Democrats and the new panic

The President announced yesterday that he proposes a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry. Of course, since it’s an election year, Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media are planning to politicize the whole process…while avoiding to talk about the legislation that Bill Clinton signed enabled the whole crisis. Barack Obama, according to the Washington Times, is staying mum on his plan if he were President;

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama opted Friday not to divulge details of his recovery plan for the financial crisis after a morning meeting with his top economic advisers — fearing it would stir Wall Street jitters.

“It is critical at this point that the markets and the public have confidence that their work will be unimpeded by partisan wrangling, and that leaders in both parties work in concert to solve the problem at hand,” Mr. Obama said….

That doesn’t instill much confidence – if his plan would make the markets jittery before the election, it’d certainly make them jittery after the election, too. Nancy Pelosi sees the bailout as an opportunity to buy some votes (Washington Times link);

Congressional leaders expressed concern Saturday about the Bush administration’s request to spend as much as $700 billion buying up bad debt, promising to work quickly to pass legislation but vowing to add measures that protect lower-income Americans from economic risk.

“It’s clear that the administration has requested that Congress authorize, in very short order, sweeping and unprecedented powers for the Treasury secretary to confront a financial crisis of historic proportions,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Yeah, so by the time anything get through Congress, the Democrats will have larded it up beyond recognition just like they larded up the tax refund last Spring and got only 2/3 of the tax money into the hands of taxpayers while part of our tax refunds went to people who don’t pay taxes.

Doing their part to inflame the public, the Washington Post tells us we’re “No Longer Ready To Retire” and cites some examples;

Jean Celine, 64, was already so worried about rising health-care costs that she’d been forcing herself to go to the gym every day to stay healthy. After last week, her nerves are shot. Like many her age, she has only a small pot of money to live on for the rest of her life. Any loss is a big loss. And the average 65-year-old retiree can expect to live 17 more years, the AARP says. So this weekend, Celine started a $15-an-hour job. “I’ll probably be working for the rest of my life,” she said. “Some golden years.”

[…]

Kenney, 58, had a gauzy vision of what his retirement would look like. A creative type, he didn’t want to decamp to Florida or play golf all day. He wanted freedom. That meant having enough money to do only the work that he loved, to compose music, finally get to those two books he’s been meaning to write, perhaps buy a farm in Iceland.

But after last week, Kenney, like tens of thousands of people reaching retirement age, is being forced to reconsider his future. Glued to his chair in front of two Mac computer screens, chain-smoking Camel Lights, Kenney watched, wide-eyed, as over the course five business days one-third of the value of his retirement savings simply vanished.

Here’s some advice…if you’re rethinking your retirement strategy because of the performance of the market in one week, you got greedy. Yes, greedy. Too much of your portfolio was invested in stock too near your retirement. It’s the same reason all of those Enron employees lost their 401k by investing in the company. Greed. If you’re planning for your retirement, you should have a strategy and stick to it despite what happens in the market. If Ms. Celine is concerned about her money while she’s IN her retirement, she never planned for her retirement and she got greedy. But she provides red meat for the Washington Post.

Again, we’re hearing, in a Republican Administration, that we’re all in danger of being poor, a third world country. I don’t see the Washington Post mention that we’re in this danger because Democrats fought Republicans (including John McCain) against more restrictions placed on Fanny and Freddie six years ago. I don’t see the Washington Post mentioning that Franklin Raines, an Obama advisor and the man who profited most from Fannia Mae’s poor management.

I don’t see the Washington Post mentioning that Bill Clinton was the guy who tore down the wall between commercial and investment banks.

But, then panic is a purely emotional reaction to events that people don’t understand. Panic has nothing to do with facts…the Washington Post is in the business of making people panic. You’d think they’d want to inform people instead…but they’d rather quote pop culture psychologists than present their readers with facts. Democrats would rather point fingers and buy votes with populist rhetoric than fix the problem they created.

Category: Politics