And This Is Why...

I don't want government "bailing out" our financial sector any more than is absolutely necessary: the government may decide to turn TARP loans into equity shares, according to the New York Times. The Obama administration's claim is that such a move would "stretch out" bailout money, but critics, like myself, see the move as a potential "back door to nationalization."

The move would make the government the biggest shareholder in several banks. If the Obama administration is able to pull off this artifice, it could turn out to be quite the scandal. It's one thing to use taxpayer dollars in the attempt to revive the economy; it's entirely another to use the same money to acquire a potentially controlling share in the financial sector. Plus, this comes in the face of requests from some major banks, like JP Morgan, to begin repayment of bailout funds, a sign that solvency is returning to some U.S. banks.

It seems that the TARP program and additional bailout funds procured by the White House are comparable to an extreme action taken by a president when the country is in a state of war. When martial law is declared in wartime, certain rules, like habeas corpus, are suspended. Likewise, former President Bush and Obama have gone beyond tradition and taken extreme measures to revive our economy.

However, if our federal government does use TARP money to buy common stock in banks, my fears will have begun to be realized. How can I not see this move as a move towards nationalization? The bailout funds are not to become anything more permanent, especially when banks have already indicated that they think they're too permanent as-is! If President Obama goes ahead with this proposal, it will have become clear that his agenda extends well beyond rescuing the economy from disaster.

A Bit Late for April Fool's

Then again, that day may be observed in perpetuity in this nation henceforth, if I am to believe the findings of a recent Rasmussen poll, which indicated that only 53% of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism.  Additionally, 20% say socialism is better, and 27% aren't sure which is better.

It only gets better (well, actually worse): among adults under 30, the survey found that people are almost evenly divided: 37% for capitalism, 33% for socialism, 30% are unsure.  Of course, those who are under 30 years old make less money than their seniors, who have been in the workforce for years and understand what it means to pay real taxes.  I chalk up a good portion of that disparity to differences in salary and thus tax burden.

However, what is most disturbing to me is that we aren't talking left and right here--no, we are talking about systemic differences here.  Socialism is a method of economic distribution in which Big Government controls the means of production.  Capitalism is a method of economic distribution in which the people control the means of production (business).  The United States, a representative democracy, is a nation ruled by the people and established on principles of limited government.  In fact, we originally rebelled against those nasty redcoats for having to pay taxes without being represented properly in British Parliament.

Perhaps by now you can see why I shudder at this statistic: it indicates to me that we, as a nation, are losing faith in our bedrock of market-based capitalism because of a relatively short period of economic downturn.  I do worry that because of our current president's policies, even if the markets rebound, the citizenry will still see merits in socialistic policy.  The populace will ignore that we were driven into this situation mostly through government intervention into the banking industry, since its collective memory is so amazingly short.

Perhaps the solution is, after all, to re-establish diplomatic ties with Cuba.  Let Americans travel back to the "socialist paradise," so they can be re-acquainted with what socialism really means: food lines and all things compulsory.  It will be a truly "shock and 'oh, crap!'" campaign.

The President Earns His Lapel Pin?

Barack Obama did not start consistently wearing an American flag lapel pin until its absence was pointed out during his Democratic primary campaign.  Certainly I don't think that a flair piece you can find in any Friday's makes you a patriot, but the little things we do usually indicate to some degree what is important to us individually.  Oh, the vagaries of weather, public opinion, and Barack Obama's belief system (his only belief not blown about by the wind seems to be the desire to re-create the New Deal or the Jimmy Carter presidency--take your pick)! 

However, Obama has really gone on the warpath to earning his American flag lapel pin now, and I have to give him a kudos for his efforts.  Obama said on April 3 that "in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that can be casual but can also be insidious."  I tip my hat to President Obama for being somewhat forthcoming in that assertion, especially to his chosen people in Europe--it's a step forward (progress!).

However, he then makes reference to the changing face of America and the need for Europe to change as well.  The problem, as I see it, is that if America continues to 'change' in the way it is changing now, Europe won't have to make many alterations in order to interact perfectly harmoniously with Americans and their politics.  Furthermore, since the United States has almost always been a force for good, especially for Europeans, Obama should unequivocally say that all such anti-Americanism is evil.  We have acted in ways that don't fit in with the principles of God or our Founding Fathers.  In those cases we have been undoubtedly wrong. 

But demonstrations against a nation that almost always behaves properly and has been the cornerstone of Europe's prosperity and freedom are categorically wrong, and they've been on display near Strasbourg, France.  Feeding the insidious actions of those who have violently demonstrated against the United States are the seemingly innocuous displays of 'casual anti-Americanism' that Obama, in his typical relativist tone, has virtually pardoned.  When all is permissible, it is because there is no absolute right or good.  I will tell you this: the absolutely good is done when the state guarantees the rights given to us by God for all mankind, and all President Obama must do in order to legitimately make the case I have made is to follow those principles.

Speak up, Mr. President.  Don't let your lapel pin be a mirror.