WSJ reports "Tentative Bailout Deal:" My reaction

Here’s the first comment responding to The Wall Street Journal's report: “Lawmakers Reach Tentative Bailout Deal.”

Whether the bailout is good or bad is still to be debated. What is laughable is the thought that the "taxpayers" will "benefit" in these new scenarios. Please!

The GOVERNMENT benefits. If the warrants are called, do I, as a taxpayer, get a share of the company? HA! If a loan is re-paid, do I, as a taxpayer, get a percentage? HA!

No, the government benefits. The only time the taxpayer is involved is to cough up more money to pay for all these bailouts. Saying I won't have to pay AS MUCH on this bailout is NOT a "benefit."

I think in the short-term some kind of government “bailout” will benefit taxpayers if only because the alternative – government doing little or nothing while letting the markets work things out – may be too harmful although it might very well be what’s best in the long-term.

But reality is we all live in the short-term. Some kind of bailout seems necessary to stabilize markets in the short-term. So that’s the “benefit” I see for the “taxpayers.”

But with that said, I agree with everything else the commenter said.

Here are a few other thoughts - - -

I’m very worried that, despite what we’re told, the bailout bill will be one more instance – and a spectacular one - of the self-servers and grafters who brought us the current mess shaping a bailout to meet their own desires to line their pockets and serve their special interests.

Northwestern University School of Law professor Jim Lindgren has disclosed how Sen. Dodd (D – Conn.) has worked a provision into the bailout that could give billions of tax dollars to ACORN, the organization with strong ties to Dems, including Sen. Obama. ACORN has a history of engaging in vote fraud. See this post from yesterday: Dodd's ACORN graft bailout: We pay and this recent post ACORN, Vote Fraud, Durham County & Obama.

I’m sure many of us can relate to University of Tennessee School of Law professor Glenn Reynolds comment last evening:

You know, it would be easier for me to believe this was a crisis, if the people in charge were acting like it was a crisis, instead of just an opportunity for graft. Then again, to some of these people, everything is just an opportunity for graft.

Going forward, here are a few of the things I’d like to see happen:

1 - - - We go back to calling “sub-prime” mortgages what they really are: high risk mortgages. The government and media stopped saying “high risk” about the time people like Dodd, Reps. Barney Frank (D- Mass) and Charlie Rangel (D- NY) decided there was political advantage and billions of dollars to be made by them and their friends by getting the government involved in “sub-prime” mortgages to help the “disadvantaged.”

2 - - - We keep reminding ourselves that in the midst of “the mortgage crisis” more than 95% of us our making our mortgage payments on time. This mortgage market mess was not brought about by the failure of Americans to pay our mortgages. It was brought about by our failure to elect Senators and Representatives who would look out for our interests instead of theirs.

3 - - - We need to zero in on the less than 5% of mortgages that are behind in payments or in foreclosure and ask the who, what, why, when and how questions. And we need to do something with the answers we get.

4 - - - Given the roles played by Dodd and Frank in bringing about this mess, I think most people would find it very reassuring if they gave up their committee chairmanships and got out of the “messing up the mortgage markets” business. Others who contributed to the mess should step aside as well.

What are your thoughts?

This just in: DC Examiner has a side-by-side comparison of some of the main parts of the bailout plans including the latest “compromise” plan WSJ reported on.

According to DC Examiner, provision for money for ACORN is not in the “compromise” package.

That's good, but we need to remain watchful on that one. Groups like ACORN and their congressional supporters have ways of slipping special interests provisions into bills when no one’s looking and at the last minute.

Hat tip: Instapundit