South Park explains the Economy

Sadly enough, I fear that this really is how the Treasury Department makes decisions.

Speaking Truth to Power

Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP, nails Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the EU Parliament.  

If only the Republican Congressional Leaders would go after Obama this way.  Althought, my buddy Roscoe had a pretty good response to the "stimulus" bill.  Unfortunately, even if the Rep leadership took the same aggressive stance, they just wouldn't be able to match the eloquent, high-brow, English sarcasm.

Ya know, this same speech could easily be given to many US Governors, especially CA and MD.

If Mr. Hannan ever decides to emigrate to the US and run for office, he has my vote.

Banana Republic?

Peter Robinson, writing for Forbes, has an excellent column describing how President Obama is beginning to take the USA down the road to becoming a Banana Republic.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/26/obama-castro-chavez-opinions-columnists_stimulus.html

He outlines the three steps required:
1. The Cult of Personality
2. Nationalization of Industries
3. Censorship

I found his column interesting but kind of brushed off his arguments. That can't happen in America, can it? Now that it’s been stewing in the back of my brain for a while, I’m beginning to agree with him.

The Cult of Personality thing is pretty obvious. Obama ran on himself, with an airy message of Hope and Change, and pretty much nothing else. We had Oprah declaring him to be “The One”, millions descended on Washington for the Inauguration to chant “Obama, Obama”, there are the somewhat creepy Obama paintings, then there’s the even creepier celebrity “I Pledge” video, and on and on.

I can understand the joy and pride of having the first black president. It’s a big deal; I can see why people are happy. I can also understand the excitement of having a new President that you like after eight years of someone that you couldn’t stand. I was quite proud and hopeful when George W. Bush took over after Clinton. Still, there’s just something over the top about this adulation that just feels, well, un-American. The Presidency is a position of power and certainly worthy of respect. However, the one who holds the office is still human; just an ordinary citizen who’s there for a term or two. He’s not the Second Coming…

Nationalization actually began under the Bush administration: First came the government takeover of the giant insurance company AIG. Then the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was supposed to be used to purchase troubled assets, but was instead used to purchase large chunks of the nation’s banking system. Finally, the Bush administration loaned money to Chrysler and GM… mainly in order to punt their inevitable collapse into the Obama administration.

However, very recently the nationalization has begun to expand. Yesterday, Sec. Geithner asked Congress to give him the unprecedented power to seize any financial company whose collapse could hurt the broader economy. Right now, the Treasury can take over failing banks because of the FDIC. If the government is going to be insuring a bank’s deposits, then it has a vested interest in making sure that it doesn’t fail. I don’t have any problem with that. However, if a hedge fund, or insurance company fails, then the tax payer is not on the financial hook (at least not directly). The government has no business in seizing these other companies. Who gets to define the threshold of failure? Who decides what constitutes damage to the economy? What happens if the firm’s management and stock holders don’t want the government to take over? This is a terrible idea. Who in their right mind would buy stock in any financial institution when, on a whim, it could suddenly become nationalized?

Also, what’s to stop this from expanding into other industries? The collapse of GE, IBM, Exxon, etc. would all hurt the economy. Heck, if Pizza Hut went out of business there’d be lots of people on the unemployment lines… doesn’t that cause economic problems?

The initial loan to Chrysler and GM is starting to lead to nationalization as well. Obama has formed a Task Force to supervise the firms. Unfortunately none of them actually have any experience in the automotive industry. Instead, they’re mainly from union and environmental backgrounds. Chrysler was attempting to make a deal to allow Fiat to take control of thirty-some percent of the company. However, that's on hold while the Task Force reviews the implications. Ford was smart to refuse the government cash.

Finally: Censorship. We may have to worry about the first two steps, but we have the First Amendment to save us… right? Well, maybe. We have to watch out for the Fairness Doctrine. This regulation was in effect from the Truman to the Reagan administrations. It required radio (and only radio) to provide equal airtime for all issues. If you had, say, a Pro-Life advocate on for an hour, then you had to have a Pro-Abortion advocate on for an hour. This was all a pain in the bum to keep track of so radio stations simply didn’t bother with political programming.
Within a year of Reagan’s repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, Rush Limbaugh started his show and over the years conservative talk-radio has boomed. However, for whatever reason, very few people want to listen to left-leaning radio shows so most radio stations don’t carry them. There’s even been an attempt to create a specific “progressive” radio network but it has been a massive failure.

If the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, then it’ll be the death of right-leaning talk radio. Stations will not be able make money if they have to pair up every hour of high-ad revenue shows, with an hour of low-ad revenue shows. So, you have de-facto censorship.

Well, so conservative talk-radio goes away, but we still have the internet… well, maybe not…

Even with the possible return of the Fairness Doctrine, I still felt that Censorship was impossible, but then I read this: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52N67F20090324

Now the Democrats want to make the newspapers tax-exempt. They’d still be able to report on political issues, but they wouldn’t be allowed make political endorsements. Sounds good, but think about it: Would any newspaper be able to be critical of a sitting office holder, or write an article that praised their election-opponent, without fear of losing their tax-exempt status? A media that is dependent on the government’s good graces to survive is not a free media.

So, do I think that we’re going to become a Banana Republic? No, I don't think we're going the way of Cuba or Venezuela. However, I don’t trust Obama. I think his ultimate goal is to transform the United States into a cradle-to-grave European-style social democracy. Whether he will succeed or not remains to be seen. I’m remaining optimistic that this cannot happen here. However, the progression of events is worrisome. Whatever happens, the Federal Government has already expanded its size, reach and power into dimensions never before seen and once the government grows it never shrinks back to its original size.

Now, you may think I’m being paranoid. You may think that Obama is a wonderful man and the best President ever. However, he’ll only be there for four, or at most, eight more years (or more?). One day there’ll be someone that you don’t like or trust in the White House and then they'll be able to wield this new level of control over the economy, and perhaps the press. Would you have trusted a Bush, Reagan, or Nixon with this kind of power?

Get out of my head!

I've had variations of this dream for years. I'm kind of glad to see that others have the same dream. On the hand, it's somewhat disappointing to discover that my dreams are not unique. They're just pedestrian... damn....

So, does everyone else have the dream where you forgot to wear your pants, but no one else but you seems to notice?

BTW I got this from www.xkcd.org It's an odd web-comic that shares my odd ball sense of humor... but again, I guess it ain't so unique afterall... huh...

This is Your Nest Egg. This is Your Nest Egg on Obamanomics.