Moral hazards don’t exist for those that have

The new politically correct credo is, in part. denouncing government that creates a safety net for the lower middle class and poor while supporting those at the top of failed corporations; some of whom are, in my opinion, little better than mob bosses of corrupt organizations.

In the last six years the hands off, let business do what ever it wants Bush Administration has, in my opinion led to fraud and criminal activity on a grand scale. Unsuspecting ordinary people think that the loans they apply for, the food that they eat, the air that they breathe, the water that they drink is safe because the “government” is looking out for the common interest and protecting its citizens. In reality all of our regulatory agencies have been gutted; even, incredibly, the USDoJ (I believe that gutting the USDoJ has led to a momentary lapse in prosecution of organized crime. The USDoJ is now being re-established). The Bush / Cheney Administration has systematically replaced highly trained specialists with political hacks at the top of every Federal regulatory and enforcement Agency.

Whoever the next president is will need to replace every single one of them with real administrators to get our country back on its feet.

McCain has already drunk the “anti-regulation cool aid”. God help us if the Republicans win.

From today’s DAILY LOCAL NEWS:

DAILY LOCAL NEWS
Monday, March 24, 2008
Moral hazards don’t exist for those that have

BOSTON — I don’t know too many economists who get confused with preachers. But there are times when they talk about virtue and temptation as if they were free-market holy rollers.
Consider the phrase that has been popping up all over the Bear Stearns debacle: “moral hazard.” No, Moral Hazard is not the name of a country and western singer. It’s the phrase economists use to explain why people shouldn’t be protected from the consequences of their actions. In The Wall Street Journal’s definition, moral hazards are “the distortions introduced by the prospect of not having to pay for your sins.”
The idea began as an argument against insurance. If you had fire insurance, you’d be careless around matches. Zap, more fires. In recent decades, it’s been used as a righteous reason for shredding safety social nets and toughening laws like those against declaring bankruptcy. Such safety nets, it’s argued, only encouraged more sinners, excuse me, welfare mothers and bankrupt families. And before we wrap up the sermon, a last word. If a financial firm is “too big to fail” — a status I’ve always aspired to — why aren’t homeowners? They too are on the brink of destroying not only themselves but their communities. At the very least, Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd have introduced homeowner bills that would contain and share the damage.
Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of Republicans, used to say, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” This notion infiltrated the national consciousness. Any sort of government help was framed as hapless, useless or, yes, a moral hazard.
Reagan’s line always got a belly laugh. Well, folks, not in this Bear (Stearns) market.
The same language of morality has been used by economic fundamentalists who don’t want to help homeowners who got subprime mortgage loans and found find themselves in deep foreclosure weeds. Mike Huckabee once said that it “is not the purpose of government to prop people up from every poor decision they make. ... It creates an enabling co-dependency.”
Read more at:

http://www.dailylocal.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Daily?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FDLN%2FOpinion%2FEditorial&r21.content=%2FDLN%2FOpinion%2FEditorial%2FTopStoryList_Story_1783442