Partisan Politics Kills Initial Bailout

Nearly everyone agrees the federal government should do something about the banking crisis. The economy is struggling, but not failing. Banks have overextended themselves on mortgages and credit. The fourth largest bank in the country is about to go under. The House of Representatives did not pass HR 3997 and immediately started pointing fingers at each other.

I don't necessarily support this specific bailout proposal, but I do believe Congress must pass some form of assistance in order to get the flow of credit moving once again. We are now in an environment where nobody is extending loans to anyone. This means large corporations, as well as potential home buyers.

Federal government's role in business should be proactive: NOT preemptive. Regulation of trading practices and credit limitations is not meddlesome government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Obviously, the policy of laissez faire free markets with little or no new regulation in response to arising conditions has FAILED.

I find it entirely ironic to witness the Democratic Party leadership rallying to the flag of a bailout program proposed by the Bush administration. Many of Bush's policies over the last 8 years have predicated these economic and political situations. The current situation is not the result of politics, however. It is the result of unsound extension of credit to borrowers, both corporate and individual, who were unsound risks for the amount of money they were borrowing.

The sound practice is to cut our losses. Some bailout is necessary, but only in order to effect the stimulation of the economy in the other direction. We don't want our federal government to own these private businesses. We want the federal government to protect the individual small to moderate investors whose entire life savings and retirement funds are dependent upon the modest investments they hold in the stock market in the form of mutual funds.

The House has failed in this initial attempt, but I don't believe this specific bill was the best they could come up with. Democrats failed to produce 2/3 of its members to vote for the bill, while Republicans failed to produce even 1/3 of its members to support it.

The notion of Republicans not voting for the bill due to the "partisan tone" of Speaker Pelosi's speech is ludicrous. What is even more outrageous, however, is the Democratic representatives not voting unanimously for this bill. This vote is completely indicative of the lack of direction from which the Democratic Party has suffered for the last 8 years.

It is as if the ship of the party has no direction since the Bill Clinton rudder was put into retirement. Say what you want, and we all know the president is not responsible for the state of the economy, but the economy was much better off when the end of the Clinton presidency was coming to a close.

I'm a Yellow Dog and I admit it. It doesn't mean I'm narrow-minded. It means I have chosen my ground to stand on and I am content to do so. I haven't claimed it outright in this blog before, though. The reason for this is because I don't like labels. When it comes down to it, though, I'm hangin' on the porch.

Largest single-day point drop in U.S. stock market history folks. It'll probably get worse before it gets betters. You can take that to the bank....

Just don't run to get there.

Apologies

Well, friends, I have not posted in some while now. I became deeply disillusioned with the editorial process at the paper. After making several attempts to discuss the situation with the publisher and being ignored, I tendered my resignation. There is a healthy measure of cynicism and resentment on my part, but it is not due to the editorial decisions at the paper. No, the resentment is the result of the complete lack of respect I was shown. So, before anyone says it's just "sour grapes," I admit it freely. I feel justified in my decision to resign. I gave my superiors plenty of opportunity to simply talk to me and explain their decision to cut me out of the editorial loop. We live in the age of the cell phone and e-mail, but my calls and e-mails were met with united silence.

There can be no question I was not really a "fit" with the overall tenor of the publication, but when I began to work there, it was the very fact which appealed to my publisher and friend. Things change. I have no problem with it. After all, what self-respecting publisher wants a free-thinking and independent-minded free radical like myself writing a column committed to pointing out the discrepancies of local government?

To be fair to myself, I can honestly say copy editing and proof reading the paper was actually my favorite part of the job. Story idea meetings and consultations on administrative matters were opportunities to cut up and let off some steam. Writing the column was usually my last priority. I had quite a bit on my plate. I wasn't at the paper to write the column. My employment at the paper was never dependent on the publication of any of my columns. Just so we can get that straight. I know there are other people out there who want to reduce my resignation to that, but it isn't true. I resigned because my superiors at the paper ceased to communicate with me.

Filling in for the managing editor on one issue while his lovely wife gave birth to their newest bundle of joy was enough of an eye opening experience for me to know I really liked my role at the paper and respected Mert for fulfilling his so well. In short, I'm really not very happy at all to not be there, but there were other considerations for the publisher to weigh or not weigh or simply ignore. I'll never know exactly what they were, because he refuses to interact with me. He's so busy and all, he can't allow himself to be distracted by the likes of me.

Anyway, I've become somewhat disillusioned with the whole "concerned citizen/journalist" thing. I'm sure I'll catch the bug again soon, though. We have a brand spanking new city manager who does not believe complete transparency is necessary for efficient municipal government and administration. He and Ms. Adams will get along very well.

On another note: my blog has fallen victim to a "stalker" of sorts. An anonymous commenter who has a particular axe to grind has chosen to vent his peculiar frustration in my direction. While I know I'm not the person he's really trying to get to, I have decided to reject his comments and will no longer be accepting anonymous comments on the blog. From now on only registered users will be allowed to post comments.

Sorry 'bout that in advance to any of you aspiring anonymous commenters, but he broke the "civil" clause in my invitation to comments. I generally frown on anonymity. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but, after all, if you don't have the balls to sign your name to something, by definition it is not credible.

Jenny Vinyard Update

Jenny Vinyard will be featured for an hour-long performance/interview on KSMU 91.1 FM at 12 noon on October 10, 2008. The program will be taped and aired on this date, barring any unforeseen reasons for pre-empting the broadcast.

Jenny will also be performing at Harlow's on October 24 from 6 to 8 p.m.

Jenny's band and repertoire are expanding, so be sure to make plans to listen to the radio broadcast and attend her next live performance at Harlow's.