Cognitive Coup

There is very little wonder why the Republicans oppose Obama’s bailtout. First, they lost in 2006 and lost more in 2008 so the remaining Republicans are in districts that can weather a Democratic storm. So, being the minority it’s safe for them to oppose it. Second, it’s also smart because of everything that comes with the bailout. Specifically, as Betsy McCaughey (Gov. Pataki’s first Lt. Gov) points out, there are many similarities between the bailout and Tom Daschle’s book about health care. She even points out what page to look at, it’s a fantastic article and one of the best I’ve read on a piece of legislation.

So, the Obama Administration is sneaking a major health care reform in a stimulus bill. The problem with this reform, as succinctly put by Betsy McCaughey:

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

This stifles innovation. I like my President, but this bill seems dumb. I’m confused because this conflicts with my perception of my President.

How does this play into Bush’s legacy?

First, the Republicans oppose Obama’s bailout, and it’s for good reason.

Second, Bush’s bailout was designed so that it could be paid back (even if that wasn’t the intention) and Obama’s isn’t. It’s a spending bill plain and simple. I suspect that Bush didn’t care if TARP produced a profit or a loss. After all, the Treasury Department paid $254 billion for assets worth $176 billion (this article). It doesn’t seem like they were planning on making a profit. But now, CEOs are going before Congress. Read the article here. I like this part:

Both Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack and Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf said their banks have not used government money for executive bonuses, dividends or lobbying.

“I know the American people are outraged about some compensation practices on Wall Street,” Mack said. “I can understand why.”

Mack said banks want to pay the government in full as fast as possible.

Emphasis added. I know Paulson was CEO for Goldman Sachs. CEO’s are generally Republican leaning because of tax issues. It’s not inconcieveable that Paulson is talking to friends on Wall Street and explaining the political importance of TARP funds being paid back and the government making a profit, however minimal.

By 2012, I would be surprised if TARP funds weren’t paid back. Obama’s stimulus will come under attack because it probably won’t work. The health care feature will be particularly despised, and since Bush’s bailout made money (or at very least was paid back) he will look like a superior President in economics (I don’t think anything but another 9/11 on Obama’s watch will salvage his foreign policy legacy).

This will probably be the angle the Republicans use. Besides, the public memory fades fast and even if they’re reminded that his administration permitted torture it probably won’t seem so bad. There’s a surprising number of people who agree with Cheney’s sick mind (sorry, I’m a self-hating Republican; mostly because of Bush/Cheney).

So stay tuned for 2012, and we’ll see if I’m right. I know I’m on a limb, but I think I’m right.