Bailout blues

The huge bailout the Bush administration proposes is a further expansion of the welfare for the rich practiced for the last eight years. Lehman abandonment is an exception. The Freddies and AIG are more common. The $85 billion that AIG was given seems to be an unjustified amount that was generously handed over to a company just because it asked for it. There was no discussion of going over the books of AIG and calculating the amount they really need. For all we know, AIG heads are dividing the loot and buying golden toilet seats.

Most of the Democratic Party, headed by Obama, immediately supported the proposal without reservation. Clearly, a bailout is needed to stabilize the obscene and deteriorating economy Bush is leaving behind. Yet, some Democrats have raised an objection on behalf of those who are losing their homes to banks that irresponsibly have given them ballooning mortgages. The banks will be rewarded for their malpractice and the banks’ victims are to be punished despite the banks recouping their loses. Bernie Frank and Hillary raised the issue and even Pelosi, part of Bush’s choir, has seen the light.

Obama, however, is still on record in support of the original bailout. One would expect him to see the advantage of supporting folks losing their homes. One expects Obama to try and get the most millage from his difference from McCain. Well, nothing like that appears to happen. One sees that the flat presentation and appearances that Obama delivers are actually also flat intellectually and socially. This points to a danger, when elected he will govern flatly. There will be no depth, no weight will be given to the less fortunate, foreign relations will lack sophistication and, by and large, he will be another Carter.

It’s difficult not to have the blues.