Bad Laws Pass Fast

[ Posted Monday, September 22nd, 2008 – 16:37 UTC ]

I know I'm supposed to be commenting on the details of the new economic bailout/recovery plan here, but in fact, I know my own limitations. And one of those limitations is admitting that economics on a national or international scale is beyond me. My actual belief is that it's beyond anybody -- that the "science" of economics is nothing short of voodoo.

Consider: on any given day, you can find an economist who will tell you the future looks great, and another one who is predicting doom and gloom. Looking back later, you can find economists who accurately predicted what was going to happen, and other economists who were wildly wrong. The problem is they're not consistent. One economist who gets things right in one crisis will likely be wrong in the next one.

That's not science, that's throwing a dart at a wall. If it truly were "scientific" then you would expect to see some sort of verifiable results, but time and again the markets surprise the professionals who are supposed to be watching them.

But I will say one thing about the plan that is being floated by Bush and Congress right now -- laws that pass quickly almost always turn out to be bad ones. Think USA PATRIOT Act (sorry for "shouting" in all caps, but that's the official name of the law, since it's an acronym). Almost every time there is a "crisis" or an "emergency" the politicians in Washington are whipped into a fever of "We have to act -- now!" and what we usually wind up with is bad laws that have unintended consequences down the road that nobody foresees. Because there simply wasn't time to think about the consequences in the rush to passage.

Allow me to quote from Frank Herbert, author of the Dune series, who created a future "Bureau of Sabotage" (and the incomparable Jorj X. McKie, Saboteur Extraordinary) in books and short stories. Herbert's "BuSab" exists to slow down government processes. As Herbert explains in Whipping Star:

Once, long centuries past, sentients with a psychological compulsion to "do good" had captured the government. Unaware of the writhing complexities, the mingled guilts and self-punishments, beneath their compulsion, they had eliminated virtually all delays and red tape from government. The great machine with its blundering power over sentient life had slipped into high gear, had moved faster and faster. Laws had been conceived and passed in the same hour. Appropriations had flashed into being and were spent in a fortnight. New bureaus for the most improbable purposes had leaped into existence and proliferated like some insane fungus.

Government had become a great destructive wheel without a governor, whirling with such frantic speed that it spread chaos wherever it touched.

Now, the normal process of Congress and the White House passing laws is usually pretty sedate. One might even use the word "glacial." And it is frustrating when you want to see something get done to have to urge your pet legislation through endless committee meetings and discussions and debates and procedural votes. Normally, in other words, citizens would probably be a little happier if government did work a little faster.

But there's a reason for the delays. They allow critical examination of whatever is being proposed. And the laws that evolve as a result of such are (theoretically, at least) improved as a result.

Which is why I am always leery of laws that ram through Congress with little or no debate because there's "a crisis" which must be dealt with. Lawmakers are (1) desperate to "do something" to show the voters back home they're on top of things, and (2) are usually well-meaning in whatever they're attempting to do. But that doesn't mean that they sometimes pass some really bad laws as a result.

Think about it -- we're debating a plan which will give mountains of taxpayer money to the same people who three weeks ago were not warning us of imminent disaster. They didn't see it coming. They were, in a word, incompetent at doing their jobs. All of a sudden it becomes a full-blown "emergency" which must be acted upon within days (if not hours) or else the Great Depression is going to return in the middle of next week.

All I'm saying is that with a plan this gigantic, perhaps legislators in Washington need a little time to debate the relative merits of the plan, and perhaps attempt to vet it a little bit instead of just blindly rushing to pass it in the next twenty minutes.

Because -- from my experience at least -- bad laws usually are the ones that pass the fastest.


Cross-posted at The Huffington Post


-- Chris Weigant


30 Comments on “Bad Laws Pass Fast”

  1. [1] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You have to hand it to conservatives. They are always first out of the gate in a crisis framing the issue and hammering on the opposition to pass something fast or the whole economy will come down or some other terrible, horrible, awful very bad thing.

    Whatever happened to "letting the market work"?

    Ah ... I guess that framing is only appropriate when they want government to get out of the way.

    "Too big to fail" is much more appropriate framing when you need a government bailout.

    This is how you can be against big government and for big government at the same time. That is, when what you're really for is making money any way you can get it.

    What I don't understand is, why not at least give the money to banks that have not made such poor judgments? Maybe we should reward the sensible instead of those playing Las Vegas with the money. What's to ensure that they will be any more responsible this time than the next.

    It's too bad the Democrats don't have a driving economic philosophy in place that emphasized sensible economics before this crisis. Then, they could have gotten out in front of the issue and offered more of a solution.

    Instead, look who's out front. Republicans once again whipping the poor Dems to act now or the world will come to an end. I'm just wondering how many times they let this happen before they decide to get out in front of some of these issues.

    Or maybe it's just harder when you don't hold the executive office.

    I just can't help but believe if they had a philosophy around how to achieve a "free market" (, for example, they could stand stronger on these principles. Instead, they continue to live in reactive mode.

    The problem the Democrats have fighting this issue is that they are fighting an uphill battle because people have been convinced that laissez-faire capitalism is the end all, be all.

    And somehow even as the flagships of this failed policy sink beneath the ocean, Republicans are still able to argue that they are too big to fail because most of us believe at least some piece of this myth.

    I just wish we would use all of that money to build something better instead of throwing it onto a sinking ship.

    Apologies for the long post. I just can't help but thinking, they didn't share in any of the big profits when those were rolling in, why should we bail them out when times get tough?

    And puh-leez, I don't believe our country will fall apart if we don't bail these people out. I don't see why we couldn't take that $700 billion and give it to bankers who didn't make bad decisions.


  2. [2] 
    loslobo wrote:


    I was beginning to wonder what bubble you were living in by letting this coup slide Friday. Glenn
    Greenwald has written several excellent blogs on this..

    I'm glad to hear some talk today questioning the urgency and the no oversight provisions.

    What Glenn doesn't mention is the difference between the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve(our new overlords). The boys who put Woodrow Wilson in; their dreams are being realized through their grandchildren. Do you think this is going to end after the 700 billion pay off? Now the Reserve will hold paper on America. So if these lemmings ever figure this out it will be too late. So they will just climb into their high-def TVs and gain another hundred pounds.

    GW doesn't have to nuke Iran now that the Fascist state is in place. Because the election is now moot. If they let Obama win we can look forward to the Grapes of Wrath, if McCain wins I'm sure he will bungle his way into Armageddon.

    I need a fucking drink...

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:


    You say it a lot nicer than I have, but we are on the same page vis a vis the problems that Democrats have.

    By and large, the entire Democratic Party is a reactive organization. The party's entire foundation simply prohibits it from being proactive.

    Why, you ask??

    Simple. To be PROACTIVE, a person or organization must have the mindset to IMPOSE their will on others. The very foundation of the Democratic Party is diversity and acceptance. This very nature simply prohibits the aggressiveness that would be necessary to be proactive.

    History certainly bears this out. When times are good, no proactive or pre-emptive actions are necessary. Hence, Democrats flourish.

    When times are bad and proactive and pre-emptive actions are required, then it's the GOP that flourishes..

    When times are tough,Democrats can ONLY be successful if they act like Republicans.

    The Democratic Party's biggest strength when times are good is it's biggest weakness when times are not so good.

    Now, of course, the converse is also true.

    But, in the hear and now, times are tough. The very real threat of terrorism, the economic meltdown, North Korea, Iran, etc etc etc all point to tough times.

    And, Obama was at his best (at least in my opinion) when he WAS acting like a Republican. FISA, etc etc etc...

    Now, feel free to point out the contradiction in my positions? :D


  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:


    And, just to toot my own horn a little. :D

    Seems like Joe Biden agrees with me that the Obama ad that mocked John McCain's lack of computer usage was "terrible".


  5. [5] 
    loslobo wrote:


    Learn the difference between proactive and CRIMINAL

    Chris mentioned the Patriot Act, which was hashed out for thirty days and then on the day of the vote (3:45am) was switched with GW's version.(written by Viet Dinh) Which no one read and never discussed in the MSM. "This is still warm; it just came off the Xerox machine. This is not the bill that was adopted by a unanimous 36 votes...of the Judiciary committee" Rep. Peter Defazio

    Keep defending your neo-con buddies..

    As far as good times-bad time "argument"...
    Where the times good in 1980? Or did Reagan cut a deal to have the hostages held until after he took office? That's proactive
    Where the times that great in 92? Or did Clinton walk in over "Read my Lips"?
    Or 2000 was such a crisis or your lemming citizenry just want to have a beer with GW? But the Supreme Court's gift to GW now that was PROACTIVE!

    I agree your Repugs heroes are proactive especially when it pertains to domestic terrorism. First they murder 3,000 innocents, start wars that kill millions more. Torture indiscriminately, while stonewalling our service men who where tortured in Iraq. Dismantle the constitution and steal billions, no now trillions from our children and grand-children.

    It's funny to see that Marriot stll standing after everything burned, I guess America just uses shitty steal. Now someone explain to me how WTC7 fell? Because I already expained it to you.

  6. [6] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hey Michale! I thought you were against Obama acting like a Republican and running a negative, end-justifies-the-means campaign.

    Now you want him to act like a Republican? ;)

    I wouldn't say being proactive means imposing your will on people. But I do think it involves having a philosophy around economics and communicating this philosophy to people so that you're better able to make your case.

    The easiest example: "Let the markets work"

    Almost all conservative philosophy can be summed up in this simple phrase. Republicans don't even have to work hard when they want to deregulate an industry now because all they have to say is "let the markets work." Why? Because people have bought into the fact that this is somehow intrinsically good.

    Which is one of the reasons a $700 billion bailout is not going over so well with many people.

    What Democrats need is a similar philosophy around "a working economy."

    In a working economy, the government establishes the conditions for the market to work. Markets just don't work by themselves. At least not without huge boom and bust cycles and enormous concentrations of wealth.

    To ensure the economy works for the good of all (and not just Wall Street brokers), the government:
    - Makes sure there is competition (busts monopolies)
    - Ensures standards for things like food and children's toys
    - Sets fair lending practices (loan sharking is illegal, for instance)
    - Ensures that everyone has equal access to information (it can't be in the fine print)

    To be proactive on the economy, the Democrats need to talk about these things and the role of the government in making sure the markets work.

    They should not be talking about specific details of some economic plan.

    If people believe that we need to make the economy work for everyone, then it would make making their case that much easier. And they would have an argument against bailing out failed Wall Street firms.

    If we had had decent regulation and oversight of Wall Street, for example, this mess wouldn't have happened.

    We need to make the economy work for everyone and not just Wall Street firms. Instead of rewarding those who have profited enormously when times were good, we are going to give the $700 billion to those banks who were smart enough to stay away from sub-prime loans and the high risk of the market.

    Let's incent good practices rather than bad practices.

    So it's really quite simple. If you want to think of it as "imposing your will," feel free, but I tend to think of it more as building a progressive economic framework.

    Contrary to what most people think, Republican don't have a monopoly on good business practices, just like they don't have a monopoly on God.

  7. [7] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And yunno what, Michale. I believe I've decided that I would rather see the Democrats stand on some principles than win the election.

    They might lose this time, but I think if they kept at it they would win more converts. Neo-conservatism isn't working. And not matter how hard the corporate press pumps out their platitudes, I see a lot of signs that people aren't buying it and want something different.


  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:


    Hey Michale! I thought you were against Obama acting like a Republican and running a negative, end-justifies-the-means campaign.

    Now you want him to act like a Republican? ;)

    Like I said, feel free to point out the inconsistency... :D

    However, it can be explained simply by pointing out the difference between campaigning vs governing...

    I fully agree and/or concede that the way the GOP campaigns is nasty, dirty, and without regard for common human decency or respect..

    Now, if you want to claim that THAT's how Democrats should campaign, you are welcome to take the low road...

    However, when it comes to GOVERNING, actually running things, well that is a whole 'nother ball game...

    Candidates need to sell the American public on the BEST that they are... That is what Obama ***WAS*** doing. But now we come to find out that, when push comes to shove, Obama is simply another politician.. One of the herd.. There appears to be NOTHING substantial to differentiate him from any other run-of-the-mill politician... And, if he continues on this course, he WILL lose. It's already become apparent.. The crowds he draws are vastly smaller than what he used to draw.. Americans are simply not inspired by him anymore. And his ability to inspire others is what MADE him the candidate that would have gone on to the White House...

    But now.... Just like a Republican, the Obama campaign seems to be about winning... Nothing else matters... The ends justifies the means... That's a philosophy that belongs in the GOVERNING phase, not in the campaigning phase...

    I know... I know... It's a mass of contradictions.. It's tough to explain it to myself, let alone espouse it to others...

    As far as going thru the economic issues, don't even bother... I haven't a clue what all that is about and won't even pretend that I do... The only way that it appears to affect me is that gas prices are going back up again...

    You seem to want to convince me that everything DEM is good and everything GOP is bad...

    Frankly, I don't see any evidence of that.. The only thing that is apparent to a non-party zealot like me is that ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING that is Democrat OR Republican is bad...

    You would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise...


  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:


    And yunno what, Michale. I believe I've decided that I would rather see the Democrats stand on some principles than win the election.

    I always have known you were a person of integrity, so this doesn't surprise me.

    But you must concede that, with this attitude and amongst Democrats, you are the exception and not the rule..

    @David & CW

    Like I said, I don't know squat about economics...

    But, ya'all might want to be careful about trying to toss this catastrophe into the laps of the GOP...

    Do you know who the TOP 5 Recepients of Campaign Contributions from Mac & Mae are??

    Yep, you guessed it... All Democrats...

    "Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

    Name Office Party/State Total

    1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900

    2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000

    3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849

    4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550

    5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500"

    This is exactly why throwing SCANDALS up at the Republicans is inherently self-defeating for Democrats. Because, as it invariably turns out, Democrats are just as guilty or (most times) even MORE guilty than Republicans.


  10. [10] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Umm ... not quite sure what you're talking about, Michale. It looks like you're the only one trying to "toss this catastrophe" at anyone.

    I do find it interesting, though, that you constantly attribute things to us that we don't actually say. Is this because of your negative view of liberals?

    I'm arguing that the guiding economic principle of "letting the market work" is at fault and that our principle ought to be creating the conditions where markets work for everyone.

    If Republicans or Democrats want to fight for this principle, I'd have either of them onboard.

    - D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:


    Umm … not quite sure what you're talking about, Michale. It looks like you're the only one trying to "toss this catastrophe" at anyone.

    You are correct and I do apologize for that..

    Most of the bitching and moaning I do are against Democrats in general, rather than the people of this blog specifically.

    I also agree that the administration's plan of letting the market work is not a good one. Personally, I think we should get rid of the market all together because, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't really do anything for me personally. :D It surely doesn't seem to be an HONEST way for people to make a living.

    Regardless of all that, what do you think of the latest news about McCain suspending his campaign to address the crisis?

    I especially like this part:

    "We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved.I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis."

    This is the kind of sentiment that independents respond to and will really score some points with voters.

    It looks like the McCain campaign has really shaken things up. This is something I would have expected from Obama...


  12. [12] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Last time I checked, the debate was scheduled for 9 PM on Friday. What is Congress possibly going to be doing at this time Friday night?

    Sounds more like McCain is trying to score political points by making it sound like he's suddenly interested in the economy.

    I agree with you though, Michale, that Obama has a real opportunity here. But he has to tread carefully.

    Republicans will do all they can to pull him into a bad decision and then try to blame him. If I were him, I'd stick to my beliefs and demand what I believe is right from any proposed bailout.

    I think he has a much stronger negotiating position than even he may realize.


  13. [13] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW - Here's what Obama should do.

    1. Meet with Bush
    2. Demand oversight, regulation, and the bill that is best for America
    3. If Bush doesn't agree, I believe the Democrats should not pass any legislation
    4. Yeah, you heard me. Call their bluff.

    And here is how you explain it to the American people:

    "We will not pass a bill that is a blank for Wall Streeet. This is what got us into this mess in the first place. We will only pass a responsible bill."

    This is how you get a good bill passed.

  14. [14] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Whups. Getting late. Need a little late night editing:

    "We will not pass a bill that is a blank check for Wall Street. This is what got us into this mess in the first place. We will only pass a responsible bill."

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can't argue with anything you say...

    Sure, McCain is maybe milking this for political purposes. That is a possibility.

    Just as, if it was Obama who was making the gesture, the GOP would be claiming the same thing and the Democrats would be fawning all over Obama saying what a great gesture, blaa blaa blaa...

    My only point is, because McCain made the gesture, independents are going to approve of McCain and McCain will look like the better candidate..


  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    I tell ya, McCain is scoring some major mojo here. He & Bush are really putting Obama on the spot as a follower..


  17. [17] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You do bring up a good point, Michale, in that McCain is trying to get out ahead of Obama and show that he's leading. Obama is probably trying to do the same thing.

    Is it really better for the country to politicize this bill? Probably not. But it looks like that's going to happen.

    What worries me more is that most of the Republicans in Congress are going to vote against the bill. This way, they can still get what they want yet say they stood on principles against it.

    If I were the Democrats, I would not allow this. This bill either has to pass w/ bi-partisan support or not at all.

    The absolute worst case for Democrats is that they pass Republican legislation that Republicans don't vote for. This lets Republicans hold the moral high ground and get what they want at the same time.

    So, if I were a Democrat, I would recognize that I have a really strong hand here. I would either a) get what I want from the legislation and hold firm on principles, or b) not pass it.

    Let's look at the worst possible outcomes from these 2 scenarios - the BATNA if you're familiar w/ negotiation principles.

    b) The bill doesn't pass. Republicans accuse Democrats of not acting.

    All the Democrats have to do is say "we are not going to pass a bill that does not fix the problem and only encourages more of the same."

    a) Democrats get what they want from the bill.
    This is how they could implement actual change in Washington. A change of philosophy.

    Republicans can say they stuck to their principles and Democrats say they stuck to theirs. But since laissez-faire principles seem to be what got us into this, the Democrats look as if they have a philosophy that may work.

    Option a) truly is their best option.

    What needs to change in Washington is the laissez-faire economic philosophy of "let the market work."

    It is an issue that is beyond Democrat and Republican, but Democrats have a chance to lead on this issue.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:


    Is it really better for the country to politicize this bill? Probably not. But it looks like that's going to happen.

    And how can this be prevented?

    Easy. By Democrats giving McCain the benefit of the doubt and accepting that McCain is acting in good faith. Hell, even Bill Clinton has stated as much.

    But, by castigating McCain and ridiculing his position, it is the Democrats that are politicizing this emergency.

    The rest of your post simply proves my point. Even though you concede that the issue is beyond DEM or GOP, you go on to say how things would be best for Dems..

    For this emergency NOT to be politicized, then we must base our discussions as to what is best for the COUNTRY. Not what is best for Democrats or Republicans. Congress has to act towards the best interests of the country..

    We did it after 9/11 and we can surely do it again...

    McCain has the right idea by suspending politics and campaigning and working towards the good of the country.. The problem is that Democrats are bound and determined to politicize this.


  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?

    BILL CLINTON: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

  20. [20] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hahahaha. "Trust us." Wow. That seems to be the same message that got us into this mess.

    Why should we trust McCain and not Obama?

    He is playing politics just as you've said. He is trying to make Obama look like a follower.

    Both sides use politics to push their positions. This is not going to change.

    I am merely arguing that the Democrats have the stronger position if they play their cards right. Republican leadership has failed. Yes, Democrats are complicit in this failure, but they are complicit because they have not lead and have given in to Republican demands.

    They should lead on this issue to do what is best for the country.

    The Republican definition of bi-partisanship seems to mean Democrats doing what Republicans want. This is not bipartisanship and is part of why we're in the mess we're in.

    Democrats should stand firm on their principles and fight for what is right, rather than giving in to more voodoo economics.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hi David..

    I think yer not up on current events..

    It's the Democrats and Bush who are pushing this bad bail-out Plan..

    It's McCain and the GOP who are fighting it..

    It feels like that old Twilight Zone episode with Steve Forrest as an astronaut who comes back to Earth and there are subtle differences.. IE His house has a white picket fence when before it didn't. Or he is a full bird Colonel where before he was just a light Colonel...

    That's what this feels like. Except these differences between the GOP and Democrats are about as "subtle" as a nuclear bomb...


  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's an interesting take on the situation..


  23. [23] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That is an interesting take on the situation. The article claims that McCain and the Republican minority are playing politics while Democrats and the Republican President are actually trying to work together to pass a plan for the good of the country.

    "That's the future of a country when a minority manipulates public perceptions through well-constructed propaganda that is deployed with just one goal in mind – retain presidential power for another four years. Take control of the Supreme Court, which will continue to impose their right wing will for decades ahead. The job is not done. We need four more years."

    The Democrats are actually leading and they seem to have convinced George W. Bush that this is the right path to take. Bipartisanship at it's best.

    Republicans trying to win the White House, however, are trying to show that they are somehow the party of change despite the fact they've been in charge for the last 8 years.

    The worst case scenario is that bad legislation is passed AND Republicans get to seem like the party of change (blaming Democrats for the problem).

    This is the political game McCain is playing: get Democrats to pass the legislation, then blame them for it. In this case, he wins both ways. Wall St. gets the bailout they want, George W. gets his way, and McCain gets to appear as if he really wants to change something.

    This is why Democrats should either:
    a) Pass the legislation they want that would actually work to fix some of the root causes of the problem (rather than writing a blank check)

    or, b) Don't pass anything.

    In fact, if Democrats realized their negotiation position, they would realize that they could actually pass a much better plan.

    Dear Democrats, please don't fall into this political trap.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrats are actually leading and they seem to have convinced George W. Bush that this is the right path to take. Bipartisanship at it's best.

    Actually, it's the White House's plan.. So the correct analysis is that BUSH is leading and has convinced the Democrats of the right path... :D

    But, you say PO TAY TO and I say CUCUMBER... :D

    The current plan does not have ANY protections or benefits for the taxpayer.. It's all about protecting Wall Street and the rich..

    Why are the Democrats supporting it???


  25. [25] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Why are the Democrats support it?

    Exactly. I don't believe they should unless it has oversight, a stake in equity for the people, and helps ensure more responsible lending practices.

    That's what I keep encouraging Democrats to include. Couldn't agree with you more that it can't just be a blank check to Wall Street.

    And President Bush has agreed on many of these issues. I just believe the Democrats could do even more to ensure the plan works for all.


  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, we are agreed..

    This is a BAD plan and Bush and the Democrats are wrong for supporting it and McCain and the GOP are right for not supporting it...

    We have consensus... Who woulda thunked it... :D


  27. [27] 
    akadjian wrote:


    So we have agreed. Bush is willing to support a better Democratic bill. Democrats should do what is best for the American people making sure they have Republican support or not pass anything.

    Two can play at this game of putting words into other people's mouths :D


  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:


    OK, let's try it THIS way...

    Baby steps....

    Are we agreed that a BAD bail out plan should NOT be passed??

    Are we agreed that a BAD bail out plan would be a plan that has no protections and/or benefits for the taxpayer??


  29. [29] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Heheh. Ever see the movie "What About Bob?" Baby steps reminded me of this.

    I'd agree any plan should have protections for the taxpayers. Especially since we're going to foot the bill. 100% with you there.

    How do you feel about putting conditions in place so this doesn't happen again?


  30. [30] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    To all -

    Was too busy last week to read comments, but I'm happy to say now that I've had a chance to, that the level of discourse has been excellent for this article!

    Carry on...


Comments for this article are closed.