Moral Hazard For Thee But Not For Me
by digby
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||||||||
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
Foreclosure Crisis | ||||
|
It’s good that Jon Stewart is on this story, but it’s kind of sad that in his zeal to “restore sanity” he failed to see something very important about how this story finally came to the attention of the mainstream. A smart friend of mine sent this to me last night that I think is the first positive message that has real salience in this current election:
A lot of people are trying to say that all politicians are the same, that your vote doesn’t matter. Well, let’s look at the evidence. In the last month, here are some news stories about politicians.
Democrat Alan Grayson Calls for Foreclosure Moratorium Democrat Ohio Secretary of State Attacks Foreclosure Fraud President Obama Pocket Vetos Pro-Bank Bill That Would Increase Foreclosures
Democrat Harry Reid Calls for Foreclosure MoratoriumDemocrat Nancy Pelosi, California Democrats Calls for Investigations of Foreclosure Fraud Democrat John Conyers and Carolyn Kilpatrick Call for Foreclosure Freeze Democrat Ohio Attorney General Attacks Foreclosure Fraud, Sues GMAC Democrat Illinois Attorney General Asks for Foreclosure Halt in Illinois Democrat Maxine Waters Calls for a Foreclosure Freeze Democrats Alan Grayson, Barney Frank, and Corrine Brown Call for Fannie to Stop Working with Foreclosure ‘Mills’ Being Investigated for Fraud Democrat Earl Blumenaur Asks for a Foreclosure Freeze in Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley Calls for a Special Investigator for Foreclosure Fraud Democrats Luis Gutierrez and Dennis Moore Call for Investigations of Bailout Recipients Engaging in Foreclosure Fraud Democrat Attorney General in California Asks for Foreclosure Halt Democrat Attorney General in Massachusetts Asks for Foreclosure Halt
And on and on and on….
Notice a pattern here? If not, let me give you another hint.
Republican Richard Shelby Tries to Weaken Rules, Kicks Regulators
I wonder why banks and corporations are spending $5 billion on this election, nearly all of that for Republicans.
Save your home. Vote Democratic.
In the Democracy Corps memo I posted about a couple of days ago, it was clear that people don’t want to hear about who’s to blame for any of this. They aren’t in the mood. What they are looking for is a sign that somebody, somewhere, is doing something to fix the problems.
This is the clearest example I’ve seen of the difference between the two parties in dealing with the ongoing economic crisis. Democrats like Grayson and Franken and even the leadership all called for action the minute this scandal bubbled up. The Republicans — crickets. Their first instinct is always to protect the fraud merchants and the Big Money Boyz, no matter what. They truly don’t care — indeed, they think the homeowners are getting what they deserve: last night that zombie Ralph Reed arose from his shallow political grave and appeared on CNN parroting the old tropes about Fannie and Freddie lending to undeserving black people and ruining everything for the rest of us.
The Dems are far from blameless and it’s true that the owners exert outsized influence over both the parties. But in situations like this you can see a clear distinction between the moral and ethical impulses that make a politician — and a voter — choose one party over another.
.
Watch What They Do
by digby
Kevin Drum points out something that used to be a matter of faith among the grubby bloggers like myself but which has gone into disrepute in recent years. In discussing Brad DeLong’s confusion about why Ben Bernanke has turned out not to follow the principles everyone assumed he had as an academic back in the 1990s and been much more aggressive in righting the economy during his tenure as Fed chief, Kevin observes:
In August 2009,[when he was reappointed by Obama] if you were someone who had never met Ben Bernanke, who had never been to Jackson Hole, who had never spoken privately with anyone of consequence in the economic community — in short, if all you had to go on was Ben Bernanke’s public action and public statements — I think you would conclude that he thought the economy was on the mend and had no intention of lighting his hair on fire over minor things like sky-high unemployment and trillion dollar output gaps. You would also, I think, conclude that he was still the same laissez faire Republican economist he has always been and had no real desire to seriously re-regulate the financial sector even after the biggest financial meltdown since 1929.
And guess what? You would have been right. I’d say that about 90% of the time, public actions and public statements are more reliable guides to reality than all the private conversations in the world. Unfortunately, the other 10% of the time they aren’t, and that 10% tends to be fairly dramatic.
And it’s important to also note that when Obama reappointed Bernanke, that action spoke loud and clear as well to those of us who weren’t in the know. It meant that he approved of Bernanke’s approach. It’s certainly possible that there was some other motivation — there is such a thing as palace intrigue — but for the most part it’s safer to assume that in a crisis a president isn’t going to appoint someone whom he thinks is making things worse. (If he does that, then we have even bigger problems.)
Kevin concludes that insiders are, therefore, gamblers who think they will get a big payoff for knowing things that others don’t. I don’t know about that, but I do agree that it’s almost always better to assume that the public actions, if not public statements, are more reliable guides to what political players truly believe than all the insider spin. The problem is that inside the Village, insider spin is currency and among political elites, inside information is their conversation. I’m not sure they even hear or see the public actions, at least the same way we see them out in America. It’s one big reason for the disconnect.
.