I
swore a couple of weeks ago that I was going to move away from politics for a bit.
I’ve tried! Oh, how I’ve tried.
So
much has happened over the past few weeks, however, that I just can’t pass up
another opportunity to state the obvious… you know, stuff that even the dumbest
of us should be able to figure out.
As
most of you know, unless you’ve been in a deep coma over the past several
months, we are in the throes of a serious national crisis that threatens us
with a level of financial insolvency not seen since the Great Depression.
Our
fearless president—this time only a minor blamee—is at it once again: explaining
how we, the people, face financial obliteration if we don’t grant his
administration, via Treasury Secretary (Henry Paulson) and the Federal Banking
Chairman (Ben Bernanke), unquestioned authority to “fix” the problem.
Of
course, these folks will have to run their proposals by the United States
Congressional Banking Committees first. The only problem, however, is that
these committees have been nothing but rubber approval stamps for the banking
industry for years.
The
details surrounding this mess are so massive that it’s impossible to do them
justice here. I’m not even going to try.
In
fact, though, banking lobbyists on K Street had been spending millions (for
several years) on efforts to win Congressional approval aimed at segregating the
worlds of investment banking from commercial banking.
In
1999, Bill Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act,
aka the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act. At the time, Senator Phil Gramm was the bill’s
lead sponsor and the banking industry’s “bestest friend in the whole world.”
The
passage of this legislation, with the blessings of Fed Chief, Alan Greenspan,
repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, one that Congress had put in place to protect
the citizens of this country from the ravages of greed-induced unfettered free
enterprise: the underlying platform that ushered in the unforgettable Great
Depression of the ‘30s.
On
November 12, 1999, Senator Gramm said; “The world changes, and Congress and the
laws have to change with it.”
He
continued with, "Abraham Lincoln used to like to use the analogy that old
and outmoded laws need to be changed because it made about as much sense to
continue to impose them on people as it did to ask a man to wear the same
clothes he did when he was a child.”
Then,
he followed up with this gem; "In the 1930s, at the trough of the
Depression, when Glass-Steagall became law, it was believed that government was
the answer. It was believed that stability and growth came from government
overriding the functioning of free markets.”
Old
Phil was full of wisdom as he continued with, "We are here today to repeal
Glass-Steagall because we have learned that government is not the answer. We
have learned that freedom and competition are the answers. We have learned that
we promote economic growth and we promote stability by having competition and
freedom.”
The
man was as proud as a peacock as evidenced by his last statement concerning the
bill’s passage; "I am proud to be here because this is an important bill;
it is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future, and I
am awfully proud to have been a part of making it a reality."
The
Republicans were in the majority at the time. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)
chaired the U. S. Senate committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Other
Republican members were Richard Bennett (Utah), Wayne Allard (Colo.), Michael
Enzi (Wyo.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Rick Santorum (Pa.), Jim Bunning (Ky.),
Elizabeth Dole (N. C.), John Sununu (N. H.), and Lincoln Chafee (R. I.).
The
ranking minority member was Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.). The other Democrats were
Chris Dodd (Conn.), Tim Johnson (S. D.), Jack Reed (R. I.), Chuck Schumer (N.
Y.), Evan Bayh, III (Ind.), Zell Miller (Ga.), Tom Carper (Del.), Debbie
Stabenow (Mich.), and Jon Corzine (N. J.).
Committee
Republicans voted “aye” (11-0). Committee Democrats voted “nay” (10-0). As
usual, partisanship ruled the day, not public best interests.
Remove
Paul Sarbanes, Zell Miller, Debbie Stabenow, and Jon Corzine for the Democrats.
Also, remove Rick Santorum, John Sununu, and Lincoln Chafee for the
Republicans.
These
folks are no longer on the committee. Some are no longer in the United States
Congress, thank God.
For
the past two years, the Democrats have been the majority party. So, committee
leadership and partisan makeup has changed. Chris Dodd (D-CT) chairs the 2008
version of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, while
Richard Shelby (R-AL) is the Ranking Member.
And,
the tables have turned. There are now 11-Democrats but only 10-Republicans.
Perhaps they’ll take the initiative, realizing that SOME government oversight
is both good and necessary.
We
have to learn two things if we are to fully understand the real causes of this
financial dilemma.
First,
the terms legal and moral are NOT mutually inclusive, at least not in the
secular world of Wall Street. And, second, we all must soon realize that incumbency
for the sake of friendship and loyalty is dysfunctional.
The
sooner we recognize that the only effective political vaccination against this
type of dysfunction is shaking up the political status-quo by voting longstanding
incumbents out of office, the better off we’re going to be.
Relative
to morality and legality, when it comes to money and finance—on Wall Street in
particular—if it’s legal, morality is not a consideration.
Even
if it’s ILLEGAL, Wall Street can, and does, spend millions on lawyers who
specialize in either finding or creating loopholes. And, as soon as they
succeed, morality is, again, no longer a consideration.
For
many people who become somewhat queasy over the prospect of doing something “immoral,”
legal loopholes—for those who can afford them—serve as most effective antidotes.
And,
trust me; Wall Street epitomizes both worldly secularity AND financial affordability
when it comes to easing those frustrating moral “queasies” that crop up occasionally.
It
is business as usual. Politics is the only profession whose members create
massive problems and then campaign on the alleged virtues of their OWN
solutions to solve them. Even more tragically, we buy into the scheme every
two- and four-years.
As
I wrote above, it is time that we all learn to throw the “bums” out before they
become too powerfully ensconced in what seems to have evolved into a powerful
fraternity that is the United States Congress.
But,
as it now stands, we are supposed to take—on blind faith—the words of current
Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson (formerly of Wall Street), Ben Bernanke
(formerly of Wall Street), and Richard Shelby (Republicans ALL) that they’ll
fix this problem if we’ll only give them $700-billion (that’s
$700,000,000,000).
Personally,
I’d as soon have my hemorrhoids ripped out by a medical quack using needle-nose
pliers and NO anesthesia than trust a single word these people say.
To
the contrary, we should be looking for ways to INDICT all of them: every “aye”
that voted for bill 900’s passage, as well as the banking lobbyists and Wall
Street titans who paid for its passage!
It
simply boggles my mind the way that all of the chest-thumping, stalwart
proponents of absolute, individualistic free enterprise preach its biblical
tenets while things are going their way.
But,
the second things fall apart, these same folks stampede to be first in a line of
those advocating the socialization of it all. In a single twist of ironic fate,
the staunch individualistic “I” becomes the all-encompassing “we.”
In
1999, government had to get out of the way for the good of the fine citizens of
this great nation. But, in 2008… oops, perhaps not. It doesn’t get any phonier
than this.
I
mentioned above that I consider George W. Bush a minor blamee relative to this
particular mess.
But,
his short speech about this matter, delivered the other day to the American
people, appeared to be another scare tactic his administration has used
throughout the past eight-years to achieve a desired end.
In
the George W. Bush tradition of the past eight years, if we don’t give them
what they want, all of us could end up selling apples on the street… or worse.
Try
as I have, I cannot find a single front on which he has not failed. And, I
think we’ll be uncovering much more of it for years after he’s out of office.
As a Conservative, myself, I cannot think of a single commendable thing he’s
done.
I’ve
reached a point where I cannot stand to look at him or listen to his voice. In
every respect, we’re going to be worse off—by a long shot—on his departure from
the national scene than we were on his arrival.
No
matter which of the 2008-candidates we elect in November, if we do not give
them the support and authority to kick out the cronies and partisan ideologues
that have crippled virtually every aspect of the process, we'll be no better
off than we are now!
Joe Walther is a freelance writer and
publisher of The True Facts. You may comment on his column by clicking here.
