Charles Jay concurs with LP, disagrees with Barr: ‘Let Fannie/Freddie fail’

Boston Tea Party presidential candidate Charles Jay offers a different take on the Fannie/Freddie mess than the LP’s Bob Barr — who says the government “has to do something” to bail out the two floundering GSEs that effectively socialize risk while privatizing profit. In general agreement with a press release put out earlier by the LP, Jay says the government should “bail out” all right — “bail out of the mortgage business and let free markets flow.”

Below is Jay’s statement:

At a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky grilled Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, about his rather impetuous plan, which will be put before Congress next week, to possibly force taxpayers into providing emergency bailout money for the two private, “government-sponsored” companies who together control about a half of the mortgage finance business – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As Bunning voiced objections about this proposal, Paulson, who carried into the hearing an arrogance that has come to characterize those in government – and the current administration in particular – who wonder why anyone would ever be so rude as to actually make them answerable for their actions, told him that if he didn’t like the plan, he didn’t have to vote for it.

Of course, Bunning, who rightfully referred to this potential folly as “socialism,” guaranteed he would do anything he possibly could to stop it. To which Paulson retorted, “And maybe you can come up with a better plan.”

Well, now that you mentioned it, yes we can.

The government should do nothing along the lines of any bailout plans.

What is this duopoly anyway, except a pair of private businesses, designed for the purpose of benefiting shareholders, who are coddled and subsidized in-kind by the federal government? And why should those businesses be advantaged by such protection when others in the marketplace have to compete from behind a virtual eight-ball?

Why should taxpayers bear any burden whatsoever when those private businesses – and in many cases the customers they service, I might add – make horrific and unsound decisions? True libertarians know that American citizens do not exist to provide a safety net for speculators, nor should they ever be expected to assume the risk so that comparatively few can profit.

We obviously object to the idea that the American citizen should be obligated to facilitate this obscene exercise in corporate welfare. How can one be a libertarian without understanding that with greater personal freedom comes great personal responsibility? Accordingly, how can we, as proponents of this thing called libertarianism, talk about such personal responsibility, then even broach the issue of furnishing a publicly-funded bailout for those who haven’t shown enough of it?

It’s one thing to be a risk-taker. This nation was built on risk-takers. But how could we possibly promote that it’s quite alright to be financially reckless, because the government will always be there in the end to save you? This is absolutely fundamental, not just for anyone who considers himself or herself to be a libertarian, but who has a basic regard for reasonable government and fairness to taxpayers.

In fact, so fundamental that it isn’t even a close call.

The platform of the political party that nominated me in June is simple: “The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.”

And this is the most odious of increases in the size, scope and power of government, as it wants to be an even bigger player in the economy, intruding on free markets, buying stock in companies that compete with others in the industry, and, in corrupt fashion, carving out special favors for itself and its cronies in concert with the Federal Reserve, operating with a blank check and no apparent accountability to the taxpayer.

Barack Obama, as usual, spoke in the abstract, but did say, “I am absolutely committed — both as a senator and should I have the good fortune to be elected president, as president — to make sure that we [have] liquidity in the housing markets. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae play critical roles in that process.” John McCain is more direct about his desire to fund corporate welfare: “I think the actions taken by the Fed on Fannie and Freddie are correct. I hope that the Congress will give them the needed authorization.”

No, in fact, all of this foolishness needs to come to an abrupt end.

That’s why it is in order to commend the LP, at least as it is represented by its media office, for its unambiguous, inflexible stance on this issue, along with those members of Congress who have come to the understanding that the best thing for America – and Americans – is that these private companies are compelled to live and breathe on their own, without ridiculous taxpayer subsidies.

When the matter comes up for vote, let’s hope there are enough of them.

13 thoughts on “Charles Jay concurs with LP, disagrees with Barr: ‘Let Fannie/Freddie fail’

  1. Steve LaBianca

    So who, is the real libertarian candidate? Putting aside that Mary Ruwart should be the LP nominee, it now appears that Charles Jay, as the BTP nominee is the rightful heir for this presidential election, to the libertarian mantle.

  2. G.E. Post author

    Jay should be on the ballot in Florida, Steve. I think he deserves your vote. A vote for Jay is an anti-vote for Barr, which sends a much stronger message than no vote at all.

  3. Steve LaBianca

    G.E. – don’t kid yourself, I am strongly considering voting for Jay. My friend John Wayne Smith will likely be the VP candidate as well.

    I still cringe a little at voting for a party other than “my” party, as the LP has a candidate for president. I have, in the past chastised people who are in state level LP positions . . . Chair, Vice Chair, etc for voting for the “opposition” . . . (Dubya) instead of Badnarik, but I think this is quite different. Barr really is a Republican in Libertarian clothing, and Jay really is a libertarian, just running under a different banner.

  4. M. D.

    Fannie and Freddie are in great shape, Bernacke said so!

    And Bernacke READ about the causes of the Great Depression, so he’s prepared to stop that sort of thing before it gets too bad. ;);)

  5. G.E. Post author

    I had a client for whom I was working die before he paid me. Surely I deserve a bailout. About two weeks of work, unpaid!

  6. Commandroid

    Well, I’m very disappointed with Barr on this one. I’m starting to wonder if the LP got it right with this guy. Just imagine a “libertarian” making a statement in favor of a federal government bail out! Sheesh!

  7. Commandroid

    I have some information on Barr and the “bail out” that doesn’t exactly square with what this article says. You can see the article at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,382881,00.html. Barr was on Your World with Neil Cavuto. There is a video at the site that you can watch. (Cavuto is a libertarian, by the way) While Barr’s response is a bit short of what I’d like to have heard from him, it falls short of saying the feds should bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He calls for a “temporary line of credit” under control of Congress and restructuring of Fannie and Freddie so that they become totally privatized. His stance is that the feds created the mess by (inappropriately) getting into the mortgage business and creating these entities that are not subject to the same market forces that govern other mortgage companies–therefore the feds cannot just simply walk away from the problem. I’m not saying I agree with him–but at least his response is more libertarian in tone than the article above would lead you to believe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *