Updated: A Political Takeover Of The Entire Financial Sector? (CHINA)

Barack Obama, Business, China, Debt, Economy, Government, Uncategorized

Writes Robert Bidinotto on Breitbart’s “Big Government” (the proprietor that was infinitely more forgiving about Bush’s big government):

As long as the Democrats continue to control Congress, we’ll have to endure an endless procession of initiatives for the federal government to take over industry after industry. Health insurance and college loans went under federal hegemony with passage of a single bill, known as “ObamaCare.”

Now, a new bill, referred to by the name of its chief sponsor, the ethically challenged Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, aims to consolidate a federal takeover of the nation’s entire network of financial institutions.

As Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute notes:

Does the bill, as [Republican Senate leader Mitch] McConnell said, “institutionalize too big to fail?” Of course. There can’t be any reasonable doubt about this. The bill authorizes the Fed to regulate all non-bank financial institutions that are “systemically important” or might cause instability in the U.S. financial system if they failed. . . .

The market will see immediately that the government has created Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs in every sector of the financial system where these large companies are designated for Fed regulation, including insurance companies, hedge funds, finance companies, bank holding companies, securities firms, and any other kind of financial institution the government wants to regulate. Since these firms will be too big to fail, they will be seen in the market—as Fannie and Freddie were seen—as ultimately backed by the government and thus safer firms to lend to than small firms that are not government backed. This will permanently distort the financial market, favoring large companies over small ones, and eventually force a consolidation of each market where these firms exist into a few large competitors operating under the benign supervision of the government.

In other words, this is another huge step toward fascistic corporatism, completing a de facto government takeover of today’s nominally “private” financial firms. These corporations would be reduced to the status of politically managed public utilities.

Professor Brad Smith of Capital University Law School stressed that latter point to me:

It’s important to note that this is not just about more bailouts, but it will be bailouts for the politically connected and favored. If the President and Congress think you are a “savvy businessman” (which means you support his party) you’ll be in the pink. But if you are a “corrupt Wall Street Titan” (meaning you don’t support his party) well .

Absolutely true. This is not only a federal takeover, but more specifically a political takeover of major financial corporations. Smith adds: “Republicans can rally public opposition if they get this message out there consistently.”

Ah, but therein lies the rub. The Dodd bill faces a cliffhanger vote in the Senate, perhaps as early as next week. And whether it passes in its current form may come down to the vote of a single Republican “centrist,” Susan Collins of Maine, who could thwart a successful GOP filibuster.

The repercussions of this legislation are as significant as ObamaCare. But even some Democrats are wavering on it. It can still be defeated.

I urge you to contact your two U.S. senators today. (And while you’re at it, make sure to send a copy of your message to Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.) Tell them to oppose the pending financial reform legislation, the so-called “Dodd bill.” Tell them it represents “crony capitalism” at its worst, putting taxpayers on the hook for guaranteed bailouts of any and all financial institutions deemed “too big to fail.”

Tell them that this will give unfair market advantages to big, politically connected corporations over smaller, politically unfavored competitors. And that, in turn, will completely distort the financial-services marketplace, creating the false impression that large, government-backed institutions—like AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac—are inherently safer for investors and lenders than their smaller rivals. That can only encourage the consolidation of the financial-services sectors into a few gigantic monopolistic institutions, adding to the “moral hazard” problem of rewarding irresponsible businesses at the expense of their responsible competitors.

And you might want to add that we, the voters, will have the last word if power-craving members of Congress continue to imagine that they are “too big to fail” in November.

[SNIP]

Follow the links in Robert’s blog post HERE.

Update (April 19): Glenn Beck’s next milestone will be to quit the ranks of American Sinophobes, who “are fond of saying that the strength of the Chinese economy is derived from that government’s exploitation of its people.”

From “US In The Red And Getting Redder”:

The Chinese are ditching Mao for Milton, as Americans trust Oprah to pick their literature and leaders. Indeed China is changing. It is “out of the red” in more ways than one. The US is changing too: It’s in the red and getting redder. …
China has undergone considerable economic restructuring and market reforms, the consequence of which is a 300 million strong Chinese middle class. Poverty levels have receded from “53 percent in 1981 to 8 percent in 2001. Only about a third of the economy is now directly state-controlled. [Like the US] As of 2005, 70 percent of China’s GDP was in the private sector.” The Chinese financial system is duly being liberalized—banking is diversifying and stock markets are developing. Protections for private property rights are being strengthened as well.

Updated: Maddow, McVeigh And The Militia

Federalism, Homeland Security, Liberty, Media, Propaganda, Reason, Terrorism, WMD

The excerpt is from “Maddow, McVeigh And The Militia,” now on WND.COM:

“Rachel Maddow’s gayness (and goggles) is the most interesting thing about her. What I’m trying to say here is that the MSNBC TV host has a mundane mind, which, rest assured, will insert and assert itself during an upcoming special presentation, “The McVeigh Tapes: Confessions of an American Terrorist.” ….

A far more interesting choice for presenter of the forthcoming MSNBC feature on McVeigh would have been the brilliant belletrist Gore Vidal.

Like Maddow, Vidal (aged 83) is a gay leftist. Unlike Maddow, he manages to dazzle with his original insights. (Unfashionably, Vidal has also poked fun at assorted anal activists and at all manner of “vulgar fagism.”)

Vidal “became a supportive correspondent of Timothy McVeigh,” and considers McVeigh “a true patriot, a Constitution man.”

Gore Vidal is rare in recognizing the legitimate federal insults to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that motivated McVeigh to commit his crime. He is also unique, on the Left and Right, in acknowledging that McVeigh was not a rube, but a thoughtful man who had fought for his country and was familiar with its foundational principles and documents.

As the most able counsel for the defense (McVeigh’s), the iconoclastic octogenarian would have given his viewers something to mull over; mundane Maddow will not. …

The complete column is “Maddow, McVeigh And The Militia.” Read it on WND.COM.

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

Update (April 16): Inferring motivation, or psychologizing about the reason Vidal respected some of McVeigh’s arguments are species of ad hominem. I avoid them, for the most; I don’t take them seriously when others make them. In fact, that’s MSNBC’s stock-in-trade; impute motivation (“racism” always) to your foe and attack him based on assumptions about his inner workings, rather than deal with the facts and merits of his argument.

So, our (much-welcomed) commenter claims Vidal had a homoerotic fixation with McVeigh, and therefore everything he claimed to respect in McVeigh is not credible. That line of reasoning is illogical.

A quote from McVeigh:

I think it all has to do with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the misconception that the government is obliged to provide those things or has the jurisdiction to deny them. We’ve gotten away from the principle that they were only created to secure those rights. And that’s where, I believe, much of the trouble has surfaced.

I agree with that. And if a “stormtrooper” agrees with the above statement, then consider that a stormtrooper, McVeigh and I agree about the statement. Other than to argue in circles, so what?!

US Pinkest Most Progressive Taxer

America, Economy, EU, Europe, Socialism, Taxation

When Messrs Hannity et al., next carry forth about the wonders of American freedoms, having been hindered only under BHO, point them to this caption and diagram courtesy of RealClearMarkets:

“A study of the progressiveness of household taxes (income plus social security taxes) by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development charts the percent of taxes paid by the top 10 percent of households in OECD countries and compares that number to the percent of income earned in each country by the same top 10 percent. The U.S. finishes at the top of the list, with the highest tax-to-income ratio of any country. Above are the top countries, as well as the average for all 24 OECD countries studied.”

The tabulated chart is below here.

Update II: Beck: 'I'm With Ron Paul' (Breaking From The Pack)

Debt, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, Glenn Beck, Homeland Security, libertarianism, Ron Paul, War

A good few posts ago, I observed that “in his groundbreaking series on the American Progressive Movement, Fox News personality Glenn Beck, previously an unambiguously pro-war military-booster, was inching towards examining his support for the kind of state expansion (via warfare) the founders would have abhorred.

Glenn made the final leap today to a non-interventionist foreign policy emphasizing American interests and self-defense and no nation building. He said the words, “I am with Ron Paul.” This could be good for the country—unless Beck is forced by his backers (FoxNews) to back down.

For example, this reasonable remark of Obama’s is drawing FoxNews ire:

“It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

I will post the Beck YouTube feature as soon as it’s up (readers are welcome to beat me to it).

Update: “America Is a Republic, Not an Empire” by Glenn Beck:

“The example we set now is what pisses everyone off: We say we’re going to spread democracy, but we bed dictators, we bow to Saudi princes, when it’s to our advantage. George Washington wanted us to be like the Swiss: Enemy of none, friend to all. Places like Germany — hey, we’re glad you are all straightened out, but we’re pulling out, you’re on your own. We’re not staying. We need to get out of the Korean Peninsula and Japan. No longer will we be the world’s loiterers.

The United States spends approximately $102 billion annually to maintain troops, equipment, fleets and bases overseas — if you count Iraq and Afghanistan it jumps to $250 billion. Well, I’m tired of being the world’s policeman. And in many cases we are the world’s loiterers. We need to have a “no loitering” policy.

That policy comes from the progressives. The Republicans say we’ll send in the “green helmets” and just nation build our way to global security. The liberals want to do it through the United Nations; they want to send in the “blue helmets” — which we pay for.

This doesn’t work. I don’t want to nation build. I don’t want a global government or military force.

And for all the Don Rumsfelds out there watching who are cursing me out right now because they think no time is a good time to cut defense spending. Well, maybe this will help. This chart shows who accounts for all military spending in the world.

Almost half of all military spending in the world — 47 percent — is America. The next biggest spender is Europe — that’s not even a country, they spent $289 billion on military-related expenses. We almost spent that much outside our country for our own defense!

So don’t tell me we can’t afford to cut back. Clearly we can.

And when we are in a situation like Afghanistan, we fight to win it. With all of our technology today, why can’t we get in and out of Afghanistan in a couple of years? Because the politicians have their grimy little fingers on everything. Take the military off the leash; if you decide to go to war, unhook those dogs and get the hell out of the way.”

Update II (April 16): Together with the Cato Institute, the author of the blog Downsizing the Federal Government in particular, Beck has been running pragmatic, hour-long workshops on where and how much to slash. Pretty much everything. The man is a force of nature.

Back to the matter of Beck’s “I’m with Ron Paul on foreign policy” statement: This too is a very important development. Beck is pulling away from the neoconservative pack at Fox. By declaring war on their gratuitous wars he has driven a wedge between himself and the likes of Hannity, O’Reilly, Krauthammer, Kristol, and all the followers (I don’t know a Republican ditto head who doesn’t go along with the war-all-the-time = a strong national defense formula). The unity of the ditto heads on war policy was unshakable.

Again: By denouncing the war talisman, Beck, a major star on the Right, has created oscillation in the ossifying GOP. He has broken a united front which—thanks to the likes of Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, O’Reilly; National Review, Weekly Standards—seemed unchallenged.