The business world has become some sort of victim of a Congress hell-bent on controlling it, if you believe the hysterical screeching coming from the likes of Cal Thomas. The people who bussed to the homes of AIG executives and protested them should have really directed their anger at the politicians in Washington, D.C. People should hold "tea parties" out of "protest" at what the federal gvt is doing... The problem for Mr. Thomas is, it is a little late to make the argument that the voters should specifically target 3 Dems, including Barney Frank and Chris Dodd out of "anger," or that they simply need to "clean house," of all politicians come November 2010. The reason why is that any politician who is running for office as a newcomer, who vies for the House or Senate seat of the incumbent Thomas wants to see replaced, will also have gotten a percentage of his campaign funding from the same business interests who want the politician to provide favorable legislation for. And at one time, Thomas was actually among those opposed to the capping of campaign contributions from PACs and the business world because it was after all, "free speech." In short, he wasn't opposed to graft and corruption between Congress and the private sector as long as the private sector was ultimately a beneficiary.
What Mr. Thomas seems to fail to understand, is that when various industries and financial institutions pay out fantastic sums to politicians on the assumption that those same pols will remember them in federal legislation, the relaxing of rules, the unenforced regs, the regulatory agencies that don't and possibly can't do their jobs right; when you get the sort of financial melt down mess that happened in one year: 2008; that had been however decades in its development and catastrophic consequences; those "victimized" businesses did want it that way. Now he proclaims that we don't need "new rules," we just need to enforce the ones already on the books. Excuse me, Thomas, but the laws now on the books were just the way business lobbyists wanted them when they paid out millions in dollars to write the legislation favoring their specified special interests. So yes, we need new rules.
When the Spokesman-Review republished his latest tirade in its 24 March 2009 edition, the S-R also published a column by Robyn Blumner. She goes to great lengths to describe usury in this society, those who made great "short term" wealth trading in essentially worthless paper, and the refusal of investors to invest in something solid such as what would produce good jobs and a stable manufacturing base in this nation. Question: what is the worth of a "tea party?" Our tax dollars have been at work shoring up the business interests and catering to their very needs ever since it was decreed that corporations could be deemed private citizens. No one threw "tea parties" when politicians on the taxpayers' dime engaged in tort and bankruptcy reform. They did not throw "tea parties," when politicians on the taxpayers' dime helped business interests work against Americans having good paying jobs. They did not throw "tea parties," when politicians on the taxpayers dime allowed and even encouraged the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and the insourcing of foreign labor. They did not throw "tea parties," when gvt turned to the private sector when it came to the war in Iraq. And the private sector much epitomized by Halliburton then proceeded to bilk the taxpayers of their hard earned money by its failure to do its job right. So, what is the worth of throwing a tea party now except on a partisan "feel good" premise?
Of course, politicians can let the nation down because of one fact, only those with the money (the business world/wealthy) are the ones the politicians are going to listen to the most. But until now, to make an anti-corporatist argument was to put you on the side of "socialism." Never mind that the private sector that cozies up to gvt demanding that its short term interests get met, does run the risks of finding that it can come with plenty of strings attached. Mr. Thomas was never opposed to the one, he is only opposed to the consequences of the private sector demanding the personal attention of the federal gvt. Yeah, given the financial mess this nation now faces, there are going to be consequences.
What Mr. Thomas seems to fail to understand, is that when various industries and financial institutions pay out fantastic sums to politicians on the assumption that those same pols will remember them in federal legislation, the relaxing of rules, the unenforced regs, the regulatory agencies that don't and possibly can't do their jobs right; when you get the sort of financial melt down mess that happened in one year: 2008; that had been however decades in its development and catastrophic consequences; those "victimized" businesses did want it that way. Now he proclaims that we don't need "new rules," we just need to enforce the ones already on the books. Excuse me, Thomas, but the laws now on the books were just the way business lobbyists wanted them when they paid out millions in dollars to write the legislation favoring their specified special interests. So yes, we need new rules.
When the Spokesman-Review republished his latest tirade in its 24 March 2009 edition, the S-R also published a column by Robyn Blumner. She goes to great lengths to describe usury in this society, those who made great "short term" wealth trading in essentially worthless paper, and the refusal of investors to invest in something solid such as what would produce good jobs and a stable manufacturing base in this nation. Question: what is the worth of a "tea party?" Our tax dollars have been at work shoring up the business interests and catering to their very needs ever since it was decreed that corporations could be deemed private citizens. No one threw "tea parties" when politicians on the taxpayers' dime engaged in tort and bankruptcy reform. They did not throw "tea parties," when politicians on the taxpayers' dime helped business interests work against Americans having good paying jobs. They did not throw "tea parties," when politicians on the taxpayers dime allowed and even encouraged the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and the insourcing of foreign labor. They did not throw "tea parties," when gvt turned to the private sector when it came to the war in Iraq. And the private sector much epitomized by Halliburton then proceeded to bilk the taxpayers of their hard earned money by its failure to do its job right. So, what is the worth of throwing a tea party now except on a partisan "feel good" premise?
Of course, politicians can let the nation down because of one fact, only those with the money (the business world/wealthy) are the ones the politicians are going to listen to the most. But until now, to make an anti-corporatist argument was to put you on the side of "socialism." Never mind that the private sector that cozies up to gvt demanding that its short term interests get met, does run the risks of finding that it can come with plenty of strings attached. Mr. Thomas was never opposed to the one, he is only opposed to the consequences of the private sector demanding the personal attention of the federal gvt. Yeah, given the financial mess this nation now faces, there are going to be consequences.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment