on the American treasury. Sen. John McCain briefly articulated this idea earlier this year before advisors believed it to be lacking populist sentiment.

Did borrowers really believe the panacea of interest-only exotic loans that cost the same amount of capital as paying rent for a two-bedroom apartment was real? No. At least, I hope they did not.

It's the sheer size of this financial debacle that has inured borrowers from taking the full brunt of our economic upheaval. The operative word here is "our". The full brunt of the Bush administration's mishandling of our economy lies at every taxpayer's feet.

The Times story says the cost could run up to $100 billion. What do we get for it? Tracks of unfinished homes in the California Central Valley. Vacant homes with vast brown lawns littered with growing weeds and signs of squatters living in homes that once-about-a-time symbolized the American Dream.

Maybe the white picket fence dream of owning a piece of the American Dream wasn't real during the baby boom years. Today, it's nothing more than a house of cards teetering in a whirlwind of risk and financial ruin.