Posted by
Sean Engmann on Monday, October 06, 2008 3:11:39 AM
Regulate, regulate, regulate, that's been the drumbeat that we've been hearing the last two weeks. Wall Street needs more regulation, the banks need, "strict oversight" and all in all, we just need more government to look out for us. We've even heard very unlikely sources pushing for more regulation, from Sarah Palin, to Bill O'Reilly to John McCain. And with these cries for more regulation and a bigger government, we've seen the Democrats make tremendous strides in the polls, not just in the Presidential race, but in House and Senate races. Here's a scary thought, Al Franken, United States Senator. Why are the Democrats benefitting? Because Americans know that they are good at writing regulations, and since everyone has the same message, they might as well vote for the experts. The sad thing is, I don't think Americans want more regulation and oversight and a more intrusive government through increased oversight is absolutely the wrong prescription for our country.
For those calling for increased oversight and regulation as a remedy, consider who will be doing the oversight. For those who think the government "should be looking out for you," consider who you'd rather rely on, yourself or some government bureaucrat. The reason we got into this economic crisis was not for lack of regulation or oversight, the necessary regulation was in place, the problem was that the people actually doing the oversight did not understand the situation and therefore could not act. Congressmen and government bureaucrats are not economic experts, and the dizzying array of data combined with the lethargic pace of government makes it virtually impossible to take action. Consider the 150 billion dollars of earmarks attached to the relief package in order to get such a critical bill passed. What good do more regulations do when you don't have the ability to enforce existing regulations?
In fact, government intervention is largely responsible for a lot of what has happened with this economy. The idea of politically correct loans, or loans to poorer people for housing that are beyond the means of the borrower were actively encouraged by Congressional leaders. In fact, the notion that "everyone is entitled to a home," is very reminiscent of the idea that everyone is entitled to all inclusive healthcare. This social engineering does not work with the free market, and it is this type of regulation, regulating outcomes, that helped cause this mess.
John McCain and Sarah Palin clearly do not understand the issue, and by ceding the point that we need more regulation, they are essentially conceding the election. According to Frank Luntz's focus group, the line that resonated the most of the entire VP debate was when Palin spoke about personal responsibility. Palin's line was the only time any of the major candidates mentioned the people who borrowed above their means and used their homes as ATM machines, fully confident in a government safety net. America's not about social engineering or safety nets, it's about personal responsiblity, and personal accountability. To get back in the race, McCain and Palin need to take a stand against government handouts, Obama's patronizing tax plan and against more regulation and vow to bring back the American spirit of personal accountability.