Health Care reform has passed. Every possible argument was made for and against the bill (with several outright fabrications conjured in the outset, too boot). But the country is in need of change, drastic change and progress in many facets of our society. Now, the next big debate is slated for discussion (hopefully with slightly less untruths this time around). Looking back those two weeks ago (it really does seem longer; and look, Armageddon has not struck despite some ridiculous assertions! I know, I took that one pretty much from the POTUS; so credit to him.), one legitimate argument from those opposed to Health Care reform was just how far the Government's reach would extend. While it was clear early on this bill was not a "government takeover," or some Socialist plot, still the Right-Wing media played up the fear perfectly and caused a major outcry in defiance of this supposed takeover, and even managed to spawn a little Tea Party movement, which has grown. Tea Partiers were taken-in by the ruse of a government invasion of their personal health care and they rallied ferociously to stop it, to stop the strong-arm of the government from interfering with their health, with their choice of coverage, or their choice of which doctor to see. The argument from the Right was less government involvement, less regulation, and the Health Care system would work itself out.
The thing is, just a couple years ago we saw the results of substantial deregulation, less oversight, less government imperil our financial sector, and, turns out, it wasn't the best thing for America. The repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 severely limited the power of the government to oversee our largest financial institutions to assure that one, these institutions were running legitimate business transactions-- lawful business transactions-- and that two, they were not operating in a manner that would endanger the overall market. On both points the institutions failed, and failed miserably; regarding the first, it's still being investigated as to the legality of their dubious transactions. The overall consensus from top economists is that this strict deregulation of Wall Street allowed the abuses of the system that lead directly to the Great Recession. The simple answer to all of this should be: reinstate strict regulation and break up the "too big to fail" (TBTF) institutions, or megabanks. So why are we getting such push back from the Republicans in Congress on this issue?
John Boehner, the House Minority leader, recently stated to bankers that they should fight financial reform at all costs, that banks don't need added regulation, and that the morality and ethics of those in charge would prevail and lead to a prosperous time for all of America. Mr. Boehner is not a dumb man, I don't think, but to stand against leading economists, men and women who have made it their career to study the economy, and in essence, say they are wrong, is troubling. As Boehner so vehemently alluded to polls during the Health Care debate, he maintained the public was against Health Care reform (I won't delve into Boehner's choosiness of which polls to follow). So, naturally, you'd think he would take a gander at some new polls to find out if Americans wanted financial reform, and then base his decisions and leadership on that. Well, turns out Americans are decidedly for finance reform, and have an unfavorable viewpoint of our largest banks. If Boehner really wanted what was best for America, wouldn't he be fighting for finance reform, not against it? It seems to me that Boehner has no interest in the middle class, his constituents, and everyday Americans. Health Care reform is going to rein in the exorbitant profits and abuses of the Health Care industry; finance reform would do the same, helping the majority of Americans, not the fiscally elite minority, which Boehner seems far more interested in helping.
But I have to give credit to Mr. Boehner for at least being consistent on the issue of Big Government. It's obvious he wants nothing to do with it (barring when there is a Republican as Commander in Chief). But my question is to the high majority of people on the Right who want finance reform: how do you account for such a dynamic shift in demonizing overreach of government in Health Care to now wanting "overreach" of government in the financial sector? The financial sector is a far greater portion of our economy as a whole, so putting added government regulation on to it ostensibly means more government power, far more. Trying to maintain the position of less government involvement throughout all aspects of our society simply cannot be a consistent position, especially in light of our recent economic blunders.
I think this is why, so far, we have not seen an outcry over finance reform from the base of the Right, or the Tea Party movement. The majority of them view Wall Street as dishonest, greedy, self-serving, all at the expense of the middle and lower classes. They learned of the reckless betting of the TBTF institutions and how it directly caused the financial collapse, and the subsequent bailout of these institutions with little or absolutely no ramifications for those in charge of them. In fact, we've learned of the ridiculous, unworthy bonuses of its' CEOs and profits of the banks, all the while millions of people became unemployed, or lost their hard-earned retirement funds. Signs of protest: "Where is my bailout?" littered the airwaves. But our bailout never came. We've watched, as we near the 2 year anniversary of the recession, how nothing has changed on Wall Street, except the strengthening, stringent opposition to reform. Where are the Tea Party rallies? Where is the embrace of financial reform? It's lost in the over-aggressive opposition to more government. They cannot demand reform based on the simplistic, short-sighted notion of less government without seeming completely hypocritical in their beliefs. If the Tea Party, or every day Republicans do not push for reform then the chances of passing financial regulation will dwindle, which exponentially increases the possibility of another financial collapse.
This is my fear. The Right will begin to slowly spin finance reform into the same "Socialist plot" they pinned Health Reform as. The lobbyists will charge that more regulation means more government, play up the "takeover" of banks, and how the government will then have access to people's personal bank accounts, will directly tell people where they can and cannot spend their money. This will be coupled with the ridiculous notion that America needs megabanks to compete in the global economy, and that financial crises occur every 5-7 years, so "no biggie." The 2001 recession was a cause of the Internet boom hitting its peak, weeding out the unsustainable companies. The Great Recession was not your standard cyclical recession, as it teetered on the precipice of a far greater Depression of global proportions. To hold beliefs that our economy must accept recessions every 5-7 years is a dangerous notion to argue against financial reform. Of course Mr. Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, would love to have crises every few years when his company garners $2.5B in profit even during a recession. It's good for the banks, bad for the rest of the country.
So my challenge to those on the Right, to the Tea Party: first, abnegate, just a little, your hold on the notion that any government interference is a bad thing, that the government, our government, is not the tyrannical Republic we rebelled against more than 200 years ago. Ours' is a government "by the people, for the people" at its very core. The government is an aid, a bulwark against tyranny. I mean, the Founding Fathers established the federal government, because a central legislative body, when properly instated, can and does work for the people. If they didn't hold that government was a necessity would they have established our Democracy? No. Secondly, start the rally for Financial Reform. Tell your Congressmen and Senators, who have begun to be taken under the wing of Wall Street, you want reform, that the banks are not what is important, but it is the American people. Why should so few prosper while so many suffer and bear the costs of recklessness and greed?
No comments:
Post a Comment