Brave New World

I am not a finance guru, or even know what I'm talking about any more than the next guy when it comes to assessing the relative value of the American dollar or the stability of the "fundamentals" of the economy.

There are two things that I do know: I don't trust Schumer, Frank, Hoyer or Dodd, and when Congress does something quickly, that's a bad thing.

Point #1: Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, Steny Hoyer and Chris Dodd, guys who love socialistic oversight, are the ones that you see talking up the whole bailout. They sternly appear before the cameras and talk about the need for regulation and the fact that we "have to protect the taxpayer." Hoyer, at least, admitted that they have no idea where this is headed.

My suggestion would be...yes, protect the taxpayer, by not using our money to bail out private companies! They are using rhetoric about the Great Depression to justify this insane takeover. Talk about fear-mongering!

It may truly be the case that, because of the sub-prime mess, we truly are in for a major correction in the markets...however, are we really going to be better off with a federal government take-over of the markets? Do we really think that the federal government does a good job of this?

Point #2 - Thankfully, according to the roadmap, there are not supposed to be amendments, which will save us from additional earmarks. Though the Dems are already trying. However, the wording that is used will greatly increase the power of the federal government to levels we have never before seen in this country.

The Founders set up our system to be intentionally deliberative, requiring lengthy debate and discussion to avoid hasty decisions that are not in line with our principles.

President George W. Bush said he called leaders in both houses of Congress and ``found a common understanding of how severe the problem is and how necessary it is to get something done quickly.'' (emphasis mine)

This is the socialists' big chance to enact their idealistic policies and manage the markets.

As an example,

Democrats are pressing to require that the plan help more strapped borrowers stay in their homes and to condition the bailout on new limits on executive compensation. (emphasis mine)

Be assured that these new limits the Dems are asking for is nothing more than arbitrary government rules about how much executives in private institutions are allowed to make, similar to the arbitrary and capricious minimum wage law. Arbitrary rules breed corruption and harm initiative much more than any free market.


They also want to expand jobless benefits, i.e. welfare, unemployment compensation, etc.

And, of course, both candidates seem to have no problem with what's happening...

I truly hope that the conservatives on the Hill keep their wits about them and make sure that they methodically review the proposed legislation and don't give in to the rush and hurry that everyone is shouting about...They must keep their wits on their own because they're not going to get any help from the White House.

John Boehner is doing his part:

"The American people are furious that we're in this situation, and so am I," the House's top Republican, Ohio Rep. John A. Boehner, said in a statement. "We need to do everything possible to protect the taxpayers from the consequences of a broken Washington."

Signaling what could erupt into a brutal fight with Democrats over add-on spending, Boehner said "efforts to exploit this crisis for political leverage or partisan quid pro quo will only delay the economic stability that families, seniors, and small businesses deserve."

Paulson is now asking for more power than ever...when people start comparing what is happening to the Reconstruction Finance Corp. under Hoover, that's not a good sign...

Here is the text of the proposed legislation...

The proposal does not require that the government receive anything from banks in return for unloading their bad assets. But it would allow Treasury to designate financial institutions as "agents of the government," and mandate that they perform any "reasonable duties" that might entail.