Royal Purple

Issue date: 10/1/08 Section: Opinion

Hauck [Click to enlarge]

When the House of Representatives voted on Monday against the passage of a $700 billion bailout bill to buy up toxic subprime mortgage assets from financial institutions, they sent a clear message that the government will no longer allow the country to live beyond its means.

The root of this credit crisis was banks lent money to people who were ultimately unable to pay it back. They extended credit to people who did not deserve credit. Those in the government that support the bailout are trying to save these institutions that made mistakes by buying troubled assets from them so the institutions are free to continue lending. This approach is short-sighted, irresponsible and unfair to the American people.

If the government spends $700 billion subsidizing credit that should not have been extended in the first place, it will be a monument to excess. It will be a statement that Americans should continue to live without regard for whether or not they can afford their lifestyles.

If there is no bailout, the current short-term instability will continue and the credit markets will remain almost frozen, but the markets would be reshaped into a better form much sooner. With the bailout, the government would assume billions of dollars of bad debt in the name of the American people, and the debt would still be in the process of repayment years and years from now. If the hammer comes down right now, then this time will forever be known as a tough lesson about taking risks instead of being known as the time when America funded its own stagnation by removing accountability from Wall Street.

The rejection of the bailout bill caused a 778-point drop on the Dow Jones Industrial average, causing an atmosphere of panic and blame in Washington D.C. Both sides of the aisle have accused the other of being partisan instead of working for passage of the bailout. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., gave a speech before the vote that House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, claims prevented passage of the bill because it was a "partisan speech." The bill needed 218 votes for passage, but it was voted down 228 to 205, with about one-third of Republicans and two-thirds of Democrats voting in favor.

So what makes a representative's actions partisan? Clearly there is dissent from Republicans and Democrats alike. Why is this union of nay votes considered anything but bipartisan politics? Should the men and women in congress act on what they believe to be the best thing for the country, or should they follow their party leaders in lockstep because to do otherwise is "partisan?"

There is no need for a bailout, and if the government can stay calm and collected during the stock market drop and the panic on Wall Street, they will realize this. Market shakeups can be scary, but it is not about right or left wing policies: it is about laying the cost of the crisis where it belongs and letting Wall Street take the hit and start to rebuild.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools