In keeping with my typical late analysis of issues, a post by Carol over at Missoulapolis caught my attention when she highlighted a certain reassurance she felt with a Tuesday speech from John McCain in which he outlined some of his strategies to deal with our latest economic ‘crisis’. The story I read regarding the speech came from Yahoo! News (a more convoluted piece of journalism could be hard to find, but more on that later):
McCain said he wants to leave the door open to an array of proposals to address the problems and seemed to suggest he might even be open even to solutions that stray from the GOP line.
Irrespective of what “the GOP line” means, and with all due respect, this is far from reassuring from my perspective.
He said any government assistance to alleviate the housing crisis must be temporary and should be accompanied by reforms that aim to make the system more transparent and accountable to prevent a repeat of the crisis.
Transparency and accountablility? O.K., I can see that. Government assistance? No thanks. If one wants to avoid a repeat of this situation, those who behaved badly must get stung; it’s one of those out of date ‘actions have consequences’ things. Besides, if McCain thinks government assistance is necessary (or is necessary for getting elected), what makes him think voters will prefer a slightly weaker version of what the Democratic candidates are offering? If his solution is government intervention, then he’s arguing on the same side that the Democrats are. Yeah, he’s quite the conservative. More on that below the fold.
It’s interesting to note how the author of the Yahoo! piece refers to McCain, considering what I’ve highlighted above:
His pitch, though, offered little in the way of specific proposals to immediately address the crisis, as he stuck with his longtime preference of limited government intervention and letting market forces play out.
But the small-government advocate and four-term Arizona senator also put restrictions on how far he was willing to go.
[Emphasis Added]
Yeah, the guy who considered running with John Kerry is quite the conservative advocate. I’m not sure if the author intended the references to be derogatory labels, or if she is just so politically illiterate that she hasn’t looked into McCain’s record. Either way, that’s not exactly what I would expect from a professional journalist, but then again, neither are the gaff and scandal references she jambed in there:
“I will consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits,” the certain GOP presidential nominee, who has acknowledged the economy is not his strong suit, told local business leaders south of Los Angeles.
As a freshman senator, however, McCain took a different approach. In early 1991, the Senate’s ethics committee concluded that McCain “exercised poor judgment in intervening with the regulators” on behalf of banker Charles Keating Jr.
[Emphasis Added]
I’m getting the feeling that the Burns/Abramoff referencing template will soon be put to shame by the McCain/Keating/’not my strong suit’/'100 years in Iraq’/'bomb, bomb Iran’ template. Well, at least this whole disaster will be entertaining, even if the results will not be.
Comments 8
McCain was the token Republican in an otherwise Democrat scandal.
Posted 27 Mar 2008 at 7:50 pm ¶I think any candidate who advocates a taxpayer bailout of either borrowers or lenders or both will be sunk. This is so because most homeowners and banks are solvent. Most were prudent in their borrowing and lending, and most fulfilled their contractual obligations to each other. In short, the majority of voters did the right thing and continues to do the right thing. The idea that they would vote for a candidate who promises to take their tax money and give it to all the people who did the wrong thing is absurd.
McCain is playing with fire by even hinting at a bailout, and he knows it. But he is a politician, so he must hedge his position by not ruling out anything. As for the other two, their party is in such disarray they could propose any crazy scheme and nobody would really pay any attention to them.
Posted 27 Mar 2008 at 11:17 pm ¶Well, Mr. PM, you’re much more optimistic than I am. First, I’m not sure 51% of those who choose to vote will include the majority of those who chose to do the right thing. Second, considering our tax structure, almost half don’t pay any taxes anyway, and I don’t think many of those would bat an eye at spending someone else’s money to solve the “problem”; it is the compassionate thing to do, after all, and we’re nothing if not an emotive electorate.
Posted 28 Mar 2008 at 9:04 am ¶I do have to chuckle regarding your MY CAIN stab. It’s odd to match-up his “I D.K.S. about the economy” (though have been a Senator voting on the issue for year…and will admit it.) But, listen…oh voter…to my sage wisdom regarding???
Maybe he should’ve changed the subject to the Bears game.
Posted 28 Mar 2008 at 8:36 pm ¶Business hates government intervention when it comes to regulation designed to protect the system or in the name of the ‘common man’, then they should not accept aid when the complex system of smoke and mirrors called an economy fails.
The problem is, what about when the fallout hits people and industry that had no part in this? This is the problem that you and the short sighted Mr PM misses above. Sure, 50% of the voters aren’t losing a house, but many of us know good people that are. Naive? Sure. Deserve to lose their house because some lender made paradise look like it had powdered sugar sprinkled on it? No. And how many of us know carpenters, electricians etc etc that this is effecting. How many of us use money? How many of us want a strong economy and don’t believe that we should be made to suffer because one industry got stupid.
You see, the problem is that this could have all been avoided with a little oversight. Industry claims that it provides its own oversight, but I have a hard time seeing where that has ever worked.
Posted 01 Apr 2008 at 9:01 am ¶Deserve? What do any of us “deserve”? To be treated fairly? Not to be tricked? O.K., how are you going to enforce that? Do we ban adds in the paper which state that one can save $50.00 by spending $300? Do we jail used car salesmen? Do we ban no interest for 6 months? Do we outlaw buy one, get one free? What level of protection are you offering those whose ignorance causes themselves financial harm?
Posted 01 Apr 2008 at 3:10 pm ¶OK, lets look at that in a different way Doug. You neighbors on either side lose their houses. You have two vacant houses on either side. If they remain vacant, that lowers your property value. If they go to auction, that lowers your property value, because they *will* be sold under market value, so comparables are down in your neighborhood. Taxes are down. Sales at the local retailers are down. Its a lose lose situation.
What level of protection are you offering those whose ignorance causes themselves financial harm?
None really. I am offering protection only for those that were ‘tricked’ or victims of fraud. Now, this happened to more than one person and lending fraud has been shown to have contributed to the crisis.
How did that happen? Lack of oversight. The market does not police itself when there is money to be made.
Posted 02 Apr 2008 at 10:25 am ¶Shane, I think we’re debating two different things (actually, I don’t know that we’re debating at all). I’m not one to eschew oversight, I did say this after all:
I suppose we’re arguing over the definition of those terms. I don’t think the government should be bailing out poor decisions by lenders or borrowers, however I am a law and order kind of guy (except that I liked it better when Fred Thompson was the D.A.), so if laws were broken, then saddle ‘em up. Additionally, I’m not for a lack of oversight, I’m a misanthrope after all, and people will behave badly if given the chance. On the other hand, there is a fine line between oversight and overbearing, and I think that may be where some of our disagreement lies.
Posted 02 Apr 2008 at 10:51 am ¶Post a Comment