![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
missroseroseThe Hen-House Crisis
While economics is usually a strong suit of mine, I want to say right up front that I'm not qualified to summarize the current financial goings-on. I've spent only a cursory amount of time investigating what, exactly, all this crap means, and while I'm certain I could understand it quite well with more study, I just haven't found the motivation to invest the time and effort necessary to do so.
That said, the above-linked piece saddens and worries me greatly. Not because I'm willing to accept the metaphor as true without condition - my critical-thinking skills are a tad more developed than that, thank you very much - but because that is very much how this whole thing appears. A $700 billion bailout plan may or may not be necessary to secure the world economy; I must say that I have my doubts about how effectively our government might manage such a plan, but I'm not going to dismiss the idea out of hand. I do find it very interesting that the Bush administration, this same administration that ran on a platform of low-oversight free-market non-interference, is pressuring Congress to take action with money that we frankly don't have, but that's more of a political quibble than a constructive criticism. (And besides, there's plenty of conservative lawmakers bringing up that exact point.)
No, what really bugs me the most about this whole debacle is the attitude with which the government is pursuing this plan. $700,000,000,000 isn't exactly a small amount of money - it's more than we've spent on the entire Iraq War, for chrissakes. And while I'm certain that there are arguments, perhaps even convincing ones, to be made in support of this plan, no one in our government is making them. The White House is far too busy pressuring Congress to take action, Congress is far too busy bickering about different aspects, and not one person is taking the time to address the American people - the taxpayers who are supposed to be paying for this plan - to say, in easily-understandable terms, "Hey - this is what's going on with our economy, this is why we need to take on this much debt to fix it, and" --most importantly-- "this is what we're doing to make certain it doesn't happen again." Unsurprisingly, there's been a not-insignificant amount of resentment building among those who are being asked to pay for this plan without a full understanding (or even a satisfactory partial explanation) of what it entails.
I think the Washington Post hits the nail on the head when they point out the similarities between the pervasive attitude in Congress now and just after 9/11. Both situations involve a crisis in which lawmakers are under enormous pressure to take action, and in neither of these situations has there been a clear path available that would simultaneously solve the problem and keep everybody happy. So in both cases, the Bush administration has chosen the worst possible solution - come up with a plan, push it through Congress, and cow the citizenry with scare tactics if they protest. "If we don't pass the Patriot Act the terrorists will win!" "If we don't bail out Wall Street, the world economy will crash!"
I feel I should note for the record that I am far from a populist. I agree very strongly with the immortal words of Winston Churchill, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." We live in a republic for a reason; government by democratic majority alone, when combined with human nature, is a disaster waiting to happen. That said, am I alone in believing that the representative members of our fine republic bear a certain responsibility to their voters to explain themselves, even in times of crisis? Hell, even an incomplete-but-convincing explanation would be better than what we've got now. It would at least pay lip service to the idea that yes, we lawmakers know that you taxpayers are going to be collectively bearing the cost of this plan, and we respect you (or your power when you're united on an issue) enough to at least make a pretense of convincing you why we should take this action.
In a twisted sort of way, it feels like this debacle is an appropriate bookend for the Bush administration. A few months into its inception, a crisis hits, the administration and the legislators react by passing laws that are advantageous for the established government to the detriment of the citizenry, while using scare tactics to keep people from questioning them. And now that said citizenry are used to such treatment, they're keeping the same attitude for this new crisis. I don't know at this point if their plan will do more harm or good, but the complete lack of any sort of regard toward their electorate - and the lack of any organized (or failing that, simply loud) response from said electorate - worries me deeply.
While economics is usually a strong suit of mine, I want to say right up front that I'm not qualified to summarize the current financial goings-on. I've spent only a cursory amount of time investigating what, exactly, all this crap means, and while I'm certain I could understand it quite well with more study, I just haven't found the motivation to invest the time and effort necessary to do so.
That said, the above-linked piece saddens and worries me greatly. Not because I'm willing to accept the metaphor as true without condition - my critical-thinking skills are a tad more developed than that, thank you very much - but because that is very much how this whole thing appears. A $700 billion bailout plan may or may not be necessary to secure the world economy; I must say that I have my doubts about how effectively our government might manage such a plan, but I'm not going to dismiss the idea out of hand. I do find it very interesting that the Bush administration, this same administration that ran on a platform of low-oversight free-market non-interference, is pressuring Congress to take action with money that we frankly don't have, but that's more of a political quibble than a constructive criticism. (And besides, there's plenty of conservative lawmakers bringing up that exact point.)
No, what really bugs me the most about this whole debacle is the attitude with which the government is pursuing this plan. $700,000,000,000 isn't exactly a small amount of money - it's more than we've spent on the entire Iraq War, for chrissakes. And while I'm certain that there are arguments, perhaps even convincing ones, to be made in support of this plan, no one in our government is making them. The White House is far too busy pressuring Congress to take action, Congress is far too busy bickering about different aspects, and not one person is taking the time to address the American people - the taxpayers who are supposed to be paying for this plan - to say, in easily-understandable terms, "Hey - this is what's going on with our economy, this is why we need to take on this much debt to fix it, and" --most importantly-- "this is what we're doing to make certain it doesn't happen again." Unsurprisingly, there's been a not-insignificant amount of resentment building among those who are being asked to pay for this plan without a full understanding (or even a satisfactory partial explanation) of what it entails.
I think the Washington Post hits the nail on the head when they point out the similarities between the pervasive attitude in Congress now and just after 9/11. Both situations involve a crisis in which lawmakers are under enormous pressure to take action, and in neither of these situations has there been a clear path available that would simultaneously solve the problem and keep everybody happy. So in both cases, the Bush administration has chosen the worst possible solution - come up with a plan, push it through Congress, and cow the citizenry with scare tactics if they protest. "If we don't pass the Patriot Act the terrorists will win!" "If we don't bail out Wall Street, the world economy will crash!"
I feel I should note for the record that I am far from a populist. I agree very strongly with the immortal words of Winston Churchill, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." We live in a republic for a reason; government by democratic majority alone, when combined with human nature, is a disaster waiting to happen. That said, am I alone in believing that the representative members of our fine republic bear a certain responsibility to their voters to explain themselves, even in times of crisis? Hell, even an incomplete-but-convincing explanation would be better than what we've got now. It would at least pay lip service to the idea that yes, we lawmakers know that you taxpayers are going to be collectively bearing the cost of this plan, and we respect you (or your power when you're united on an issue) enough to at least make a pretense of convincing you why we should take this action.
In a twisted sort of way, it feels like this debacle is an appropriate bookend for the Bush administration. A few months into its inception, a crisis hits, the administration and the legislators react by passing laws that are advantageous for the established government to the detriment of the citizenry, while using scare tactics to keep people from questioning them. And now that said citizenry are used to such treatment, they're keeping the same attitude for this new crisis. I don't know at this point if their plan will do more harm or good, but the complete lack of any sort of regard toward their electorate - and the lack of any organized (or failing that, simply loud) response from said electorate - worries me deeply.
