On Fannie, Freddie and Obama

I am suspicious of many things. The defensive line of the 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers, my neighbors dog, the analysts on CNBC and Chet Culver are all prime examples. But one thing I never doubt are the historical realities that occur as the result of liberal public policy. Like any rational thinker, I then take these realities and incorporate them into my future decision making - and political opinions.

William F. Buckley Jr. once noted, "One must bear in mind that the expansion of federal activity is a form of eating for politicians." True enough for any politician, but especially true for that of the Democrat's latest presidential nominee. Although the most recent debate was boring beyond imagination, one thing stood out to me very clearly. Scrape away the candy-coated "hope" and Barack Obama expresses an almost identical resemblence to that of nearly every Democratic nominee of the last 45 years: an insatiable appetite for more government, more centralized power and more bureaucracy - all papered over with newly printed money taken from the new taxes he's going to raise. He's not "post-partisan," his ideas are certainly not new, he's not change - at least not the change that is implied by his candidacy.

If new taxes for the "rich" are bad when the economy is in trouble, why are they appropriate when the economy is good? If the Bush tax cuts "expire," is this the same thing as a tax increase? (hint: yes...and you will pay more) If an individual making $249,000 per year deserves a tax "rebate" check, why doesn't someone making $250,000? If tax rebate checks work - and aren't simply political hush money (or worse) - why not give them to all taxpayers? Let's not forget that a significant number of those who'd receive Obama's "rebate" checks don't even pay federal income tax. Where I come from, it's hard to get a rebate if you'd didn't pay for something in the first place.

Our current economic problems are not a result of too little government. They're not a result of a lack of government oversight, bureaucracy or a"bailout" package. It kind for reminds one of the debate over gun control. We can create all the laws in the world regulating, banning and outlawing firearms, but they are all meaningless if only law abiding citizens obey them. Criminals don't care how many laws there are regulating their criminal activity. Likewise with our current crisis. If you have the corrupt, criminal leadership of Fannie and Freddie lining the pockets of Democratic politicians (Obama, et al.), it is likely you won't solve or resolve anything.

Evidence:



When we elect officials such as these to mind the hen house, can we surprised when the result is our current crisis? What's more, we're asked to consider electing one president! Frustrating, to say the least.

Higher taxation, tax "rebates," more government or another $700 billion won't ultimately resolve this problem. As usual, regular Americans will. In spite of their elected politicians. Barack Obama's dangerous economic/fiscal policies will not result in greater American prosperity. Increasing taxation on the "rich" and corporations will result in nothing but sending more jobs overseas and a further dependence on the failed policies of the federal government. Enjoy.