Financial reform

The recently passed financial reform legislation sadly fails to address two of the fundamental causes of the recent financial crisis: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

These privately owned home mortgage giants — which the government will continue to guarantee — made huge profits in the past decade, then left taxpayers with a whopping trillion-dollar liability for making 60 percent of their loans to people who can’t qualify for standard loans.

Sadly, Freddie and Fannie have continued since the very debacle they created to make the same types of sub-prime loans to people who can’t really afford to buy a house. And the Federal Housing Administration has created $250 billion of new debt in just the past two years.

The idea “too big to fail” is still part of our financial system, meaning that large banks that take unwarranted risks will either be bailed out, most likely at taxpayer expense again, thus avoiding the discipline of the market that true bank failures would bring.

What we do get in this legislation is a great deal of new regulation, much of it unproductive but costly to banks that will pass this on to their customers. This is why the bill was opposed by almost all Republicans in Congress.

Walter Bradley

Woodway

GOP priorities

Working people who support the Republican Party (including the tea party wing) should examine recent congressional events. The Republicans demand the continuation of the Bush tax cuts that benefit primarily the wealthy, while they threaten to filibuster the extension of jobless benefits to those unemployed within this horrendous economy.

They claim that deficit expansion from the tax cuts of trillions of dollars during 10 years is acceptable, while that from the unemployment assistance will cause destruction of the republic. More bounty for the wealthy and no help for those suffering the most.

The heartlessness and hypocrisy of the Republican Party have been laid bare. Working people who would even consider voting for Republicans should see through the irrelevant rhetoric and view the true priorities of the party.

Alan D. Northcutt

Waco

Too many earmarks

Why is U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards spending $5 million in earmarked money to move the National Guard Airborne unit to Waco? Why was it moved from Waco in the first place? What is the purpose of moving it back to a location that will cost some $35 million to build and result in 20 permanent jobs?

The U. S. government is broke and probably will have to borrow this money from China and pay interest on it forever. It is high time our politicians put a stop to earmarks except for truly needy purposes.

Edwards already has piled the money on Waco with more than $3 million for hike-and-bike trails. Now this? He should change his name to “Earmark Edwards” because he uses his earmarks to gain votes.

Donald McCauley

West