Another Government Bailout

It irritates me to no end that whenever companies face financial hardship because of government actions, said companies feel they are entitled to a bail-out from the government. (Now, please give me some leeway here; I know I've never accused this administration of doing anything for our good; I'm going to go into fantasy land and assume that the gov't actions I'll be talking about are truly for the "good of the nation"...*choke* anybody know Heimlich?)

We saw it with the billions shelled out to major airline companies after 9/11, (which Bush coupled with that ridiculous speech about traveling all over the US, enjoy her natural wonders, while Tom Ridge told us to seal ourselves into our homes with duct tape and plastic sheeting.) So confusion reigned supreme and nobody went nowhere and the airlines wept over lost profits.

We're seeing it again; AT&T and Verizon are bleating over the civil lawsuits piling up on their doorstep for cooperating with unlawful orders to comply with the illegal NSA wiretapping program. Bush, ever the vigilant shepherd of his constituents (Corporate America), is soothing his lambs with promises to shield them from the shearing about to commence; intending to grant them immunity.

The Republicans of course see this as a simple case of "good citizens" (Corporate America) doing their duty to help our fearless leader protect (Corporate America) from terrorism (in the form of radically dipping into their pockets).

Do I see a trend forming, here? But I'm not done.

Democrats are split on this issue! Some of them actually acted in good faith! Never mind that both violated their own Privacy policies:
*• Verizon must disclose information, as necessary, to comply with court orders or subpoenas. http://www22.verizon.com/about/privacy/customer/
*To comply with court orders, subpoenas, or other legal or regulatory requirements. http://www.att.com/gen/privacy-policy?pid=7666103

There were no court orders, because the NSA did not present any requests to the FISA court. Therefore, those orders were illegal and unconstitutional.
Therefore, AT&T and Verizon do not deserve immunity. At the very least, as some Dems state, their lawyers should have investigated the demands for information to be sure they were properly and legally issued.

The administration doesn't want to uncover the companies who cooperated, so Bush wants to give the Attorney General blanket authority to intervene, whether or not the entity or individual actually participated.

And the National Intelligence Director agrees with the proposed immunity; but the best reason he can give is "If you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies," McConnell told the El Paso (Texas) Times in an interview posted online last week. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20535385/

That's the purpose of civil action. It is a way for the "little guy" to protect himself from (you guessed it) Corporate America engaging in unfair and/or illegal practices. It has always been the American Way to punish Corporate America by hitting them in the wallet. And when it comes to such a grievous breach of trust and accountability, I don't think $1,000 per claim is too much to ask. If congress won't censure Bush for his actions, then let's censure his partners and enablers.

Government bailouts, especially from this government, needs to stop. Whether it is actual cash, or intervention in a potentially damaging action due to the company's own negligence, it's got to stop.

Let freedom and class action suits ring!

Peace