On President Obama’s speech in New York on financial regulation:
I was intrigued and appalled by the tone of the speech and the rhetoric as we saw in that sound bite.
The way — and he‘s done this before — he tries to denigrate, cast out, and to delegitimize any argument against his. And here he’s talking about that it’s not legitimate even to suggest that the bill he’s supporting might encourage a bailout.
It’s certainly possible [to] argue [that] because of the provisions in the ball, and one in particular, where the Treasury has the right to designate any entity — private entity – as a systemic risk, and then to immediately, even without Congress approving and appropriating money, to guarantee all the bad loans.
That is an invitation to a bailout.
Now, the president could argue otherwise, but to say that to raise this issue is illegitimate is simply appalling. What he’s doing here is he‘s making a lot of provisions that will be changing a very complex financial system. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you can’t predict all the outcomes.
The president has this tic in which he presents himself as having this sort of academic, reasonable discourse, but it really has inside of it a sharp edge of partisanship.
Look, he won the presidency. It gives him a big house, a lot of power, and a fabulous airplane, but it does not make him the arbiter of American political discourse.
On Democratic Rep. James Oberstar’s attempt to strip the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act so that the EPA can expand its jurisdiction:
Words mean something. In 1972, even liberals had respect for the constitution. They understood if you want to regulate the waters by the feds you have to say “navigable” so it will be under the Commerce Clause. You take it away, and how do you explain why the feds ought to regulate un-navigable waters?
Doc Hastings is right. You can expand this to apply it to every sinkhole, mud hole, swim hole in America. Probably they’d exclude potholes to leave it in the jurisdiction of locals. . . .
And it even has a provision that says and “the land that impacts it” so it could regulate not only the water but everything around, meaning every square inch of the United States.
This is an EPA that unilaterally decided it will regulate CO2, giving it total control over our energy economy, and now it wants all control over waters. And is there not an iota respect for the federalist structure of the country? . . .
The liberals understand they have a window of ‘09 and ‘10 — that they have all of the power now and they’ll lose it after Election Day, and they want to expand the strength of government in an unlimited way as long as that window is open.
They are doing it, here as in health care.