Reasonable people can disagree about the merits of the Wall Street bailout.
But you can't reasonably believe we should use taxpayer money to bail out irresponsible bankers and do nothing to insist bankers start behaving responsibly.
As my Campaign for America's Future colleague Zach Carter just reported, there are 69 House members and 21 Senators who unreasonably believe just that. This is the crew that voted for the Wall Street bailout and against Wall Street reform.
I can understand voting against the bailout as unfair preferential treatment for Wall Street, and against Wall Street reform, believing that it was not tough enough to prevent future crises.
I can understand voting against the bailout and against reform on the libertarian grounds the both are inappropriate government interventions.
I can understand voting for the bailout as a necessary act to avert global depression (and which did not cost taxpayers nearly as much as initially feared), while believing it is also necessary to vote for new rules that would prevent the same crisis from happening again.
But to believe irresponsible bankers deserve a $700 billion line of credit from the taxpayers, and then be turned back loose on the economy without even a slap on the wrist?
Is that how anyone would treat a drunk driver or a truant student? Give them a bunch of money and tell them to go play in the street all over again?
It's not believable. The only explanation is to be bought and paid for.
Any congressperson on Carter's list should be grilled by their local media: how can you justify voting for bailing out irresponsible Wall Street behavior, and against reforming Wall Street behavior?
I'm republishing Carter's list of the 90, which includes the price for their votes.