Looking back at the political establishment's (and its pundits') dismal record on bankruptcy, the workability of a bailout, and overseeing the bailout

"In the slow-motion train wreck that became the current economic meltdown, our bipartisan political Establishment and the sycophantic punditburo have been wrong over and over and over again. They told us that eviscerating consumer protections would unleash the market's benevolent power and boost the economy. They told us that a trillion-dollar Wall Street bailout would solve a credit crisis. They told us that bailout would be subjected to intense oversight and scrutiny.

"Wrong, wrong and wrong — and when critics predicted just that, sneering commentators and congressional leaders berated us as know- nothing Luddites, conspiracy theorists, or both."

-- David Sirota, in his syndicated column this week,
"Ahem. We told you so"

by Ken

Amid the nonstop outrages of the Bush regime, the thing that may have been most appalling, next to the outrages themselves, was the process by which hardly any of the people who were wrong paid any price for their wrongness, while the people who turned out to be right, and consistently so, not only weren't rewarded, but still aren't accorded any respect.

Let me throw out one name. I realize this is pathetically easy, but it seems to me also unanswerable. The name is:

William (Bill) Kristol

Sorry, I play rough. Now, can anyone explain how this buffoon continues to be employed? And yet he's come out of his career-long record of always being wrong about everything (proving that, law of averages be damned, it is possible) with a promotion: to the rank of columnist for the New York Times, which seems to have fallen short on its "moron" quotient on the op-ed page.

On the whole, though, among the punditocracy and the people who play political footsie with them, it's still the bozos who get listened to and the folks who've gotten it right are treated like the proverbial Dirty Fucking Hippies.

In his column this week, David Sirota cites three recently released reports that "prove that the critics were right and the ideologues of Washington were wrong." Let's go through them one by one:


THE 2005 BANKRUPTCY ACT

Federal Reserve report on the effect of the bankruptcy bill

When in 2005 Congress overwhelmingly passed a credit card industry-written bill gutting bankruptcy laws, progressives were right to try to stop it — and not just because it was an immoral move to legalize usury. We were right because the bill played an integral role in the recent foreclosure surge that crushed the economy.

In the past, bankruptcy laws made sure debtors first and foremost continued paying their mortgages so that they could stay in their home. But the 2005 legislation effectively compels debtors to first pay off their credit cards, meaning many then have no money left to pay their mortgage. The Fed's report estimates that the bankruptcy bill is causing 32,000 more foreclosures per quarter than the economy would have already generated.

We told you so.

THE CASE FOR THE GOV'T BAILOUT

Federal Reserve report on the myths of the credit crisis

When almost every media voice in America was sounding the alarm of financial panic and demanding a Wall Street bailout plan; when bailout opponents were roundly ridiculed as "irresponsible" by politician and pundit alike -- those opponents were nonetheless right to say then what a study from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank says now: The case hadn't been made.

While reporters and the Bush administration frantically insisted that bank-to-business lending had ceased, inter-bank lending had stopped, and short-term "commercial paper" loans had dried up, the Minneapolis researchers tell us that "all three claims were false" and continue to be false; that "nobody has explained how the money system has frozen when the data says it has not"; and that "a trillion dollar intervention warrant(ed) a bit more serious analysis."

We told you so.

OVERSEEING THE BAILOUT

GAO report on the oversight of the bailout

When lawmakers said the bailout included strict oversight measures, skeptics were right to say that claim was patently untrue. According to a new analysis by federal officials at the Government Accountability Office, virtually nonexistent oversight of the bailout means "taxpayers may not be adequately protected" and that the bailout's stated goal of fixing the economy "may not be achieved in an efficient and effective manner." Yes, we told you so.

DAVID'S CONCLUSION

And so now, even though these damning reports have garnered scant news coverage, perhaps there will be a change. As we, the pragmatic progressive majority, demand tough new financial regulations; job-creating investments in public infrastructure; labor law reforms; universal health care; revised international trade policies; a repeal of the odious bankruptcy bill and an end to Wall Street welfare -- maybe, just maybe, our humiliated rulers will start listening.

#