Letter: Bailouts for everyone, or no one?

This paper recently ran a front-page article on Occupy Redwood City at the Chase Bank branch. Both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party agree that it’s outrageous that a few thousand upper-management financiers, who were personally raking in the winnings from their big bets for years, did not have to personally pay off those bets when they started losing. You and I did instead. It is also outrageous that prudent, responsible people who bought their homes 10 years ago, with sensible 20 percent downpayments and 30-year fixed-rate mortgages are being thrown into the street because employment has dried up.

However, the featured protester, Gloria Takla, is not one of these prudent, responsible people. Per the article, at age 65, German-speaking retiree Gloria Takla deliberately signed a huge pile of home purchase documents in a language she claims she does not understand, with a negative amortization loan with a schedule of payments that would rise every year forever.

Just like the financiers, Gloria Takla placed a big bet and enjoyed the winnings for years. Namely, she got a house way beyond her means. Just like the financiers, when her bet turned against her, she starts screaming for a bailout. Unlike the financiers, she hasn’t gotten one, and won’t. She owns no politicians. Chase Bank has simply delayed her foreclosure until the bad public relations die down.

Do Americans want a federal government that perpetually provides bailouts for both financiers and Gloria Takla, or that never provides bailouts for either? I’m not holding my breath waiting for this issue to be decided any time soon. The protester’s implicit demand of bailouts for Gloria, but not financiers, is politically impossible, and therefore irrelevant.

Vince Boston

San Mateo