Dan Flynn offers this translation of Bushspeak:
Bush: "I'm a strong believer in free enterprise, so my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business." Translation: These words are the exact opposite of my modus operandi. Of course, if by "free enterprise" you mean a mind-its-own-business government, then, hell no, I am against it. By "free enterprise" I mean nationalizing the world's largest insurance company, government giveaways of prescription drugs, enormous farm subsidies, socializing the losses of capitalists, the largest increase in government spending in my lifetime, and stuff like that.
Bush: "Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures." Translation: Throw me the idol. I'll give you the whip.
Something about this doesn't pass the sniff test...
Mark Sanford has a must-read in the WaPost today. Here's an excerpt:
The good news is that House Republicans aren't currently going along with the Paulson plan. House Republicans have floated their own proposal which offers insurance, as opposed to merely "buying back" the bad debt. It would suspend capital gains taxes for two years -- and also provide incentives, to encourage firms that buy-up bad debt."It seems that each new crisis is met with a new answer from the government. After Hurricane Katrina, the federal government assumed roles traditionally handled by state and local governments. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the government federalized 25,000 workers through the Transportation Security Administration. The example of security-focused countries such as Israel, which elects to have that function handled by the private sector, did not matter. Now, our federal government is likely to commit three-quarters of a trillion dollars -- more than last year's Pentagon budget -- to a bailout based on what happened in the credit markets last week.
An ever-expanding scope of federal commitment and power is not what made this country great. Expanded power in one place comes at a cost in other places. American cornerstones such as individual initiative and an entrepreneurial spirit -- born in free and open societies with private property rights and the rule of law -- have never fit particularly well within the context of an ever-growing federal government."
Fundamentally, though small government conservatives are rightly concerned with big-government encroachments included in the Paulson plan.
The belief among House Republicans is that a bad bill is worse than no bill -- a point I tend to agree with. Based on recent experience, conservatives are rightly skeptical of the "trust us" mentality that argues we should be in a rush to vote on something without reading the fine print (isn't that how we got into this mess to begin with)?
We may well need a bill to get us out of this situation, but a bad bill will set a dangerous precedent, as well as bring America even closer to socialism. Washington and New York elites got us into this mess, but conservative congressmen are elected to represent we the people.
As many of us have noted in the past, this crisis was not the result of a lack of government intervention, but rather, because of it. As such, House Republicans ought to insist on a clean bill which will solve the current crisis, without creating a new one.
And if this bill must pass, Democrats can pass this legislation without the support of conservative Republicans. After losing in 2006, we have finally gotten a group of up-and-coming conservative young turks elected to congress who are not tainted by from being in the majority during the Bush years.
If this bad bill is to pass, let it happen without tainting conservative hands.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member