GOVERNMENT PROTECTIONS

Two news stories caught my attention last week. On the surface they don't look like stories that share a connection, but I think there's a common theme if you look deep enough. One story involved an Oklahoma mother who called 911 for permission to shoot a man who had broken into her home at 3 o'clock in the morning and was endangering her and her three year-old son. She then shot and killed the guy. The local authorities determined that her actions were justified. Republicans are calling her a hero. The second story involved President O'bama, who used his constitutional 'recess appointment' powers to install Richard Cordray as director of the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Senate Republicans are in a huff over the President's appointment, claiming that it was not justified. It's fair to say that they are not calling the President a hero. I assume they're calling him names that shouldn't appear in print!

At the heart of both stories is the need for protection. The first involves physical protection. The second involves financial protection. Both threats can be life threatening. Republicans are concerned about the first. The second - not so much! In fact, it's fair to say they don't see it as a problem people should worry about. That's where they and I disagree.

Not everyone in this country has the financial sophistication of Warren Buffet or Donald Trump. With over two-thirds of the county living paycheck-to-paycheck, citizens who are taken advantage of by unscrupulous lenders and investment operatives very often find themselves in financial ruin with little or no means of redress. That's why it is imperative that government act as a referee in the financial sector to insure that all Americans are guaranteed a level playing field in their transactions with the financial industry.

Republicans, on the other hand, advocate a hand's off government policy that I think is akin to a bunch of cattle rustlers objecting to the townsfolk decision to hire Wyatt Earp to put an end to cattle rustling activities. Of course, the rustlers are going to object! Rustling is their livelihood and rustlers never advocate for an end to their profitable racket.

There are broader implications that must also be considered. If rustlers hit one ranch and that enterprise goes under, the nation's economy does not experience a seismic jolt, but when tens of millions of ranches get hit and go under, as did tens of millions of American households in the months leading up to our current recession, society as a whole suffers and experiences a much greater burden than the sum of all those individual losses put together. There are some dangers out there that a gun won't protect us from, and where only the government is able to offer that protection without endangering our freedoms in the process, it should do so.