Finance reform isn't consumer protection

Guest writer Scott Harper on May 7 wrote: "The financial industry that made a fortune by recklessly and unethically gambling with other people's money has spent hundreds of millions."

Perhaps his blanket indictment of the financial industry would be more appropriate if his culprit were changed to "Congress" or "U.S. government." Consider where the hundreds of millions of dollars came from and how they were separated from their previous owners. And, consider the real purposes for their spending.

As for "too-big-to-fail," how about the privately owned central bank that's been converting government debt into paper money for almost a hundred years? Although federal only in name, I suppose that's because their best customer/borrower gets its name on the door.

In the transparency department, think about the government takeover of medical practice and payment thereof, or cap-and-trade and/or the Chicago Carbon Exchange.

We consumers need protection. But not the kind that strong-arms already-regulated banks and mortgage houses into writing loans for people with bad credit. How about better protection for the rights of property owners, as in "life, liberty and property" which predates the "pursuit of happiness" clause in the Declaration?

Finally, if you really want to protect taxpayers from special interests, why don't you pledge to support House rules to mandate that all bills must be introduced by the principal sponsor, verbatim, in their entirety, while standing and holding the text in one hand.

Paul Tait

Mount Prospect