Glad we have those "safeguards!"

Most regulars here know that I've been vehemently opposed to the bailout from the beginning.* I opposed it for a variety of reasons, including:

1) I didn't know what the Gang of 535 + Bernanke + Bush + Paulson was doing and

2) The Gang of 535 admitted they didn't know what they were doing.

Nonetheless, they bragged about increasing Paulson's 3-page proposal to a 450-page proposal... thereby instituting "safeguards" for The People. Funny thing is, The People know the additional 447 pages are not safeguards, never were safeguards and are nothing but $150 billion of pork. Anyway...

Here is Congressman Chris Murphy's response* to my phone calls and emails from the runup to the bailout votes:

And now it's all over the press that Paulson is not buying those "troubled assets" (such as mortgage-backed securities - MBS'). Instead, he's buying banks.*

As I pointed out yesterday, I'm so pleased we have those well-designed safeguards that contributed to Congressman Murphy's support for the bailout. And, of course, he was also pleased to put a lid on executive compensation. And we all know how "well" that worked.

Seriously though... this bailout was wrong from the very beginning. It's fatally flawed because it's based on the theory that "money does grow on trees!" That's absurd and it will lead to inflation and more problems for all of us.

As for our Congressman, he was just reelected and I congratulate him. Furthermore, I believe that economics can be one of the most boring subjects in the world. Nonetheless, his freshman term is nearly finished. It's past time for Congressman Murphy to cowboy up and learn economics... learn about the competing schools of thought on monetary policy... learn about the differences between fiat money and sound money... learn about the phrase "not worth a Continental"... and learn about an issue that could destroy the republic.*

Tim White

* Unlike Dodd and Lieberman, Murphy responded promptly. And I still would support Murphy in a primary against Dodd for the Senate.
* One could argue that the banks are troubled assets, but I doubt anyone would fall for that spin.
* first mentioned on TWL on Sept 24.
* unlikely though it is in the near future