Political Fault Lines Clearly Shifting Around Federal Bailout Bill Debate

One thing that’s clear is the Congressional bailout debates have shifted political fault lines in unusual ways. The Denver Post highlights the odd split in Colorado’s Congressional delegation: Mark Udall, John Salazar, Doug Lamborn, and Marilyn Musgrave against the bill vs. Tom Tancredo, Diana Degette, and Ed Perlmutter for it.

Then, there’s my two favorite fiscally conservative national think tanks. Co-authoring an issue brief for the Heritage Foundation, former Attorney General Ed Meese says the bailout bill was “vital and acceptable,” while Cato Institute scholar Jagadeesh Ghokale notes:

Overall, it’s not a pretty picture–but score one for supporters of the free market who insist on allowing market reorganization of the financial sector to continue unimpeded…albeit at high risk to the economy over the next few months.

Of course, Cato is more purely libertarian than Heritage. But it makes just another interesting observation in this messy debate in Congress that is far more about the people vs. political powerbrokers both Republican and Democrat than it is about good vs. bad policy. So far, I’ve seen no good way out of this situation. Just like many of our elections, we have to look to embrace the lesser of two evils.

Kudos for those with the courage to stand up for freedom, to stop Congress from dumping billions of dollars in bad debt on the backs of taxpayers.