OpEdNews » Limbaugh, Hannity: Blame Democrats For "Free Market" Failure

In lock-step with President Bush, Republicans are clamoring for a $700 billion-bailout-scheme for the disgraceful CEOs who have flushed our 401 K's down the toilet...with no oversight.

Here's a chilling quote from Section 8 of Bush's proposal: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Basically, Treasury Secretary Harry Paulson can do anything with your money, no questions asked.

Here's House Minority Leader John Boehner (pronounced BOH-ner) falling in lock-step with the president on passing the bill with no oversight: "We don't need 535 members of Congress adding their best idea to this bill," Boehner said. "We need to keep it clean, simple, move it through the House and Senate, and get it on the president's desk."

Could you imagine giving a roofer $70,000 to shingle your roof, thanking him before the work commences and never inspecting his progress?

The Republican-backed bailout threatens to destroy the "Idea," as Limbaugh calls it, that our lives prosper when government is small, markets are free, and welfare budgets are slashed.

The Republican-backed, sponsored, promoted and wildly endorsed, Republican bailout could be the tombstone for an era of Republican de-regulation that has buried America in nearly $10 trillion in debt and left us with a weak dollar world-wide.

If Democrats get tough and coordinated now, they can destroy the power of the myth that unregulated free markets will guide us to prosperity. Indeed, without government support now, we are told, we are all screwed.

Democrats can also take the opportunity to highlight the shameless hypocrisy of a political party that extols personal responsibility for everyone making less than $250,000, and government welfare for the limousine class when privileged rich kid CEO's ruin daddy's business just like President George W. Bush did at Arbusto, Spectrum 7 Energy Corp. and Harken Energy.

But they better start making their case now because Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and a chorus of Republicans are painting Senators Chris Dodd, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Representatives Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi, and former attorney general Janet Reno as the real culprits in this mess.

The Spin Twins are burning into the minds of their listeners the names "Franklin Raines" and "Jim Johnson." Citing a 2003 (bogus) "proposal" by President Bush to increase regulations for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Spin Twins argue that Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd led Democratic killed this proposal.

Ha! Christopher Dodd single-handedly killed a proposal. How quaint. Since when does a single member of the Senate have veto power? Huh, Hannity? You lying punk.

Here's what Limbaugh had to say yesterday: "We are witnessing the greatest nationalization of our society since the New Deal." Ha! And it's YOUR PARTY'S FAULT, LIMBAUGH. YOUR PARTY IS AUTHORIZING IT! LOOK AT WHAT BUSH SAID. LOOK AT WHAT BOEHNER (pronounced BOH-ner) SAID!

THIS IS WHAT WE GET FOR 28 YEARS OF REPUBLICAN RULE IN WASHINGTON!!!

"Twelve new attempts at oversight were stalled by Democrats [since 2003]," Limbaugh added! By Democrats? The attempts were made by Democrats. The stalls were by the Republican dominant Congress! (More on that below.)

Limbaugh and Hannity are stressing that the politicians who have received the most from Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac are Democrats, but this ignores the fact that in 2006, when Republicans controlled Congress, the mortgage agencies spent 53 percent of their campaign contributions on Republicans.

Even accounting for the latest round of spending, the following All-Republican team placed in the top 23 recipients of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants since 1989: Representatives Roy Blunt (R-MO), Deborah Pryce (R-OH), Gary Miller (R-CA), Tom Reynolds (R-NY), Spencer Baucus (R-AL) and Tom Davis (R-VA) and Senators Robert F. Bennett (R-UT), Christopher Bond (R-MO), and Richard C. Shelby (R-AL).

1 | 2

Dean Danger Powers is an international man of mystery.

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

Comments: Expand Shrink Hide

6 comments

GW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about media manipulation and overconsumption. He believes in fiscal responsibility, small government and strict ethics. He recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of international adoption and curbing overpopulation, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, "honest" music and art and obscure vinyl records.
Gustav WynnGW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about media manipulation and overconsumption. He believes in fiscal responsibility, small government and strict ethics. He recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of international adoption and curbing overpopulation, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, "honest" music and art and obscure vinyl records.

No Surprises

Hannity & Limbaugh are going to spin the news of the day against the Democrat, that's a given. But it's most interesting to see how they do so because they have a lot to teach us all about how to make warm, familial connections with listeners. We rely so much on facts and policies, just as the above post does, citing and sourcing who did what and where it was reported.

But we have to learn how to "nutshell" things for this enormous audience, and we have to learn how to connect. "Obama wants to rape your baby" is a much more compelling message then "McCain's campaign manager was on the Fannie/Freddie payroll". Nevermind which is true and which is false, it hardly matters. The low-info listener needs an enemy for all the problems in the world because it means they don't have to examine themselves. And they tune into Hannity so they can hear stories.

Hannity has been broadcasting that the banking crisis was caused by a community organizer from Illinois by the name of Barack Obama who had laws changed so minorities could have big homes. Obama made a fortune for himself while forcing the government to guarantee loans for lazy, shiftless minorities. This has collapsed our system and the only answer is quickly, handing over Bush and Paulson all our money and all our political power. But we have to do it quickly, quick!!

Just like Hannity's answer to the oil crisis is giving the oil companies everything they want, the answer to the financial crisis is giving the Bush administration everything it wants. But we have to do it quick!

by Gustav Wynn (70 articles, 49 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 337 comments) on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 11:08:18 AM

I live on an island off the coast of Maine. Political junkie of liberal persuasion.
I have long been a registered Independent and now am a member of the Maine Green Independent Party.

Widower, grandfather of two, retired.
Jack HarringtonI live on an island off the coast of Maine. Political junkie of liberal persuasion.
I have long been a registered Independent and now am a member of the Maine Green Independent Party.

Widower, grandfather of two, retired.

Just as pair of

lame Spindarellas.

Can they explain away the involvement of Phil Gramm with the changes in our financial structure? I didn't think so.

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 517 comments) on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 1:22:21 PM

Well-traveled, middle-aged, mechanical engineer.
M. BennettWell-traveled, middle-aged, mechanical engineer.

Correction

The mess the US economy is in now was not caused by the free market or capitalism, but by big government socialism. In a free market, people take risks and if they succeed, they are rewarded. If they fail, they are punished. That is the antithesis of what happened to the financial institutions that messed up.

by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 85 comments) on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 2:44:24 PM

If you amended

your statement to read socialism by government for the benefit of wealth and corporate interests, I might agree with you a little more. As it is, the corporations see what they achieved by screwing up the laws as good capitalism. Free markets to them mean they are free to do as they please and privatize profits and socialize loss.

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 517 comments) on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 8:53:09 PM

Eric Nelson is freelance writer, an editor at OpEdNews, and a spiritual progressive from Minnesota who has become more politically active. The reasons for this should be obvious to most; rising poverty, a broken health care system, and a growing global environmental crisis. Eric's writings are as "fair and balanced" as those of FOX news. Eric is also a web informatics expert.
E. NelsonEric Nelson is freelance writer, an editor at OpEdNews, and a spiritual progressive from Minnesota who has become more politically active. The reasons for this should be obvious to most; rising poverty, a broken health care system, and a growing global environmental crisis. Eric's writings are as "fair and balanced" as those of FOX news. Eric is also a web informatics expert.

You can't be serious M. Bennett

Seriously how can any of the "Free Market" gang think their theory is anything other than a complete disaster after the past two weeks. You want us to believe that had Phil Gramm been more successful and removed ALL government rules and oversight that we would be fine? Seriously?? You honestly want us to believe that??

"If you put lipstick on the 'Free Market' pig .... you still have a pig".

Free Market theory never factors in human greed and it always requires someone to die first before the "Free Market" comes into equilibrium. Great on paper and super fun in a college course but not so great in practice for the first few people that have to die and prove a certain product or service isn't so great.

We have been slowly privatizing healthcare and that has been a disaster. How will less regulation on healthcare and on doctors really improve this disaster? People are already dying because they are not getting the proper care or cancer drugs because insurance companies say it is too expensive. If it is all about profit then why would a doctor ever want to treat someone who was sick? His profit margin just went out the window. A "free market" dictates to the doctor to make money, be greedy and only treat the people who aren't sick. And for that matter what happens to the first hundred people who go to an unregulated surgeon who happens to SUCK and be a really bad surgeon. Oh I guess it sucks for those people. Sure the “Free Market” will take over and that surgeon will eventually be out a job …. but for the “Free Market” to work those first hundred people have to die.

Has anyone seen a football game where there were absolutely no rules and thought it was enjoyable and safe for the crowd and the participants?? I didn't think so.

by E. Nelson (29 articles, 5 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 335 comments) on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 11:22:34 AM