

After the
Chief Justice flubbed the only thing he had to do today—administer the
oath of office to the
president, which is one of the better known parts of the
constitution—
Barack Obama gave his
inaugural speech.
For one of the great orators of his generation it was not his best, but one would not have thought it was so bad that the
stock market would tumble as he spoke.
But
it did--and ended up tanking by more than 300 points.
The
economy is so sick, that it is no longer even
responding to the oratory of
Barack Obama.
President Obama, of course, recognized the need to address the
economy. And he once again pledged his version of
non- ideological, pragmatic solutions:
“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."What he means is that those who advocate
smaller government are just too nutty to participate in the dialogue, but if they are willing to discard that quaint notion, then feel free to toss in your ideas.
And that is pretty much in keeping with the mood of the nation—these days no one but the most cheeky dare utter the words
"free market."
Over at
Bloomberg, blow bag scrivener
Michael R. Siset is actually using the word
“socialism” when laying out his blueprint for the
banks.
There is no question that pinko is in, and right thinking is out. But just the same, I would like to throw out an alternative that is neither
Marxist nor the creed of
Mr. Potter and
Scrooge.
The first part is
bankruptcy,
one of the rights established in the
constitution.
As
I have mentioned before, the secret , that
the Fed and
Treasury do not want us to know, is that the
financial system is essentially
insolvent. The solution is not giving them more money. The
federal government can not come up with enough
money to bail them out without totally
debasing the dollar. And this idea of forcing the
banks to make loans is pretty ludicrous. Isn't giving
ill-advised loans a big part of what caused all this?
Since the
federal government is now a
creditor of most of the
banks, they could force them into a traditional
Chapter 11. But, it would probably be better if some special
receivership could be created by
Congress to deal with the entire
financial system.
Under
bankruptcy protection, all the
worthless and
toxic assets could be written down, and the
banks reorganized—merged, split up, or flushed down the crapper.
I have a
stimulus package also. It is drastic
tax cuts for everyone, and
as close to zero as we could get on
business taxes. There would be no greater stimulus than putting an extra hundred dollars a week in the paychecks of
American workers.
Unlike
Obama or
Bush's tax cuts, I tend to think it would be responsible to do a corresponding
spending reduction --but since our
president doesn't want to hear that, I will hold my tongue.
The last part my program is what I like to call
“libertarian welfare.”The
stimulus packages that have been proposed, or implemented to date,
are not only an historically colossal waste of
money, but will ultimately be seriously destructive.
However, there is no question that a lot of people are suffering during this
“correction.” The
government needs to do such things as provide
unemployment, f
ood,
shelter—and amend the
bankruptcy code so that judges can rewrite
mortgages on
primary residences, just like they can any other
loan.
However, none of this would be done under the guise of
stimulating the economy or coercing good behavior out of businesses and ordinary citizens. It would be handed out only because the
government does have an obligation to provide for the
general welfare of the people—the intent would be to tide us over --with no expectation of immediate
economic benefits.
Now, I also think it would be advisable to start dismantling much of our
“empire” (do we really still need troops in
Germany),
shrinking the government,
balancing the budget, making the
saving of money a viable option and etc.
But since
Obama thinks that is looney talk I won't go there.

Related Articles: