Treasury Secretary Paulson has proposed a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, and even I'm skeptical that it can fix things. I tend to agree with Newt Gingrich on this one.
If this were a Democratic administration the Republicans in the House and Senate would be demanding answers and would be organizing for a “no” vote.
If a Democratic administration were proposing this plan, Republicans would realize that having Connecticut Democratic senator Chris Dodd (the largest recipient of political funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) as chairman of the Banking Committee guarantees that the Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Paulson plan that will emerge will be much worse as legislation than it started out as the Paulson proposal.
If this were a Democratic proposal, Republicans would remember that the Democrats wrote a grotesque housing bailout bill this summer that paid off their left-wing allies with taxpayer money, which despite its price tag of $300 billion has apparently failed as of last week, and could expect even more damage in this bill.
But because this gigantic power shift to Washington and this avalanche of taxpayer money is being proposed by a Republican administration, the normal conservative voices have been silent or confused.
One of the reasons Republicans lost Congress was because they behaved like Democrats, passing out loot and running up deficits without worrying how they would pay for it. Then President Bush couldn't veto anything, which made matters worse.
The fact is, we have a duty to question the way politicians want to spend our money, even when they happen to be from our own party. Gingrich is correct when he says Congress has an obligation not to be railroaded into a plan that won't solve the problems and lacks any oversight provisions.
Not that I really think a Democrat Congress would do that. If Wall Street failing helps elect Obama, I think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will let it tank.