Slumdog Conservative

Do not be deceived, I do not live in an alternatively quixotic reality in which I believe all others, particularly those in entertainment, ascribe to my individual philosophical persuasions.  It is true, however, that successful movies, like Slumdog Millionaire, often communicate deep and exceptionally human messages.  These messages can convey corresponding values and morals, and can sit anywhere on the wide range of human emotion and conscience – much like a childhood bedtime story or an episode of South Park.

The conventional wisdom would assume the makers of Slumdog, should any political or cultural commentary exist beyond the dramatic presentation, to be highlighting the plight of those, especially the children, living in the deplorable slums of Mumbai and similar locales spanning the globe.  One could also say the depiction sheds light on struggles faced by the impoverished in industrialized nations, such as Dev Patel’s native United Kingdom or even the United States.

If experience is indeed the best teacher, then perspective runs a close second.  In the July 2007 issue of Vanity Fair, rapper Jay Z was quoted following his 2006 trip to Africa as saying, ‘“I come from the Marcy projects, in Brooklyn,” he says, “which is considered a tough place to grow up, but this [showed me] how good we have it. The rappers who say, ‘We’re from the ‘hood,’ take it from me, you’re not from the ‘hood.’ You haven’t seen people with no access to water. It really put things in perspective.”’

Perhaps those who seek to constantly highlight the poverty in the United States would be well served to avail themselves to the perspective provided by Slumdog Millionaire.  Of course, both the Slumdog story and its protagonist are fictional, and any discussion regarding residual morals taught by Slumdog is inherently academic.  It is nonetheless worthwhile to glean truths from the story that can shed light on pertinent discussions of the day.

Decades of government intervention, planning, and micromanagement have wrought irreparable harm on the psyche of the American citizen.  Rather than looking first to his or her individual skills, talents, and abilities, today’s citizen looks to someone else, namely the all caring, all understanding, and all compassionate government seeking to ameliorate every less than desirable condition of life and society.

What Slumdog illustrates, however, is the reality that every human has the inherent God given ability to change his or her circumstances; that the present struggles of life are not irrevocable sentences set before the foundation of the world.  Some, of course, would say that Jamal Malik’s fortune resulted purely from a series of fortunate events, bestowing on him luck unavailable to so many other poor, unfortunate souls.

With persistence, determination, and a willingness to work, any person can be as successful as they want.  Beyond this desire of the individual, success is the responsibility of no one else, and in a society that promulgates what President Bush called the soft bigotry of low expectations, this reality can be easily forgotten.

When the shackles are removed from the natural ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit of the American citizen, true prosperity can be realized.  The rising tide does indeed lift all the boats, and every person, just like the impoverished individuals on Slumdog, can lift themselves out of despondency and attain their full potential.       

Life, Liberty

As the government strives to protect banks and businesses deemed too large to fail, it is evident that Americans now desire, or at least are portrayed to desire, more safety and security in their lives.  And as Uncle Sam seeks to assuage the collective qualms and fears of the citizens (i.e. foreclosures, job losses, and the sniffles), individual liberty hangs in the balance.  The manifest need for national security is not disputed, but safety from all forms of discomfort, pain, and suffering is by no means a constitutionally ordained protection.  In this present crisis, liberty in the face of danger and uncertainty must be defended at all costs.  Consider these quotes:

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  – Benjamin Franklin 1755

 “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is that it’s an opportunity to do things you’ve never done before.”  – Rahm Emanuel 2009

The juxtaposition of these diametrically opposed worldviews is representative of the ancient struggle between those who would live as free people and those who would seek to aggregate power to lord over the lives of others.  As the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  When liberty is breached and abridged by those in government, it is almost never restored, and the reasoning presented by Rahm Emanuel is that which is employed by those who seek to usurp it.

There was no income tax in the United States until the Civil War.  Fair enough, desperate times call for desperate measures, right?  But look at your latest paycheck; now look outside your window – is Johnny Reb outside marching to threaten the Union of States?  The first peacetime income tax was instituted in 1894, but it was not until the crisis of Civil War that the Federal Government levied that burden on the citizens.

The next time you are pulled over by one of our nation’s finest for going too fast on the road, remember that no speed limit existed in the United States until World War II, when the government sought to conserve rubber for the war effort.  Yes, our brave men and women are in harm’s way even now, but is anyone prepared to equate the two eras of conflict? Yet the nation’s roads are under the same system as when the “Greatest Generation” was out fighting Nazism and Japanese Imperialism.

These diminutions of liberty are illustrative of the inherent tragedy of government intervention in the lives of individuals: once time has taken its toll, they become assumed components of life and are expected by beneficiaries regardless of their destructive consequences.  Merged with Social Security, Welfare (corporate, farm, and individual), the War on Poverty, Medicaid, Medicare, and the War on Drugs, the omnipotent federal government has constructed quite a track record of intrusion into the private sector.  With the current administration bent on alleviating any and all discomfort from everyday life, the fragile and endangered blessings of liberty – endowed by God and bequeathed by our forefathers – stands in peril.

Thoughts On Specter

Last Tuesday, Senator Arlen Specter (D – Pennsylvania) returned to the political home of his youth as he underwent a partisan tergiversation and became a member of the Democrat caucus in the Senate.

His discomfort with the Republican establishment is not a recent advent, but he saw the handwriting on the wall and realized his vote for the bloated stimulus package exposes his seat in the Senate to vulnerability from conservative Republican opposition, namely Pat Toomey, in the 2010 primary.

He claimed his switch would not result in a filibuster-proof supermajority for the Democrats, but he knows just as well as anyone that someone will eventually be seated from Minnesota; and Republican prospects there are not promising. 

The most concise and accurate analysis of Senator Specter’s decision was articulated by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who stated that this move was about “self-preservation, not principle.”

 

100 Days of the Époque d’Obama

Americans love milestones.  Indeed, an entire industry is devoted to archiving heterogeneous feats ranging from softball marathons to the heaviest weight dangled from a swallowed sword.  We love the ability to cerebrally compartmentalize achievements set within certain parameters and stipulations.  Why else would everyone be so captivated by the performance of the President of the United States during the first 100 days of his term when that very span of time is ostensibly the most insignificant and inconsequential of his duration in office?  Barring death, resignation, or impeachment, President Obama will serve an estimated 1,460 days in office, with the possibility of serving a total of 2,920.  Yet this first Lincoln Log – there he is again – of Barack Obama’s presidency is what gets all the fuss.  For any president, his term ab initio is consumed with the drudgery of the nomination and confirmation of cabinet secretaries and the placement of other sub-cabinet officials, many of which are yet to be filled, even after 100 days.  Speaking of unfilled jobs, Kathleen Sebelius, the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, was just confirmed on Tuesday, April 28^th, 2009, a mere three days ago – Swine Flu anyone?

Immaterial concerns aside, why is the populace, or at least the media, so fascinated by a scant 100 days in office?  According to some, it stems from our favorite interventionist, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who initiated the greater portion of the New Deal during his first 100 days in office – and government interventionists have never looked back.  Though not quite as unconstitutional as the New Deal, President Obama has been ambitious nonetheless in his quest to usurp the maximum authority and prerogative from the states and individual citizens.  In two swift strokes, namely the “stimulus” package and the omnibus spending bill, the President has signed into law the most egregious expansion of government since at least the Great Society – thereby stealing that mantle from George W. Bush.  He has doubled the federal deficit, eliminated Welfare-to-Work of the 1990s, and paved the way for an eventual government arrest of the healthcare industry, just to say the least.  Let us not forget how quickly he started:  by executive order, he reinstated federal funding of organizations that perform abortions overseas, ordered the closing of the Guantanamo detention center with no intelligible plan for procession, and ended so named “Enhanced Interrogation” techniques by simply altering the definable range of torture.

This administration’s first 100 days has been marred by an uncharacteristically high number of un-Obama-like mistakes.  Those include, but are not limited to, logorrhea: Biden-style, bailout mania, Richardson & Daschle, the aforementioned policy initiatives, Tim Geithner, hope/despair/hope schizophrenia, AIG, memo-gate, the Gestapo-style report from DHS, and that tricky little photo-op in New York City on Monday earlier this week.  To be fair, it hasn’t been all failure; after all, the President did convince Hugo Chavez to come to the table – and shake hands. 

The United States is not a dictatorship; no president serves beyond his constitutionally limited term in office.  What often outlasts White House residency, however, are the ineffectual policies enacted during the stay of the president, thereby actuating perpetual negative consequence.  If this centennial celebration marks an indication of what is to come, then we are in for a long and laborious four years, and only time will tell the degree to which Congressional and popular opposition mounts against the administration.

“We’ve only just begun…”

Where Have All the Extremists Gone?

Two weeks ago, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report warning of a possible rise in “right-wing extremist” activity directly imputable to the recession and the election of President Obama.  The latter is dually causal in that Mr. Obama is the first African-American to be elected to the office, and the perception of these groups regarding certain policy proposals in his agenda, e.g. gun control, abortion, and immigration.  One example listed in the report was the following: “A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

 

No one should dispute or decry the blurring of the line between government and politics – it’s the nature of the beast.  What is abhorrent about this report, however, is the manifest attack of political opponents under the guise of reporting concerns of security.  It is at best laughable and at worst libelous to use the language employed by DHS.  My favorite part is “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

 

This language conjures imagery of Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and the Ku Klux Klan – the perceived albatrosses of the American Right.  What escapes me, however, is the connection between those groups and the tenets of conservatism.  When one considers the associated tenets of Nazism, i.e., Aryanism, Pan-Germanism, totalitarianism, government control of business, etc., there are no ostensible philosophies congruent with the conservative movement in the United States.  Only when compared to the “left” and “right” in the European sense, such as that of the French Revolution, could any correlation be established.  But to deny the marked differences in American and European political philosophy, not to mention  the centuries-old evolution of labels like “conservative” and “liberal” is irresponsible and misinformed at best and nefarious at worst.

 

Of course, those on the left, the American left that is, would point to the racism and militarism of the Nazis as alleged rightwing trademarks.  I would argue that we have never seen true militarism in this country; saber-rattling and mobilization for battle, yes, but true and unadulterated militarism, no.  The racism accusation is a long-employed tool of the left used in attempts to discredit conservatives.  There is absolutely no principle of authentic American conservatism that would support or allow an advocacy of racism or bigotry.  There is no correlation or intrinsic connection between the two worldviews whatsoever, and any attempt to create such a congruency for the sake of political expedience is detestable.

 

Of course, the timing of the DHS report had nothing to do with the “T.E.A. Parties” of last week.  Nonetheless, this report is the latest instance of the polarizing nature of this administration and its apparent inability or unwillingness to accept criticism and opposition of any sort.  To attempt to subliminally group political opposition with the scourge of society’s fringes is indefensible, and the American people should hold the administration accountable.   

DTV ― A Glimpse of the Future

I can be counted among those who, if given a preference, would opt to view television via digital signal rather than the arcane twentieth century analog version.  This is especially true because I am among the thirteen million or so Americans who continue to utilize the economically expedient over-the-air broadcast signal.  The transition undertaking is a sad saga, however, because it is illustrative of the manifest consequences inherent in any mandate issued to a private industry from the omnipotent federal government.  Indeed, the source of true sorrow comes from the realization that the digital television conversion provides a glimpse into the future of policies and their corresponding consequences under the new administration.  The observable reality, be it Social Security and the Medicare system or the prospective government seizure of the healthcare industry, is that when government is in control of a venture or industry that by all measure should remain under the control of the private sector, dismal failure is the end result.  Social Security is bankrupt, Medicare is broken, and socialized state-run healthcare has been disastrous in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Hawaii (with the latter program lasting all of seven months prior to the state forsaking it altogether). 

 

The belief in and awareness of government incapability has been an honored tenet of conservatism in this nation for decades.  Our friends on the left side of the spectrum see despair and despondence on a Sinclairian scale across the fruited plain, and subsequently propose government intervention to alleviate perceived abhorrent citizen conditions.  Yet they fail to see (or simply refuse to) the manifest government intrusion which caused the desolation in the first place.  No where in our economy is this more apparent than in the recession-inducing mortgage crisis last fall.  Government mandates required banks and loan corporations to issue sub-prime notes to individuals and households with no means to repay them.  The nefarious “NINJA” loans became a part of the common vernacular even among finance laypersons.  And, of course, what better way to rectify a government produced and prolonged crisis than by injecting more government mandates, regulation, and control?  At least that seems to be the conviction of the leadership on Capitol Hill and the White House. 

 

Regarding the most recent government failure, and there are plenty from which to choose, $40 coupons were being given to subsidize digital converter boxes to aid in the transition ― not surprisingly, the well ran dry.  Consequently, an estimated six million of the thirteen million Americans who depend on the free signal would have lost all television viewing capacity on February 17^th, the original transition date.  With the funds gone and the conversion postponed, government impotence is on full display for all to see.  The reality should not escape the conversation that we are still talking about a television signal.  Yet somehow we the people are supposed to put our faith and trust in an all-feeling, all-caring, all-powerful paternalistic government entrusted to manage our healthcare, our retirement, and our economy?  The specters of Hoover, Roosevelt, and Johnson seem to be rearing their ugly heads in this resurrection of state economic planning and control.

 

What will be the result when we face a shortage of doctors rather than mere $40 coupons?  How will people react when instead of missing American Idol or Dancing With The Stars, they are unable to find a doctor?  What will happen when the same inept, incapable government attempts to infringe upon the freedom and liberty of private American citizens?

 

Richard Nixon’s successful campaign for the presidency was provided a boost by the chaotic backdrop of the Democratic National Convention in the fall of 1968.  The openly displayed party turmoil occurring inside the arena could only be outperformed by the clash between Vietnam protestors and the Chicago Police Department outside the arena.  Richard Nixon then presented the nation with the question, “if they (the Democrats) cannot unite their own party, how can they unite the country?”  And the glaring question with which we are faced in our present crisis is, “if they (the Federal Government) cannot successfully manage a television signal transition for thirteen million Americans, how can they adequately oversee and provide healthcare for forty million?  The answer:  they cannot.

Apologizer-in-Chief

On his recent World Tour ’09, President Obama stopped in Strasbourg, France, to speak to an audience largely consisting of French and German students.  There were some rather quotable moments, particularly those dealing with Euro-American diplomacy.  The President said “In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.”  He continued by claiming that “Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” 

 

Now, in the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine, which may soon again be the law of the land, I must note that President Obama directed his diatribe toward the Europeans as well, noting that “… in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad.”  My cynicism leads me to believe this portion of the speech was an attempt to preempt posts such as this; nonetheless, no one in class was exempt from the professorial lecture.

 

It is safe to assume that President Obama was referring to the Iraq War preparation when he refers to any sense of arrogance or derision.  Regardless of one’s particular opinion of the merits of the conflict in Iraq, it is irresponsible to label as “arrogant” the resolve of the United States to refuse to be handcuffed by nations on the UN Security Council who have not always been cozy to the concept American leadership in the first place.  Charles de Gaulle certainly had no problem sticking his thumb in the proverbial eye of the United States at every opportunity, and the French refused to support America in her quest to remove the Hussein regime which was believed at the time to possess weapons of mass destruction. 

 

Unfortunately, the Strasbourg speech is the latest revelation of the worldview of the Obama Administration and the President himself.  It is certainly true that the United States does not have a spotless historical record, but to go out of his way to accuse the nation of showing “arrogance” without giving equal time to explicitly articulate the vital service performed by the United States to guarantee the very existence of Europe is not only reckless and irresponsible, it is an embarrassment. 

 

I will give the President the benefit of the doubt and blame it on his history teachers.  Perhaps they did not explain how the United States tipped the balance in World War I, thereby saving France and the United Kingdom from the threat of Imperial Germany.    Perhaps they did not clearly communicate the account of the Nazi conquest of continental Europe as previously independent nations fell like dominos under Hitler’s regime.  Apparently Nazism did not qualify as one of those “common challenges” President Obama referenced in his speech.  Perhaps they did not note how the United States ensured Britain’s capability to stand against Hitler through Lend-Lease and Cash-and-Carry prior to even entering World War II.  Perhaps the curriculum failed to include the fact that the United States is the only nation in modern history to successfully and victoriously wage a two-front war, and in doing so defeated Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire.  Perhaps it was not a topic of discussion how President Roosevelt and Congress sent our brave soldiers to fight and die in defense of freedom, even European freedom.  Perhaps they did not teach how the United States was the only nation with either the will or capability to stand athwart the Soviet Union as its dictators massacred millions in the Ukraine and Soviet tanks rolled over students in Czechoslovakia who simply wanted freedom.  One can only hope President Obama was able to escape the government school system in time.

 

 

What I would appreciate from our friends in Gaul is an expression of thanks ― never mind, I would be satisfied with a mere acknowledgment ― of the sacrifice and burden undertaken by those arrogant Yankees that protected France from utter obliteration, twice.

 

And I would appreciate it if the American President would acknowledge it as well.      

   

Source for quotes:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5100338/Barack-Obama-arrogant-US-has-been-dismissive-to-allies.html

MLK the Conservative

Tomorrow is the forty-first anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Without question, Dr. King’s legacy reaches the stratospheric realms of humanity which transcend mere questions of politics.  He was a multifaceted, complex and evolving man whose teachings create difficulty for vain attempts to neatly fit him into a philosophical category.  To be sure, when the entire body of Dr. King’s work is examined, his democratic socialist leanings would rise to the forefront, as they comprised the latter segment of his life’s work when he broadened his goals of reform.  His life and teachings, however, communicate supplementary lessons that reveal the complete scope of Dr. King and his legacy.

 

He joined the plight of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 and led the protestors in peaceful resistance to the manifest injustice of the transit system, but one specific quote from Dr. King seems to adequately summarize the widespread sentiment of the day.  In a speech more than one year after the boycott was initiated, Dr. King stated that it was “ultimately more honorable to walk in dignity than to ride in humiliation.”  That conclusion and determination was the driving force that led 50,000 citizens to walk the streets of Montgomery. 

 

What is particularly interesting, however, is the philosophical motivation in such a conclusion and how it is rarely understood or articulated in contemporary reflections on Dr. King.  The MIA (Montgomery Improvement Association) could have just as easily directed those 50,000 righteously indignant souls to march on the city and demand that officials integrate bus transportation.  They instead chose to force the collective hand of the bus lines directly, continuing their everyday lives as normal ― traveling to work, school, and stores ― just not on buses.  It has been said that the most painful place to be hit is in the wallet, and though ultimate victory for boycott participants would come via Supreme Court ruling, it is reasonable to believe that they would have nonetheless realized their victory at some point in the future.  Although they also pursued legal routes, this driving motivation to shape the course of their lives free from the shackles of exterior forces was a quintessentially conservative philosophy.  It was unshakable belief that they could determine, or at least greatly influence, the outcome of their plight simply based on their own choices and actions, rather than being solely dependent on an agency of government.

 

The crowing achievement of the movement sparked by the events in Montgomery was the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which enforced voting rights and effectively ended segregation in schools, businesses, and other public places.  Some who opposed the bill did so because they viewed the measure as an overreach of power on behalf of the Federal Government.  The true conservative position on civil rights, however, is that government on all levels exists primarily to protect the God-given freedom and liberty to which citizens of the United States hold so dear.  This would necessitate the Federal Government to prevent businesses and agents of government from denying citizens their basic and inalienable rights, per the Declaration of Independence.  While the bureaucracies created by the bill would not particularly delight the fancy of conservatives hoping to curtail the size of government, nonetheless the spirit of the Civil Rights Act is one that is manifestly conservative at heart.

 

So, was Dr. King in fact a conservative?  Not really, especially toward the end of his life.  But what is apparent is the existence of the transcendent principles of self reliance and determination, individualism, freedom and liberty ― all conservative principles ― that were inherently present in his early career as a Civil Rights leader.  He was a complex and flawed human like everyone else, but forty one years after his death, regardless of political persuasion or partisan label, we can all appreciate and reflect on, with unwavering gratitude, the universal good wrought by his work, his struggle, and his life.

Bush’s Economic Footprint

Whilst the present circumstances of the American economy scantly allow room for reflection, true progress and efficacious reform is unachievable without proper historical context.  Whoever said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it was equipped with dicing wit and patent precision.  Sadly, the nation is preparing to see the fruition of the curse come to pass, for we have indeed seen this cinematic production before. 

 

Republicans rush to highlight the vibrant economy wrought by W’s policies, i.e., broad-based, sweeping tax cuts that removed the shackles from the entrepreneurial spirit intrinsic in the unbridled American worker and businessperson.  Beyond his philosophical fidelity to a policy of low taxes, however, President’s Bush’s economic policy left much to be desired.

 

I am no economist (I defer to the genius of Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams), but there are five components of the former President’s economic policy that have manifestly contributed to, if not created, our present circumstance.

 

First and foremost, via legislative compromise, the President and Congressional Republicans failed to make his tax cuts permanent, ensuring that Americans would be hit with a colossal tax hike without necessitating even another vote.  President Bush will take credit for low taxes during his term, the new tenants in Washington will allow the cuts to expire, and Americans will pay the price. 

 

Though often compared to Reaganomics, President Bush’s polices forsook a key element of the Gipper’s philosophy.  While they both catalyzed positive tax reform, President Reagan made every attempt to cut discretionary domestic spending, attempting to hold the line against the deficit.  GWB, conversely, never encountered an appropriations bill he did not see fit to sign into law.  He eschewed the expedient utilization of the veto that could have impeded the unrestrained and lavish spending and government expansion of the last eight years.  Consequently, Republican ability to employ spending criticism as an efficacious campaign issue and polemical tool against the current administration is severely tarnished.

 

Compounding these problems exponentially, the most active central economic planning branch of the government, the Federal Reserve, exhibited an ostensible inclination toward inflationary polices.  By continually cutting interest rates, the Fed projected an artificially sound economy, delaying the inevitable recession when the house of cards finally did come tumbling down.

 

It is no secret that President Bush attempted to halt the disastrous practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac instituted by the unholy alliance consisting of the Justice Department, Housing and Urban Development, and Congressional Democrats.  It was the policies set by these agents of government that grossly contributed to the housing and subprime mortgage crises last fall.  While the Bush Administration did not create these Clintonian practices, it certainly exploited the politically opportunistic advantages presented by them.  President Bush should have instead used the bully pulpit of the Executive Branch to create enough public outrage to force Congressional Democrats to end the since revealed corrupt housing and mortgage policies.      

 

Lastly, and most injurious, the Bush Administration, via the office of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, enacted one of the most dangerous trends in American economic history.  Using verbiage like rescues, bailouts, and loans are one thing, but when citizens realize those terms reveal that the Federal Government is interfering in the private sector to nationalize various industries, individuals then recognize the true scope of the systematic diminution of individual liberty and the meticulous intrusion into the private lives of citizens.  The clarion call has sounded from the onset that the bailouts were of utmost necessity and the nation would incur irrevocable harm should they not be actuated; and here we stand today ― still in crisis, still in recession.  Ultimately, the only actual reform produced by the “epilogical” policies of the Bush Administration was the egregious expansion of government.  And to think this was the candidate for whom conservatives voted, twice.

 

Now we stand in a political climate with historians and liberals (do I repeat myself?) hearkening back to the days of 1932, ebulliently awaiting the fruition of the policy initiatives of FDR’s true successor.  The problem with the New Deal, however, was that its policies were, admittedly so, extrapolated from the policies of the Hoover Administration ab initio, and consequently, the Depression lasted in full force until December 7, 1941.  The fear of many is that the current president will repeat the mistake of Saint Franklin of Roosevelt and simply continue the misguided policies of his predecessor ― on a larger scale.  Throughout the campaign, then Senator Obama made the claim, audacity and all, that we were in the worst economy since the Great Depression.  Was that a statement of observation, or of prophecy?         

AIG: The People’s Company

Much to Bernard Madoff’s delight, a story other than his currently consumes the news of the day.  With the payout of an estimated $165 million in executive bonus compensation, AIG is once again the primary persona non grata of Wall Street, serving as the representative image of the malevolence of the free market. 

 

I am no businessman and am presumptuous to offer my counsel to millionaires, but it would seem that prudence would dictate to top executives at the insurance and finance behemoth that now might be a reasonable time to voluntarily forgo the bonuses until fiscal solvency is assured.  But what do I know?   

 

That being said, the issue at hand, at least superficially, is the notion of Wall Street executives receiving elephantine bonuses subsequent to taking taxpayer bailout money last fall.  While the culpability of the bonus-receiving executives is debatable, the deeper question to be investigated is whether or not it is desirable, or acceptable, for the Federal Government to extort businesses, large or small, and dictate how they should handle their balance sheets.  To be sure, the assertion many will make is that AIG took taxpayer money and therefore is obliged to abide by Congressional mandate. 

 

But are they, really?  For good or ill, these parameters were not set when the bailout was enacted.  Would that not fall under the auspices of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution?  For example, Congress cannot decree on Tuesday that eating ice cream is illegal and subsequently prosecute John Doe for eating ice cream on Monday.  In this instance, Congress is attempting to have its ice cream and eat it too, even after Tuesday. 

 

Furthermore, the sanctimonious outrage exhibited by Congress and the Pontificator-in-Chief is hilarious, if not infuriating.  As reported by ABC News on Thursday (and by Rush Limbaugh earlier in the week), Senator Chris Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut, added an amendment in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act (colloquially known as the “stimulus package”) that the AIG bonuses should proceed as planned, per the original contractual obligations.  If someone, anyone, on Capital Hill ― a Congressman, staffer, page, security guard, janitor ― would have as much as read the bill on which they were voting then maybe, just maybe, they might have known about this before Monday.   This, of course, is to say nothing of how the President, who flew to purple state Colorado to sign that monstrosity into law, nor anyone else in the administration for that matter read the bill prior to his signing it.  One question:  does anyone across the fruited plain have a CLUE what is in the bill that just had to be enacted immediately;  the bill that, should passage fail, birds would stop chirping, the sun would cease to shine, and imminent Armageddon would materialize ― does anyone have a clue?

 

As a part of his public relations blitz, following his comparing Tim Geithner to Alexander Hamilton (ahem), President Obama appeared on the Tonight Show to assuage public outrage over the bonuses, at least any that should be directed at him.  He explained how AIG participated in the sub-prime mortgage crisis, of course without mentioning the government’s role, and proceeded to describe how the “house of cards” came tumbling down.  After emphasizing the need for so called common sense regulation, the President suggested that youth should be encouraged to enter fields other than finance, such as the medical or educational fields ― jobs that actually produce in the economy; as if to suggest those in finance who assist millions of Americans to invest in the markets or contribute to a 401(k) or pension funds somehow do not produce for the economy.

 

The most troubling aspect of this episodic drama is the extortion and intimidation employed by Congress.  Ed Liddy, who was hired by Congress in September to run AIG (for an annual salary of $1) was paraded before the Congressional committee like a medieval criminal.  He was honoring contractual obligations set in place prior to his entry into civil service, and rewarded bonuses allowed by Senator Dodd’s amendment in the spending bill.  Now the very people who passed the grandiose American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 are the same people who demand those bonuses back, and will now tax them up to 90% to do so. 

 

An unbridled government is one not to be trusted.  At this point, Congress and the White House are micromanaging companies that received bailout assistance.  If the government is powerful enough, however, to dictate and mandate how those companies make and spend their money, what is to stop them from eventually doing the same to companies free from the shackles bailout bondage?