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, â€œgovernment-sponsoredâ€ 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 didnâ€™t like the plan, he didnâ€™t have to vote for it.
Of course, Bunning, who rightfully referred to this potential folly as â€œsocialism,â€ guaranteed he would do anything he possibly could to stop it. To which Paulson retorted, â€œAnd maybe you can come up with a better plan.â€
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 havenâ€™t shown enough of it?
Itâ€™s one thing to be a risk-taker. This nation was built on risk-takers. But how could we possibly promote that itâ€™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 isnâ€™t even a close call.
The platform of the political party that nominated me in June is simple: â€œThe 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.â€
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, â€œI am absolutely committed â€” both as a senator and should I have the good fortune to be elected president, as president â€” to make sure that we [have] liquidity in the housing markets. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae play critical roles in that process.â€ John McCain is more direct about his desire to fund corporate welfare: â€œI think the actions taken by the Fed on Fannie and Freddie are correct. I hope that the Congress will give them the needed authorization.â€
No, in fact, all of this foolishness needs to come to an abrupt end.
Thatâ€™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, letâ€™s hope there are enough of them.