A Bogus Bailout

Last week I saw something on the news which caught my attention. The news item was concerning the negotiations in congress to address he current financial crisis. The plan is named a “bailout” of the large financial institutions in our nation. There are many troubling aspects of the proposal, and I am glad it has not yet been passed, and that at least for now there is some greater evaluation of the plan taking place. Be that as it may, I do not write primarily concerning the planned “bailout.” I am disturbed by a comment which was delivered by a female protester outside of the U.S. Capitol last week which reflects a troubling mentality about the “bailout.” This woman was part of a group that protested the plan itself. Several groups were protesting and other people were shown making various statements, but this woman’s statement struck me in particular. She said that there should be “a bailout for the people on the bottom, not the people on the top.”

There are some things I find disturbing about this comment. One is the idea that people or institutions, should be “bailed out” of trouble when they get into trouble. It is true that a large part of the blame for this financial crisis rests with the government for having placed pressure on lending institutions by requiring them to engage in extremely risky lending practices. Whatever the causes may be, it is a mark of a flawed psyche to believe that one is owed a “bailout” when one has continually gotten in over one’s head! Such a mindset fails to consider that the only thing owed for such actions is a healthy dose of consequences applied to the party responsible for the wrong conduct.

Another is those who consider themselves at the “bottom” are not necessarily opposed to consequences for avarice, they simply believe these should not apply to them only to those who are at the “top.” Of course, this immediately brings forth the question, who should be considered at the “bottom” and who should be considered at the “top”? I suspect that if one questioned that particular woman she would definitely consider herself at the “bottom.” While it may seem fairer for those who are at the “bottom” economically to receive a “bailout” than those who are at the “top,” the fact is that this is simply another way of excusing wrong behavior. In this case, the wrong behavior being excused is that of one who thought they could purchase a $500,000 home on a $30,000 a year salary just because it was offered to them at some ridiculously low ARM. Those of us who might have been more prudent with our finances are expected, according to the people at the “bottom”, to pay the financial penalty for their mistakes.