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.