More Reform Means More Finger Pointing

There is no better business to be in under this administration than banking; the close second is of course auto-making.  I can understand wanting certain businesses to succeed, but how much bailout money should we as taxpayers fork out to save these industries? I say none. Haven’t we shelled out enough cash to bail out companies? Unfortunately, Larry Flynt was correct when he said it wasn’t right that certain companies received bailout money and his pornography business didn’t.  They are all private companies; they should all be entitled to similar bail out money.  The debate over financial reform has blown up in Washington this week, the GOP and majority of the American public say they want an end to government bailouts.  In response, the Democrats are yelling something about scare tactics…again.

You can tell when Republicans are on to something when, after they read a bill authored by the Democrats and offer their opinion, they are immediately called liars.  In the current case of the Financial Reform Bill, the soon to be retired by voters Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated that the GOP were going to use “..myths and mischaracterizations,” in order to argue their point.  This is the same attempted debate tactic that was used to discuss the health care reform legislation.  The Democrats (see Obama’s State of the Union Addresses) point fingers at the Republicans and yell something along the lines of “you’re using scare tactics,” then follow up less than 5 minutes later with tales of gloom, doom, and the impending death of people in America if their policy isn’t enacted immediately. 

I am completely familiar with this style of debate.  When I was four years old and would try to avoid getting in trouble for something I did, I would declare whoever tattled on me (because I was wiley enough to rarely get caught on my own) a liar.  Why argue legitimate points when you can declare that your accuser is making something up?  It’s not like legislation is written for everyone to read before it passes.  Oh and when it is written and you do sneak things in that you or other people might identify as wrong, just make sure it’s enacted before anyone gets to read it. 

Financial reform should technically be easier to pass than health care reform.  The clear and present danger has and will continue to be this misappropriation and illegal handling of the American people’s money.  Unlike the case of Health Care Reform, the administration has a catalyst in the form of the Goldman Sachs/SEC fraud case which they will surely exploit in order to (I can’t think of another word to put here that isn’t ‘scare’) the American people and legislators into moving quickly.  I’m not saying that Goldman Sachs or any of the other financial institutions were right in what they have done to hurt the American people, but I am questioning whether or not the government should have offered bailout money to begin with and what the upcoming legislation may or may not do.

It just seems like business regulations that are enacted by legislators to ‘help the people’ are open-ended or influenced enough by industry lobbyists that the regulations easily backfire and do the opposite.  On a much smaller scale, a great example was Maryland’s passage of a bill deregulating what a utility company can charge for its services in order to encourage open competition in the state.  That idea sounded great, and the utility company who was going to be regulated by it didn’t seem to care.  During the period before the law took effect, the utility company bought up any small competitor with no complaints from Maryland. On the date these fair trade laws were implemented, there were no utilities in the state left to compete with the larger one.  Gas and electric costs from the single company doubled to all of the residents of the state.  I tell that story to say this:  it is nearly impossible for the government to effectively regulate business, because businesses are smarter than the government.  Yes, they are, and not for many more reasons than being able to move faster and pay smart people much more money than the government can.

Without adding my opinion, good or bad, of lobbying, I will say that the only persons that can defeat the influence of big businesses and their money are altruistic and honest politicians.  I don’t think that those who are quick to point fingers and yell ‘liar’ in a debate are the best examples.

Tim Young