The recently rolled out 700 billion (that's a B for billion) bailout the Congress passed to "shore up our failing economy", (that should actually read, "our failing 'eight years of Bush' economy") as a big thank you to Wall Street for its speculating, greed, and unregulated gall. This bailout bothers me for different reasons.
First, remember back in 2005, when the Republicans were in their glory days, and corporations and business controlled legislation? Congress passed a new bankruptcy law designed to firm up the current laws, thereby making it harder for us Joe Schmoes, who find ourselves strapped by low wages, high insurance payments, and filling up our tanks, to declare bankruptcy. Despite my incredibly high teacher's salary, I never had to consider that option, thank goodness!
Here's the story from NPR:
The House of Representatives approves an overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws Wednesday, in a vote of 302 to 126. The bill, which passed in the Senate last month, will make it more difficult to get rid of debts by filing for bankruptcy, forcing tens of thousands of people to work out repayment plans instead.
See that last statement? " Forcing tens of thousand of people to work out repayment plans instead." No more hiding! You'll have to repay! Sounds good, though, right? They created that debt, so they have to repay it ... right? Right! That's only fair.
So, my question for the bailout is ... where's their repayment plan? I'm giving up my tax money because some idiots ran rampant with their speculating, and they don't have to do anything to repay? Huh? Hey, if it's good enough for the American people, it's good enough for Wall Street!! Or is it yet another instance of America's two different sets of rules; one for the rich, and one for the rest of us.
BUT I DIGRESS ....
What's even more intriguing about this bailout is the voting this week. I seem to distinctly recall John McBush, in the first presidential debate, insisted time and time again that he's against pork barrel spending. Remember that?
Hmmm, I guess John McBush isn't much of a reader. He didn't read Paulson's original bill, and he apparently didn't read the bailout bill that he voted YES on Wednesday. Why? It was loaded with earmarks. Here are some of them:
-- Creation of a seven-year cost recovery period for construction of a motor sports racetrack ... cost taxpayers $100 million.
-- Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation ... cost taxpayers $49 million.
-- Secure rural schools and community self-determination program .. cost taxpayers $3.3 billion.
-- Deduction of state and local sales taxes .. cost taxpayers $3.3 billion.
-- Provisions related to film and television production ... cost taxpayers $478 million over 10 years.
-- Wool handouts ... $148 million.
-- America Samoa development ... $33 million
-- Bicycle commuters ... $10 million
And my favorite...
-- Handout to rum manufacturers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands ... $192 million
So, John McBush ... does that mean you were against earmarks before you were for earmarks? That I don't get. Don't get me wrong. Obama voted for the bailout as well, but he is not going around the country, selling himself as a "maverick", all the while, giving money to rum producers and the "elite Hollywood entertainment industry".
That's hypocritical, Mr. McBush!