[Note: Sunday is supposed to be my day for short, light posts, but between Father Bill's appearance before Congress and the economic woes, I'm in no mood for light - we'll shoot for short.]
Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows today to talk about how things were just going to work out, "the long-term fundamentals are strong." (I caught his act with George Stephanopoulos, but couldn't find a link to that appearance, but he said the same stuff to Wolf Blitzer, apparently.)
I won't talk about the content, not today, but I do want to make a fairly shallow observation. Interviews with active political figures are almost completely worthless, as their political exigencies force them into sounding either stupid or contemptuous. For Paulson to claim that everything is essentially fine, once the administration works its magic, means that, either he is remarkably unaware, or he's sure that we are.
But I suppose that's obvious to anyone over the age of four, that he won't say anything that will run counter to his boss's message. That, ultimately, we citizens are his bosses and have a right to expect something approaching truth is too radical a thought.
So I'll move on, to the secretary's assertion that the fall in home prices is not bad given their earlier "unsustainable appreciation," at least in four states (we'll assume he misspoke on ABC when he called Las Vegas a state). So members of the administration saw this appreciation as something that couldn't last; presumably they understood that low down payment, adjustable rate, and even subprime mortgages put people at risk; and the growing amount of personal debt, credit card and home equity, made situations precarious.
When did they see that? It was obvious to most of us some time ago, so somebody in Washington probably did notice. They could have taken some kind of action in, say, 2006. Sure, some people would have said they were interfering with the normal workings of the market, but this is an administration that has insisted on being impervious to public opinion (cf. Iraq). And on the principle that a small action early is preferable to a large one late, they could have justified it.
But nothing happened, not from any of our elected representatives. Now, here we are in 2008 (coincidentally an election year), everyone recognizes the crisis (even the president is slowly coming around), and suddenly we have mortgage-protection packages, fiscal stimulus packages, investment firm bailout packages. Things are happening.
Is it too cynical of me to suppose that the appearance of doing something dramatic, even actions that may ultimately prove counterproductive (is upping the national debt to give each of us a check that we'll spend either on Chinese consumer goods or Saudi oil really an answer to any problem?), really beats responsible stewardship?
I guess the question answers itself.
Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows today to talk about how things were just going to work out, "the long-term fundamentals are strong." (I caught his act with George Stephanopoulos, but couldn't find a link to that appearance, but he said the same stuff to Wolf Blitzer, apparently.)
I won't talk about the content, not today, but I do want to make a fairly shallow observation. Interviews with active political figures are almost completely worthless, as their political exigencies force them into sounding either stupid or contemptuous. For Paulson to claim that everything is essentially fine, once the administration works its magic, means that, either he is remarkably unaware, or he's sure that we are.
But I suppose that's obvious to anyone over the age of four, that he won't say anything that will run counter to his boss's message. That, ultimately, we citizens are his bosses and have a right to expect something approaching truth is too radical a thought.
So I'll move on, to the secretary's assertion that the fall in home prices is not bad given their earlier "unsustainable appreciation," at least in four states (we'll assume he misspoke on ABC when he called Las Vegas a state). So members of the administration saw this appreciation as something that couldn't last; presumably they understood that low down payment, adjustable rate, and even subprime mortgages put people at risk; and the growing amount of personal debt, credit card and home equity, made situations precarious.
When did they see that? It was obvious to most of us some time ago, so somebody in Washington probably did notice. They could have taken some kind of action in, say, 2006. Sure, some people would have said they were interfering with the normal workings of the market, but this is an administration that has insisted on being impervious to public opinion (cf. Iraq). And on the principle that a small action early is preferable to a large one late, they could have justified it.
But nothing happened, not from any of our elected representatives. Now, here we are in 2008 (coincidentally an election year), everyone recognizes the crisis (even the president is slowly coming around), and suddenly we have mortgage-protection packages, fiscal stimulus packages, investment firm bailout packages. Things are happening.
Is it too cynical of me to suppose that the appearance of doing something dramatic, even actions that may ultimately prove counterproductive (is upping the national debt to give each of us a check that we'll spend either on Chinese consumer goods or Saudi oil really an answer to any problem?), really beats responsible stewardship?
I guess the question answers itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment