Dave R, You can't win this argument. The government;
1)designed the program 2)approved the contractors 3)approved the materials used 4)paid the contractors directly 5)implemented a flawed audit system 6)encouraged homeowners to use the system 7)ignored written warnings of the danger
There was a clear avoidable and foreseeable hazard.It was documented
The homeowners had no discretion over these things. The nanny state stripped them of all discretion. This is a trait of socialist governments. If you want to be all powerful you have to be willing to accept the consequences.
The homeowners loss is directly attributable to the failings of the government. The losses were foreseeable, avoidable and the hazard was known.
Game, set and match.
Someone has to accept the consequences; not 'step up to the plate', 'stop the buck' or any other clever spin for this. If this was done in private enterprise directors would be looking at jail time.
There is not credit to Garret in dodging accepting the consequences for his failures. Bacci
