A TARP Over Our Many Woes

I don't see how one can miss the irony of the acronym. The "Troubled Asset Relief Program," or TARP, has been woven by lawmakers and tossed over what might be the corpse found at a horrific accident scene. Usually what follows is an investigation: a forensic examination of all details, an Accident Reconstruction Team running data, taking measurements, taking pictures. And a plastic tape -- in this case probably red tape -- keeping the public at a distance. Which is even more ironic, since the public's trust, and even its treasury, are what lie beneath the tarp.

I have no problem admitting my own culpability. I agree with George Will that suddenly and without warrant, Main Street America has been knighted as some sort of model of fiscal valor and discretion, while Wall Street has been stripped down to nothing but its new clothes of naked avarice. I accept that Main Street -- which is also heavily invested in Wall Street -- is every bit as reckless with personal credit, and as avaricious as the paragons of capitalism.

But the fact remains that, despite John McCain's utterly unhelpful "this is not the time to fix blame, it's time to fix the problem," there is blame to be fixed -- at least in Washington. And from what I am seeing, most of the evidence points directly at the Democratic Party. I don't see how one can conclude otherwise: the Democrats appeared desperate to pass a plan. And though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid averred that no one knew what to do, the Democratic Party's candidate for president, Barack Obama, who clearly did not know what to do, insisted that there was "no choice" but to pass the massive corporate bailout. Apparently, at least to Sen. Obama, some things are not a matter of choice but of inevitability: without anyone proving that the future would be dire, Congress HAD to act -- now.

To me, it all smacks of Democrats looking for America to bail them out, to give them more time to gain more control of all things Washington, solely so they can control the horrors of their own mismanagement, and maybe even their own prosecutions. I sense Democrats desperately seeking to control the scene of their own accident, hoping that they can send in their own investigators. And if there were obvious Republicans to blame, there would not have been a second's pause in Democratic Party denunciations of the GOP's "culture of corruption." In a critical election year, we know Democrats would have exploited Republican culpability to the absolute maximum; that they have not, proves to me they have much to hide.

That President Bush and many Republicans pushed for this bailout can only mean one of two things: either they see that Democrats have in fact screwed things up so badly that there is no time to waste afixing blame right now, and a tourniquet is needed immediately, or that both parties are to blame and the Republicans must join Democrats to stave off a possible coup or revolution. But the latter seems implausible to me, particularly since the Democrats have been legislating for the last two years.

I must, however, return to my grave feelings of suspicion. There is something grotesque afoot; when I look at those who have contributed tens of millions of dollars to Barack Obama's campaign, I see the names of those who stand to benefit the most, not only from the bailout, but from a troubled economy. When I think of Democrats rolling out Warren Buffett as some sort of moral index of economic and market excellence, I sense that there is a profoundly blind eye to the opportunistic advantage given such a wealthy Democrat like Mr. Buffett: as of two days ago, he had made in excess (at least on paper) of $650,000,000 in "helping out" Wall Street (and this from a man who complains that the Republican tax codes favor the rich and prevent him from paying more taxes).

What is the one thing Democrats need, usually, to win the White House? That's right, they need discontent, resentment: they need envy to be maximized. How best to do that? Foment concern about injustice, about economic disparity, about unfair tax rates, about who has X and who doesn't. Every election cycle I have ever seen in which Democrats vie for the White House, a house wherein some Republican beast has been ruining the very foundations of the world, Democrats root against the economy at every turn. Somewhere the Democrats have been able to create and preserve the ridiculous myth that they know how to stimulate and manage economies better than anyone else. Hence, they need, like an addict needs a fix, for economic news to be grim. So they work to undermine it, or so I believe.

What better way to prove the greed of Wall Street, a large Democratic stronghold if there ever was one and yet somehow cast as Republican, than to help create a crisis by mismanagement? What better way to create chaos than to hold a gun to Washington's head, saying, "You have no choice," all the while knowing that your own wealth is not at risk. What better way to create chaos than to have great Democratic billionaires, like Mr. Buffett or George Soros, assist in sell-offs and cheap buyouts and sundry other manipulations of markets and moods? What better way to produce fear -- fueled by envy's promiscuous whispers -- than to tell Main Street that Wall Street has sold it off, even if Wall Street, by nearly 2 to 1, has backed the candidate of the very party in control of the House and Senate, and whose candidate for president is almost drowning in incredibly liquid assets? How else to generate anxiety about free markets than to actually prove that markets are not one whit free; that they are susceptible to the actions of just a handful of billionaires (and who cares if those billionaires are Democrats)?

When a friend of mine, a major-league banker in a Wall Street bank, tells me that he and his bank believe Barack Obama is better for them, I know something is up, and what is up has nothing to do with making the wealthy less wealthy or the poor less poor.

I sense, now, of course, that Democrats will immediately turn this into a Bush failure. They will denounce his tax cuts as "reckless and irresponsible"; they will couple that indictment to a declaration that America can no longer afford the War on Terror, at least in Iraq; they will call for reduction in that theater, that "reckless and misguided rush-to-war theater" of great disgrace.

Republicans, of course, have leverage points, too. But the seemingly pusillanimous John McCain seems so preoccupied with appearing like the incarnation of the bipartisan spirit that he seems unable or unwilling to seize the great campaign opportunity smacking him in the nose. One look at the economic trends since the Democrats won in 2006 might win Sen. McCain a few more votes; but a more revelatory examination of Democratic-backed policies that led to certain "inevitabilities" would certainly lead to a Republican victory.

I will not be the one to say that what lies under the TARP is stinking. But I will not be surprised to learn that the thing that does cast off a great stench is the TARP itself.

Just some hasty thoughts.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Have You Watched This? You Probably Should

The video below is presented here because I think you need to watch it. I am not saying that you need to watch it because I think it right. I am saying that you need to watch it because by the time the election comes around, millions of people will have watched it. And if the Obama campaign and the Democrats do not launch an effective counter attack to this video, those millions who view it will vote all Democrats out of office.

I can see, I think, that the video is imperfect. Nevertheless, it will be effective. It has the potential to sway hundreds of thousands of independent voters. And if an even more comprehensive case can be made that the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle IS a Democratic Party creation, then the Democratic Party is doomed this fall, and maybe even for years to come ... ESPECIALLY if the bottom fully falls out of the financial markets. My sense is that the Democrats in Congress are desperate for a bailout, and the Republicans know it. It will be interesting to see the result of their debates and compromises over the next few days. (Let me state that Republicans may indeed support a massive bailout precisely because they see how dire the situation is for the nation, while the Democrats are eager to save the nation ... AND cover their own butts.)

Please, check it out. Tell me what you think. I just said aloud as I watched it that this video, if left unanswered, will be the end of the Obama campaign. And if not this video, then the arguments presented therein will be a major blow to Sen. Obama's campaign. He and the Democrats MUST respond, cogently, methodically, armed with reams of dates, facts, bills, and signatures. If they don't respond in a comprehensive way, but only in some lame YouTube rebuttal, then I believe they concede that the heart of this video's argument is true.

Perhaps I have overstated things. But it strikes me that this sort of video, at the very least, is an example of the strength of the "new media." Yes, this video may have been produced by the old media's conservative mavens. But the way this video will play online will be, in my opinion, colossal. And if not this exact video, then something quite like it may be decisive in the 2oo8 election.

Let me say it again. I have no idea whether the video is right. I do not offer it here because I think it right. I offer it because it makes sense of a very difficult situation, at least to those folks who haven't the time, or ability, to sift through the information.

Here it is:



My only caveat is that those (few?) of you who comment here must watch the whole video. It is a lazily enforced caveat, of course, but to expedite discussion and secure the highest level of intellectual integrity we can muster, I ask that you watch the video from start to finish. Pause it where necessary (I paused it at least a dozen times). Do the Google searches. Interact with it. See if it is good.

Peace.

Hat tip to Karen Luttrell.
©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Brown Spots On The Wall (Street)

John McCain has called it a crisis. Barack Obama called it a result of George W. Bush's failed policies, the product of "more of the same."

I wonder about the arithmetic of this current correction of the American economy, a correction replete with foreclosures, bankruptcies, take-overs and bail-outs. And I wonder about blame.

If there is the slightest hint of corruption to be found; if the tiniest shred of evidence pointed toward a culpable person or party, isn't it likely that great political theater would have already been staged, with seats sold out in a sudden rush of interest?

If the Republicans were to blame for the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae debacle, wouldn't it be political idiocy, even suicide, if the Democrats did not immediately call for subpoenas and indictments and hearings and special prosecutors? Why haven't they done so? Doesn't the DNC stand to gain from getting to the criminal bottom of it all, if, indeed, Bush and Company are culpable?

Or are Democrats afraid? But why? Why should Democrats fear when they confront the vast "culture of corruption" that is the Grand Ole Party? I should think that the very halls of Congress would be abuzz with news of hearings, of impeachments and convictions. But I am not hearing any such thing. Am I not listening closely enough? Why the relative silence; where's the great hue and cry for justice, for "hell to pay!"

Is the silence due to the fact that the two biggest contributions to political campaigns disbursed by Freddie Mac went to Democrats Chris Dodd and Barack Obama, respectively? Is it because the former head of Freddie Mac, Franklin Raines, who paid himself $20 million in 2003 essentially to destroy a financial sacred cow and then awarded himself another $25 million as a consolation prize, is one of Barack Obama's campaign advisors and was a big player in the Clinton Administration, serving as director of the US Office of Management and Budget? Or is this all a reach?

Or is the silence due to the fact that Joe Biden voted in favor of the 1999 legislation that arguably led to this great 'crisis,' while John McCain was 'absent' from the Senate at that time; and that Bill Clinton signed the deregulation bill into law, making it a key part of his Democratic legacy? Yes, Republican Phil Gramm, a former McCain campaign economic advisor, helped craft that controversial bill. But Democrats were also behind the bill. Beside, as already noted, the Obama campaign is getting economic advice from the man who led Freddie Mac into the abyss. If Gramm is McCain's liability, then Raines is Obama's liability as well.

I am not unaware that Republicans also received contributions from Freddie Mac, but the Republican connections to Freddie Mac do not seem quite as unbreakable as their Democratic Party counterparts'. I am also aware that everyone may stand to lose something here. But surely there is a party that stands to lose less and gain more, no? If so, why has that hand not yet been played? Or does it all amount to no more than a wash? Are we about to see more mud-flinging around Wall Street, flung solely as a distraction, even a palliative, keeping voters confused, detached or disinterested, and hence passive and careless?

Someone, I hope, can set me on the right path. I would very much like to understand the politics of this particular game -- and why the game is not being played for all it is worth.

Prediction: Whoever wins this particular game wins the election.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Cho Seung-Hui: Who Are We?

[Tonight (4.18.07) I amend this post with this preface because I see that a lot of people are seeking, searching, looking. Some of you, like me, may even be groping: How do I make sense of a ruthless massacre like the one that happened at the seemingly peaceful, bucolic Virginia Tech? I have spent much of my time since Monday morning wondering - with much fear - whether it is possible that there is no answer to the question. What if there is no reason at all?

I wonder, though, if we can permit ourselves to accept that the reason might be utterly simple, and singular in scope: Cho Seung-Hui created this all entirely on his own. This tragedy is not God's fault, nor is it the fault of college administrators, overly-cautious psychologists, timid law enforcement officials, or obtuse neighbors. This is something crafted by one person: A man willed something, and it came to pass.

Since I cannot promise any sort of answer here, I can at least direct you toward my own struggles with the problem of evil (see here). Though my struggle is admittedly one fought on Christian terms, I nonetheless believe my struggle can serve as a guide to those who find themselves doing battle in terms that are not one bit religious. My approach is actually more philosophical than theological, though both disciplines, I believe, have more to say about evil than any natural or social science which by definition precludes even the notion of evil.

But whatever you do or wherever you go, I bid you peace, comfort, and solace as you seek to find meaning in a world that shouts meaninglessness at us everyday. My belief is that what the world so often shouts is not at all true.]

You might have come here for comfort, for some understanding or trenchant analysis. I am sorry to disappoint. There is nothing this heart can really give.

_______________

The media, like the rest of us, chafe at the bit of real time. We want answers to simple questions, and we want them right now. We want to know why vision is always 20/20 when viewed in the Slow-motion Afterwards; and we want to know everything. We crave omniscience so we can explain; we crave explanations so we can console ourselves with pithy little phrases, like "isolated incident," "mental illness," "random violence," and "it can't happen to me."

While waiting for hard facts detailing the shootings at Virginia Tech, we are also tempted to ramble on about causes and solutions: We do not know the disease, but perhaps we can all chatter on about prevention. We do not know the problems, but let us posit some answers. This is our wont in the media, and in our consumption of media. And it is all so very entertaining: Let there be no dead air between breathy, vapid sound-bites for fear of losing viewers and listeners.

Of course, the big speculation -- THE BIG PROBLEM -- that filled much of the TV dead air between facts and figures delivered all too-slowly in the Virginia Tech shootings, is that the campus police and administrators are somehow to blame: The school should have been in lock-down immediately. You know what is being said -- we need a terrorist threat-level alarm system every time something bad happens (anywhere). That I have heard nary a word how a lock-down would not have helped is hardly surprising: we need answers, and we need to blame something.

(Think of the preposterousness of it all: VT should have locked down a 2600-acre campus -- over 4 square miles -- wherein 26,000 to 28,0o0 people work, live, study and stroll. Imagine the size of such an enterprise: taking a 2 mile by 2 mile urbanized area and containing it all within a protective blanket. Keene, NH, considered a city by New England standards, has 25,000 residents. Alas, we are hearing commentary suggesting that when Keene has a shooting within its borders, the entire city should be locked down. Instantly.

And then think of a methodical murderer with a plan: He will hide inside a building, wait for lock-down to be announced [he reads it on his own cellphone, perhaps]; he waits a few minutes to ensure that classes are underway and pedestrian flow into the building is low; he chains closed various exits; and then he begins his terror. Such a scenario gives one an immediate sense of how a lock-down actually creates a false sense of security; and how such false security lowers one's suspicions. Besides, the lock-down merely means that the shooter is now locked down with everyone else. He IS a VT student after all, and would be whisked toward protection like any other student.)

But we are all about finding something, ANY thing, to blame. The shooter himself apparently blamed "rich kids" and "debauchery" for his rage (and anyone paying attention to the zeitgeist over the last 30 years knows that rich kids are stereotyped by every sector of American culture). Some will blame video games. Some will blame guns. Others will blame race, or the isolation that too often comes of it.

The fact is that we all might be to blame. I replied to an email last night regarding the VT shootings that Americans -- and westerners in general -- no longer love their neighbors. Alas, we don't even know them. I will not enlarge upon that at this moment, but I will note this: An MSNBC reporter TODAY stood outside the Centreville, VA home of the 23-year-old shooter, and said that the neighborhood was clearly "middle class" (in contrast to a rich kid's neighborhood) and that, though neighbors had seen the shooter's family, none of the neighbors seemed to know a thing about the family (which had been living there for at least a dozen years). In fact, the reporter -- surprised, at least in tone -- shared that none of the neighbors seemed to know any of the others at all. And this in a middle class neighborhood where the very walls of each home were shared one house to the other.

In other words, the VT murderer was raised (mostly) in a tight-knit community of complete strangers.

Sounds like America. Sounds like the world.

There must be a simple explanation.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.