Under our proposal, the federal government would put up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line to purchase troubled assets that are clogging the financial system. -- George Bush (September 24th)
Government intervention is not a cure-all. The crisis was not a failure of the free market system. And the answer is not to try to reinvent that system. History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market but too much. It would a terrible mistake to allow a few months of crisis to undermine 60 years of success. -- George Bush (November 13)
Does anyone else find this amazing? What a very fascinating dichotomy this is. First, B43 gives away 700 Gigaclams to the wizards of wall street, and then puts the clamps down on a mere 4% of that to aid the automakers. So, which is it George, Intervention Good? or Intervention Bad? I'm in no mood to let you have it both ways.
It may be that Bush wants to punish Michigan (and gets a lot of automaking-state senators to back him up). And it's true that regardless of what George does today, Barry will extend the lifeline to Motown. But really. If 700 bills is needed to fix the economy how can you carve out 25 bill and keep it from one of the bigger victims of intervention to begin with?
I'm no fan of intervention, of course, but it's a problem the government created through the Fannie Mae malfeasance, and it's therefore a problem the government should clean up on its way out the door.
No comments:
Post a Comment