Transparency

[billroper]

Ok, I understand that there are some of you who aren't going to like the origins of this article, because it comes from the National Review Online. But perhaps the last paragraph, quoted below, will entice you to read it:

"While the aforementioned 2004 hearing revealed Democrats as the more vocal Fannie and Freddie defenders, the corruption runs deep and is likely bipartisan in nature. Ultimately, partisan concerns should be shunted aside and the chips should fall where they may. If Congress is eventually going to demand that taxpayers cough up nearly a trillion dollars to prop up irresponsible actors in the financial sector, it’s only fair we know who in Congress was getting paid to look the other way."

He suggests that all of the documents that the government is getting from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be placed on line so that we can see who was responsible for their failure.

I'm for transparency. How about you?

Comments

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Transparency is a good thing. It also leads to a great deal more information being available than anyone has time or energy to look at, and can therefore lead to things being obscured that in a less "transparent" climate might be made clearer.

I didn't need the warning about the source, because the tone made it clear where it was coming from. And I think I'll leave it at that.