I have to admit I don’t know any sheep farmers, but even I know that it’s not customary for these folks to ask the wolf for suggestions about protecting the sheep.  Questions about fences and guard dogs are not something about which the farmer would consult with the predator.   This is not horse (or sheep) sense.  It’s just plain and simple common sense.

That is why I have to laugh whenever I read in the mainstream press about how Wall Street, meaning the big banks, is “resisting” new rules and tighter regulations in the aftermath of the catastrophic meltdown that the Street brought about.

My response to this “resistance” is quite simple: Who’s asking them what they think?  And why?

It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out who the predators were in the events of the last few years.   And it certainly doesn’t take a genius to know who the prey was!

Yet, here we are a year after Lehman Brothers collapsed and we are no closer to tougher regulation for these predators than we were before. 

Can I understand that Wall Street would “resist” being overseen more stringently?  Of course. 

But in point of fact, the Street through its reckless machinations and “innovations” nearly brought this country’s and the global financial system to the very edge of the cliff.  The only reason all of us weren’t dragged along with Lehman was that the government pulled out all the stops to prevent it. 

Since it was the government that saved the butts of almost every major Wall Street firm and big bank, the government should be calling the shots when it comes to creating a system where these firms don’t carry us to the brink again. 

It’s a year later and here we are (in typical American fashion) marking the first anniversary of Lehman’s demise. And we’re doing it almost as a historical exercise. I fear we have already forgotten just how terrifying last September was and the stomach-churning that marked day after day of failures and bailouts.

There is yet another pocket of resistance to stricter regulation, greater consumer protection and restructuring the financial regulatory system, and that comes from the very regulators who failed us so terribly in the lead-up to September 2008.   None of these banking regulators wants to give up turf—not to another regulator or to a new agency with the express mandate of protecting consumers.   

My reaction both to Wall Street and Bernanke and Co. is ‘tough,’ a word the street knows and respects.

So I hope that President Obama is tough and means to follow through on his stern message to Wall Street on Sept. 14.  Speaking to those who “are misreading this moment” and “are choosing to ignore” the lessons of Lehman, the president said, “We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.”

After what’s happened I don’t believe that firms should even have the option of “choosing to ignore” the past. Recklessness and malfeasance have to have their consequences.

Settling for anything less, and especially to placate Wall Street, is the equivalent of putting the farmer inside the fence, while the sheep are left on the outside with the wolves.

We’re hearing an awful lot about the so-called Gang of Six, those six senators on the Senate Finance Committee who are negotiating among themselves what is likely to be the template for health care reform for the rest of us.

There’s the chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., of course.  Everywhere you turn it’s Baucus this, Baucus that.   Then there’s Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican member of the committee. 

The other committee members are Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Me.; Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; and last but not least, Sen. Jeff  Bingaman, D-N.M.

I had to do some research to find out who the sixth senator was in this gang since one never hears Bingaman’s name mentioned.  Then I remembered these are secret negotiations.

In any case, in looking over this list of negotiators who hold the fate of one-sixth of the economy in their hands, the oddity of politics in America in 2009 became crystal-clear to me. 

I knew that the states these senators represent are small population-wise, but I did not realize how small they are.   

The largest of the six, Iowa, ranks #30 of the 50 states, according to the 2008 estimate of state populations, with 3,002,555 residents.

Here are the rankings of the other 5 states whose senators comprise the Gang of Six:

#36-New Mexico with 1,984,356

#40-Maine with 1,316,456

#44-Montana with 967,440

#48-North Dakota with 641,481

#50-Wyoming with 522,830

All six of these states are smaller than the largest U.S. territory, Puerto Rico, whose population was 3,954,037, which would have ranked it #27.

The combined population of these six states is less than the population of the state I live in, New Jersey.

None of these states comes close to matching the populations of New York City or Los Angeles.

Wyoming, in fact, is smaller in terms of population than the 32 largest American cities.

I have nothing against smallness per se.  We all learned some time ago that “Small is Beautiful.”

What does stick in my craw is that none of these states is truly representative of the predominately urban nation we have become. And yet they are the ones determining health care for California, New York and the 27 other states that have more people than Iowa.

Does this matter?  I think it matters a great deal since health care delivery in Wyoming or North Dakota confronts a very different situation than does health care delivery in Massachusetts or Michigan, Chicago or Philadelphia.  And how would Sen. Enzi or Sen. Conrad know?

That there is no urban representation within this group of six senators makes me think that whatever the outcome of their negotiations is, it is going to be unduly skewed to the needs and peculiarities of their fewer than 8.5 million combined residents.

It’s probably idle thinking at this point to hope that this prescription can be rewritten. But it’s definitely not what the doctor ordered.

President Obama seems to like highwire acts.  Once again the president used a very visible speech to try and regain the upper hand in a situation that had seemingly gotten out of control.  (Remember his speech on race last fall.)

His speech last night to a joint session of Congress on the need for health care reform was, in my opinion, another example of the president successfully doing what he needed to do.  He made his case for health care reform and he made it forcefully.

The health insurance industry took its licks during the speech, but the president came nowhere near demonizing the business.  He criticized health insurers, for sure, but in that he has lots of company across this country.

What he did was lay out the necessary elements of reform as he sees it without getting mired down in the itsy-bitsy details that would have become the targets for anyone wanting to take potshots at the entire reform effort.

I also thought the arc of the speech was just what it should be—going from policy elements to invoking the moral necessity for reform as embodied in the lifetime work and dream of Sen. Ted Kennedy.

The speech end on a high emotional note and a call to conscience as Americans that was stirring—and refreshing.

Of course, this being America, the land that seemingly flees from substantive matters at the merest hint of the bizarre, the major story on the online news sources this morning is not the subject of the speech, but the hideous spectacle of a South Carolina representative shouting “You lie” at the president during the speech.

This outburst may actually work for the president’s benefit, so reprehensible was it and so universally condemned.  Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., may have apologized quickly, but that should not be the end of it.  The House needs to take some kind of disciplinary action against him, just as it would if he said it on the House floor while the chamber was in session.

Another thing that bothered me, although it only fleetingly came across the screen was a Congressman–I think it was Rep. Eric Cantor–texting while the president was talking.  

It makes me mourn for the loss of civility—not to mention the most basic good manners–in politics and public life.  Maybe the solution is to elevate Miss Manners to a high government position where that very prim and proper lady could knock some bad-mannered heads together.

In any case, President Obama is back in the game after a summer of watching from the sidelines.  He laid out some pretty clear lines of thought and said he was willing to consider ideas from across the aisle, but also made clear he was going to do whatever he had to in order to get reform accomplished.

September and October should be really interesting.