Looking who's fingerpointing

High on our list of completely detestable people with no redeeming qualities whatever and therefore useful only as a tackling dummy, Maxine Waters, D./California, has now once again proven, should there be any lingering shreds of doubt, that the voters in her district have been abducted by aliens who replaced their brains with tuna fish.Ms. Waters has weighed in on the topic of mortgage foreclosures, and what lies in wait at the hand of Congress for banks that don’t submit to her will, according to Michelle Malkin (via Bill Quick at the Daily Pundit):

“If they don’t come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes that they’ve worked so hard for, we’re going to tax them out of business,” said Waters.

This remarkable statement interests us for several reasons, not the least of which is the curious logic of helping people who need mortgages by putting the mortgage lenders out of business.  Hello, good people of South Central Los Angeles, Westchester, Playa del Rey, Gardena, Hawthorne, Inglewood and Lawndale?  Is this really the best you can come up with?  Isn’t there a collie somewhere in District 35 that you could send us instead?

We are not sure how Ms. Waters plans to go about taxing banks out of business, and she isn’t either:  the statement is childishly silly.  Congress is not about to put all the banks out of business, and since you can’t “tax” banks selectively, Ms. Waters’ tantrum amounts too nothing more than another insult to the intelligence of her constituents, who presumably, in her opinion, are just too goddam stupid to realize that she is full of bilgewater.  But this is nothing new.

No, what interests us most is the fact that Ms. Waters herself — or did she think we had forgotten this — remains under investigation by a congressional ethics panel, and see if you can guess why?

According to the LA Times:

The Waters case can be traced back to a meeting investigators say the congresswoman set up between Treasury Department officials and the National Bankers Assn., which represents minority-owned banks. But the only bank with representatives at the meeting was OneUnited Bank, on whose board Waters’ husband had served and in which he owned thousands of shares of stock. OneUnited later received $12 million in government bailout money. Waters denies any wrongdoing and insists that her interest was in assisting minority-owned banks in general.

An investigative subcommittee of the Ethics Committee found that there is substantial reason to believe she violated the Code of Ethics for Government Service, as well as a requirement that members “behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.” She also was accused of violating the “spirit” of a rule against receiving compensation for improper official acts.

Well, we’re pretty confused ourselves, now.  This champion of fairness and justice set up a meeting between her husband’s bank and the Treasury department?  Where his bank was the only bank in the room?  And the Treasury lent this bank $12 million in bailout funds?

Finally, we would point out that pushing banks to issue mortgages to  people who couldn’t pay them is pretty much how this whole housing stink started to begin with, although Barney Frank would like us to forget how often he hauled Fannie and Freddie up to hearings on Capitol Hill to cudgel them into lending to increasingly marginal borrowers.  Ms. Waters’ blowhard buffoonery notwithstanding, it’s hard to fathom how banks extending further credit to problem borrowers constitutes a solution, but perhaps Ms. Waters can explain this after her investigation concludes.  It’s been going on for quite a long time now, partially because, the Times reports,  “the case became enmeshed in partisan intrigue, with two investigators fired by the Democratic chairwoman of the Ethics Committee and later reinstated by her Republican successor.”

But time marches on, and it may actually now be possible to consign Waters to the political cesspool she deserves.  Bring on the collie, please.