Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Other than the 'gotcha', do people really want to be touting that Obama took far more in contributions from Goldman Sachs workers than Bush did from Enron employees?

Bush was spooked by the criticism and unfounded allegations that he was in Ken Lay's back pocket into supporting (or, at a minimum, kept from opposing) all sorts of stupid regulations and laws, chief among them the Sarbanes-Oxley abomination. How many billions of dollars have been wasted because Bush felt he had no choice but to back the anti-business hysteria that was sweeping Washington? How much better would the economy be right now if Bush had the guts to defend the status quo? (it's interesting that Bush stood his ground on opposing hate laws as there were already sufficient laws in place to punish criminals... but he wouldn't do the same with Enron).

Not that he needs any encouragement to push through an anti-business agenda, but do we want to give Obama the excuse to show just how tough he is on Wall Street firms? Especially, as Washington prefers to use a blunderbuss rather than a rifle, since the result will be regulations that are even more expensive and cumbersome for ALL business, and not just for the evil Wall Street firms?

And while it may be good politics to tout returning political contributions from Goldman employees, it isn't right. Haven't we had enough of stigmatizing and demonizing the individuals who work for Wall Street firms? How is it right to tar every one of Goldman's thousands of employees with the same brush used to go after a relative handful of employees?