It's been interesting to see the political reactions to what's becoming known as "The Mother of All Bailouts." The Bush Administration's proposal to spend what many believe will be at minimum a $1,000,000,000,000 bailout of the nation's financial sector has split Idaho's Congressional delegation. Rep. Mike Simpson's for it, Rep. Bill Sali's against it, and the other night, I had a dream about a confrontation between the two in the halls of Congress (a clear indication I need to stop having a nightcap before I go to bed). With apologies for my lame attempts at comedic license, it went something like this.
(Sali): Mike, I cannot believe you are for this. A $1 trillion dollar social welfare program for corporations? This program alone will destroy any chance of a Republican ideal of smaller government and lower taxes. Instead, we are witnessing the biggest expansion of government in history. $3K for every man, woman and child in America, even illegal immigrants!, all because some corporate executives got greedy and now they're whining to government for help. More spending, higher taxes. If you are going to support this, Mike, then at least be honest with your constituents and put a 'D' by your name.
(Simpson): Bill, only an idiot's idiot would stand firm to his conservative ideals while the economy is in meltdown. Remember Herbert Hoover? Okay, I don't either, but I've read the Republican President and his Republican Congress did virtually nothing as the stock market crashed, bringing about an economic catastrophe called "The Great Depression." Hoover and the Republicans stood by their principles and watched as the nation's economy crumbled, bringing us 80% unemployment in some cities, soup lines, plunging hemlines and people on Wall Street jumping out of buildings. Okay, maybe that last one wouldn't be so bad, but it also swept the Democrats into office for decades. This crisis has the potential to be even worse, and I don't want to see long unemployment lines that include you and me, especially me!
(Sali): Mike, I've studied history too in between memorizing Bible verses, and I can tell you this economy is in far better shape than the 1920's! Back then, we were protectionists. Now we're free traders. We also have monetary systems in place now to keep America's economy resilient through peaks and valleys without bailing out fat cats someone in government thinks are "too fat ... errrr ... too big to fail." I have nothing against fat cats, although if you look at my campaign finance reports, they're not contributing to my campaign either! But bailing them out is just morally and financially wrong. Mike, I'm amazed that you have less faith in American capitalism than you do in my chances of being re-elected.
(Simpson): Look around Bill. Who gets the blame for this economic meltdown? Nancy Pelosi? Hillary Clinton? The guy who keeps e-mailing me claiming Sarah Palin is really a man? No, it's us Republicans. We pushed deregulation. We allowed lax oversight. Capitalism only works when people are willing to play by the rules, but instead, we created a game of 'financial football' then took all the officials off the field! The result is a system where greedy cheaters and the biggest risk takers won massive profits until they drove our financial system into the ground. We can't pin this tale of financial excess and poor oversight on the Democrat's donkey. If we don't try to fix this and the economy goes down in flames, there won't be a red state left outside of Utah. Yes, Idahoans will pay a big price for our mistakes, but the price if we do nothing is far worse.
All 'tongue-in-cheek-ness' aside, both men in reality have good points. Sali like other conservatives doesn't believe in rewarding bad behavior by the greedy with an incredibly expensive taxpayer bailout that not everyone agrees is necessary and has no guarantee of success. A bailout also virtually destroys any Republican push for smaller government and less taxes. Simpson has been convinced a financial meltdown is on the horizon and believes government has no choice but to act despite the cost because the consequences of inaction are potentially far more disastrous. I hope you'll take a moment to vote on our online poll and let us know who you think is right.
Comments