Posted at http://www.lp.org/bailout-mania. This is the full article, except for the financial appeal at the end of the original piece.
Everybody is looking for a handout.
Except, instead of poor workers looking for bread as it was during the Great Depression, we have billion-dollar beggars from Wall Street looking for a way out of bad investments.
And to whom are they looking? You, the taxpayer, of course.
The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac opened the "Pandora’s Box" of government handouts. Now, every industry is turning to their lobbyists to grease the wheels of Washington for some spare change here and there. Unfortunately, spare change to them is billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers.
Where does it end? Nobody knows.
In the meantime, this is how the Libertarian Party is standing up for taxpayers.
Crisis Mode
It doesn’t take much to go from "bad" to "really bad" when government gets involved. This is especially true when those in power have the philosophy that, "If it’s broken, government can fix it."
Unfortunately, far too often government tries to force itself into problem situations with good intentions that have disastrous consequences. Because many times these consequences aren’t immediate, government officials and the voters who elect them to office don’t learn from these mistakes.
The problem with government "fixes" is that while perhaps well intentioned, they do more harm than good and tend to stick around much longer than planned—much like a crazy uncle who overstays his holiday visit.
Just look at the New Deal. Social Security and Fannie Mae are just two examples of New Deal policies that still linger on at a great cost to taxpayers and the economy.
This is why it is so important not to rush into "emergency solutions" to these very complicated economic problems when they arise, as we have done in these past few months. Once created, government programs are very hard to kill.
Financial Bailout
At first, it was but three pages. Then, it grew to 42. When it was on by Congress, the bill was the size of a novel: a 451-page novel they most likely did not read before sending it on to become a law.
Packed with "sweeteners"–the deceptive name for political bribes—the bill passed with ease. Sweeteners like more regulations on insurance companies, setting up a "Wool Trust Fund"…and even relief for the manufacturers of wooden arrows.
"It’s garbage," Rep. Devin Nunes [R-Calif.] told UPI before the vote. "They’re trying to put more decorations on the Christmas tree, but the problem is the Christmas tree."
Only 25 Senators voted against their parties’ successful attempt to railroad this bill through the Senate.
Absent from this coalition: Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, the figureheads for Republicans and Democrats, who both voted FOR the bailout.
A bailout, paid for by taxpayer, which sends a lifeline to corrupt CEOs who made bad deals and then looked for rescue. A bailout that a Treasury Department spokesperson said was "not based on any particular data point" because they "just wanted to choose a really large number." A bailout that nobody knows its probability for success, its end cost and how much taxpayers will ultimately be responsible for. A bailout that is being squandered by the Treasury under a shroud of secrecy; trillions of taxpayer dollars gone without a trace.
Did they ever stop to think that it was Congressional action that caused the problem in the first place? Did they ever stop to think if bailing-out these corporations with taxpayer money, in a bill laden with pork, is what America needs right now?
Is this taxation without true representation? Where have all our representatives gone?
The "Big Three"
Politicians looking to appease their nervous constituency, interest groups (both from the United Auto Workers and those representing Big Automotive) looking for a handout and know-nothing political pundits looking for a juicy story will all tell you this is necessary for the economic well being of the nation.
In this time of economic turmoil, it’s easy to suggest government has the answers, especially when it is backed by sweet-sounding rhetoric and promises of better times. For those that don’t know the historical failures of government intervention in the market, it just might sound good enough to swallow.
However, like most government programs, the reality is far, far different from the rhetoric.
Bailouts are ALWAYS bad for the taxpayer, for the economy, and for business. Why? Because rewarding the mismanagement of American corporations with a taxpayer-subsidized lifeline does NOTHING to encourage reform or fix the problems that pushed the companies to the brink of 
failure. As we said in a recent statement, these bailouts do nothing but prolong the inevitable collapse of companies suffering from extreme mismanagement and poor investments.
This is especially true in the case of automotive companies.
Detroit auto manufacturers have failed to keep up with trends in the automotive industry, locked themselves into destructive union contracts and demonstrated a complete lack of initiative in automotive innovations that make their products enticing to consumers.
Why are taxpayers being used to reward this mismanagement?
What do the Experts Say?
It should go without saying that the Libertarian Party is philosophically and pragmatically opposed to any sort of bailout to corporations, especially when they’ve been run as poorly as American auto manufactures. But what are the economists saying about the auto bailouts?
- Walter McManus, former economist for General Motors, at The Daily Beast:
The auto industry is the most analyzed industry in history. Economists and analysts inside the automakers, on Wall Street, in consulting firms and universities all follow the business. With all of those smart people, it seemed rational to expect a rational approach to the auto market. That hope, however, has been dashed by events over the last several years.
That’s why I am convinced that a bailout without conditions would be tragic for the Detroit “Big 3” and for America. Leaving the same smart people in charge would lead to more of the same dumb decisions years into the future.
- Daniel J. Mitchel, senior fellow at The Cato Institute, on Cato’s Blog:
A taxpayer bailout would be a terrible mistake. It would subsidize the shoddy management practices of the corporate bureaucrats at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, and it would reward the intransigent union bosses who have made the UAW synonymous with inflexible and anti-competitive work rules.
Perhaps most important, though, is that a bailout would be bad for the long-term health of the American auto industry. It would discriminate against the 113,000 Americans who have highly-coveted jobs building cars for Nissan, BMW and other auto companies that happen to be headquartered in other nations.
These companies demonstrate that it is possible to build cars in America and make money. Putting them at a competitive disadvantage with handouts for the U.S.-headquartered companies would be highly unjust. …
A bailout of U.S.-headquartered auto companies also would be a mistake, as would bailouts of homeowners or any other constituency. If politicians genuinely want to help the economy, they should focus on reducing the burden of government, not increasing it.
Will Obama Save Us?
In doing some background research on Obama’s plans for the biggest public works project since the 1950s, we talked to Harvard economist Dr. Jeffrey Miron about what this means for the economy. Here’s what he said:
LP: Does it make much sense, in terms of stimulating the economy, for the government to invest in public works programs that, when built, produces nothing further?
Miron: Overall, no. The argument is that the beneficial effects of stimulus on overall activity are worthwhile, even if from a microeconomic consideration the projects do not make good cost/benefit sense. Thus, in the extreme form, the standard Keynesian position would say it makes sense to have the government hire people to dig ditches and fill them back up.
The theory that underlies this view is not stupid, but not compelling either.
At a minimum, any stimulus should be on things we would want even if they were not needed for a stimulus. I am personally not persuaded there are many things in that category given the levels of current spending.
LP: Is there a high chance of damage to the economy by implementing a public works program such as that proposed by Obama?
M: There is certainly the possibility of adverse effects. New programs tend to last and have bad effects on incentives and efficiency.
LP: What do you predict to happen should Obama’s proposal be implemented?M: I think the economy will recover in 6-12 months, with or without the stimulus.
LP: Is the best prescription for economic recovery keeping the government out of the economy?
M: In my view, yes.
Miron brings up a great point about the lasting effects of new government programs. In fact, it was a program of the New Deal that was at the center of the latest economic troubles: Fannie Mae.
Additionally, the idea that government can, quite literally, dig itself out of this current economic trough is patently absurd. In doing so, the government often makes things much worse for the economy. You might say that the government pays to dig its own grave–or, at least one for the taxpayers.
There are several major problems with Obama’s public works plan, aside from the fact that government is making a mistake by even trying to take a hands-on role in the market.
- Cost/Benefit Ratio – It is not a guarantee that construction projects will continue to bring any economic benefit upon completion, and "building for the sake of building"–as is Obama’s objective–is an invitation for wholesale government waste. This is like what Miron referred to as "government hir[ing] people to dig ditches and fill them back up." Public works projects that benefit the economy more than the cost of production may be pursued for this reason (at least by those that agree with government intervention, as clearly the Libertarian Party does not); however, no public works program should be undertaken for the sake of simply creating jobs. Some economists, like Economic historian Price Fishback, predict that "such public-works spending would crowd out a significant amount of private construction," on top of being a waste of taxpayer money.
- Limited Scope – Public works programs benefit one specific industry, and even a smaller amount of those in that industry. Not every construction firm is able to handle the rennovations of a bridge, or the construction of a new school. Most of those that would benefit from a large-scale public works program would be large and specialized firms. As such, a construction-based stimulus would have no demonstrative benefit outside of the construction industry. These types of plans "suffer from a common problem–they will end up generating employment for highly specialized businesses and workers, rather than stimulating economic activity more broadly," say economists Susan Woodward and Robert Hall. "Thus a program that funnels money to construction firms and their workers mainly raises their incomes and employment levels and has relatively little effect elsewhere."
- Too Slow For Impact – One main element of any economic stimulus plan is rapid and immediate relief. Relief plans that take too long to implement often kick-in after they are needed. This is a major complaint with most stimulus packages that are proposed, and large-scale public works programs are one the best examples of this delay. Many of these projects will take too long to get from legislation, to planning, to approval, and finally to the actual construction phase in order to have their intended impact. What we will eventually have is massive construction spending during a time where an economic stimulus is not needed.
- Magic Money – One of the oft cited objections with Bush’s economic policies was his penchant for massive government spending without any plans to offset this spending with cuts in other areas. As a result, trillions have been added to an already exploding national debt. A huge problem with Obama’s public works program is that it will add at least $700 billion (and most likely more, in the end) to our national debt, and Obama has stated no plans on how he hopes to address the deficit. Most Keynesians will overlook this fiscal imbalance, but when the spending appears to have no real economic benefit (should it fail the preestablished cost/benefit test), then Keynesians must even wonder if there is a point to the spending.
What is the Solution?
Let them fail.
We said this months ago, before people started jumping on our bandwagon. Now, we lead the fight against more government intervention in the market.
Democrats have never had any problem to getting involved in economic affairs, and Republicans appear to be heading full-steam in that direction.
During his 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain never once expressed a genuine opposition to keeping the government out of the economy. He only opposed it when it was obvious that it wasn’t going to work. When it looked like government had a chance to fix the financial industry, he called off his campaign to run to Washington to help ensure government acted hastily.
Sarah Palin still hasn’t figured out if the bailouts are a good idea.
The problem we face when we try to look at each individual situation from a pragmatic point-of-view is that it is easy to become persuaded by the propaganda or swept up in the hysteria surrounding these crises. After all, if there is one thing government is good at, it’s making a mountain out of a molehill. However, a philosophical opposition will at least throw the brakes on any government plan to get involved in the economy.
If we really have any desire for economic prosperity in the future, it is crucial that we not only become pragmatically opposed to government intervention in the market, but also philosophically opposed to such practices.
A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner, and each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. However, the right to offer goods on the market is not a guarantee of protection against loss and failure. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.
Essentially, we oppose all efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
Our Critics
On Dec. 10, the Libertarian Party put out a press release calling the logic behind the auto bailout, "insane." In it, we stated that "it’s insane that we keep going back to the taxpayers to bail-out struggling corporations who, for lack of good management and sound business practices, have become unprofitable."
We also said that "the Libertarian Party favors letting these companies file Chapter 11, instead of risking taxpayer dollars for promises of reform."
The Kansas City Star, a McClatchy publication in Kansas City, Missouri, was rather offended with our assessment of the situation:
In case you missed it, the nation’s largest third party also opposed appropriating $14 billion of taxpayer money to bail out the American automotive industry.
“It’s insanity,” said Libertarian Party spokesman Andrew Davis. Instead, the Libertarians favored letting the auto companies file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, taking down the U.S. economy with them.
Now, that’s sane.
The Libertarian Party — founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties — proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.
The Buzz says the party also stands to lose just about every election its candidates run in.
Given that the KCS is one of the newspapers that has suffered quite a drop in circulation, its snide tone with us seems a little out of place.
However, this was our response:
It’s nice to see the editors of the Kansas City Star are putting the interests of grossly mismanaged corporations over that of taxpayers. In a recent edition of "The Buzz," the KCS took offense to our insinuation that the recent auto bailout was based on "insane" logic. Instead, the newspaper chose to side with the White House and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson–who still won’t reveal where $2 trillion of taxpayer money went in the last bailout. The Libertarian Party is not oblivious to the economic impact of a Big Three bankruptcy; we simply recognize bailouts don’t work and have disastrous long-term consequences.
The bailout of the American automotive industry will do nothing to fix the problems that got them into their current situation: grossly incompetent CEOs, destructive union contracts and an unwillingness to keep up with automotive trends. If the bailout occurs, as is the hope of the KCS, we will see no change in Detroit. Rather, the Big Three will be back in Washington in a few months asking for more time and more taxpayer money.
This is what the KCS calls the "sane" option? The Libertarian Party, and a majority of American taxpayers, respectfully disagree.
We know what we’re talking about when we say that government solutions make more problems than they solve.
This is why we’re against "government problem-solving." It’s an oxymoron.
What Can the LP Do For You?
As a political party, we run candidates every November that wish to be elected to office in order to push public policy in a Libertarian direction. However, there is more to the Libertarian Party than just running candidates for office. We are also one of the leading advocacy groups for libertarian policy in the United States. That is why our press releases, party communications, blog entries and party officials are constantly talking about the Libertarian response to current issues.
Many times, we lead the way on key issues that other organizations have not yet jumped on.
@26 The classic distortion is inflation. Print enough money fast enough and it becomes hyperinflation. Presently, the feral gummint and the feral reserveless system have become a one trick pony. All they do is print money.
There is only one way this can end. It is the same end that the John Law or Mississippi money came to when it was the Banque Royale and, with the Bank of England’s paper money, created the South Sea Bubble, a hyperinflation, which crashed in 1722 and led to a 60 year depression.
The Mongol Khan empire did this thing with “mulberry bark paper” money roughly the time that Marco Polo was over there. That empire also fell due to a hyperinflation.
The French Revolution fell apart into the Reign of Terror over price controls (literally death penalty for pricing goods over the Directorate’s fixed prices – many shopkeepers were guillotined) and hyperinflation of the assignat and then the mandat. Napoleon made a lot of loyal followers by restoring gold and silver.
Both the Confederates and the Union had inflation. Neither ended especially well off economically. Weimar Germany satisfied its war reparations under the Versailles treaty by printing money to the point of hyperinflation. Austria had a hyperinflation in the early 1920s, as well.
Unfortunately, the suggestion von Mises made in 1923 to end the Austrian 50,000% per annum inflation, just stop printing, might not work at this stage. See, there’s all this money already printed which has been shipped to other countries to finance the feral gummint’s debt, and to buy stuff. Many trillions of dollars can come zooming back into the USA with the stroke of a few keyboards.
This time the hyperinflation might take place in a single day, or just a few days. Gold priced at $844 today might be worth $84,444 tomorrow. Personally, I don’t think it’ll be one day this year. But it may be one day soon.
And, as TE Lawrence once said, before leading 50 men across the Empty Quarter to attack Aqaba, “It’s going to be fun!”
Hey paulie thanks. Maybe we need a shout out to MR. BIG! Howz about fixin’ the bugs?
MHW
envision it, baby!
Some other views:
abandoned government buildings should be reused to left abandoned, possibly auctioned off, depends on the circumstances.
member states should be encouraged to deregulate marriage, eliminate welfare, eliminate unemployment, end taxation, accept voluntary contributions, end eminent domain, prostitution
nomore border control. nomore border, actually.
then we would have a free humanity
membership over geography
you can be an Iraqi member of the USA and an American sovereign individual
henceforth, all of the government programs would be irrelevant. by not leaving, citizens would be endorsing the policies of their government organization.
but yeah as a libertarian, I support cutting programs, because I know they don’t hold water to the likes of mises and other libertarian organizations.
purged of their statism*
the most important part of anarchism is giving the people the opportunity to simply “opt out” when they want. That’s why US states should be purged of their states, even if it has to be done by the federal gov
subject to change. I’m always trying to improve on my views
here are some of my views:
healthcare: leave to states, no federal policy
why? I reseached this subject and have found that the states have supreme rights to govern over their citizens, however, the federal government should push the states to adopt a policy of vluntary association, allowing individuals to leave the states, if they so wish.
same thing with abortion, though, a president should make the case for banning abortion not being able to solve the “problem”
same thing with drugs, end federal mandates, end the federal WoD, encourage member-states to legalize all drugs.
Destroy Iraq’s corrupt government, leave troops there to only secure Iraq from externalities, allow the people known as “Iraqis” to be free to choose their own governments…or no government. Their choice. All governments must allow voluntary association or they will be destroyed. Strict anti-statism policy in iraq/afghanistan
Try to end all federal taxation
end social security
make the us military truly voluntary
“go green” with government & military
If the state is evil, why tolerate it? But, first, we should really think about getting rid of our own statism lol
There is never a right time for a bailout. That is y policy: never bailout a company, individual, or corporation.
We should, however, be willing to bailout foreign vassals from their slavemasters. Ohh yes. Ethiopia should be bombed imo. Send in forces to Somalia and allow Somalians to govern themselves, government or no government. There should be no external influences.
That’s just what I’m feeling, right now, anyway.
Well since my bf has decided he wants to shovel my roof… at 8am… I get to think about this matter.
Once you start going down the bailout route… where do you stop? Why are the auto companies less deserving than the big banks?
Fact is, none of them are particularly deserving. We see the jobs “saved”, but we never see the jobs that are never created because the capital went to prop up the dying/stupid industries.
We’re basically printing money to do all this too. What distortions will that create?
Well Saint Barack is coming and I am sure he will have a Most Splendiferous and Totally Awesome Plan that will save us all.
Best for the regime not to rip anybody off to bail anybody out.
http://ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html
See
http://ruwart.com/Healing/chap3.html
http://ruwart.com/Healing/chap4.html
http://www.universalis.com
Readings for the Midnight Mass, celebrated during the night before Christmas Day:
First reading Isaiah 9:1-7 ©
The people that walked in darkness
has seen a great light;
on those who live in a land of deep shadow
a light has shone.
You have made their gladness greater,
you have made their joy increase;
they rejoice in your presence
as men rejoice at harvest time,
as men are happy when they are dividing the spoils.
For the yoke that was weighing on him,
the barb across his shoulders,
the rod of his oppressor,
these you break as on the day of Midian.
For all the footgear of battle,
every cloak rolled in blood,
is burnt,
and consumed by fire.
For there is a child born for us,
a son given to us
and dominion is laid on his shoulders;
and this is the name they give him:
Wonder-Counsellor, Mighty-God,
Eternal-Father, Prince-of-Peace.
Wide is his dominion
in a peace that has no end,
for the throne of David
and for his royal power,
which he establishes and makes secure
in justice and integrity.
From this time onwards and for ever,
the jealous love of the Lord of Hosts will do this.
Psalm or canticle: Psalm 95:1-3,11-13
Second reading Titus 2:11-14 ©
God’s grace has been revealed, and it has made salvation possible for the whole human race and taught us that what we have to do is to give up everything that does not lead to God, and all our worldly ambitions; we must be self-restrained and live good and religious lives here in this present world, while we are waiting in hope for the blessing which will come with the Appearing of the glory of our great God and saviour Christ Jesus. He sacrificed himself for us in order to set us free from all wickedness and to purify a people so that it could be his very own and would have no ambition except to do good.
Gospel Luke 2:1-14 ©
Caesar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the whole world to be taken. This census – the first – took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria, and everyone went to his own town to be registered. So Joseph set out from the town of Nazareth in Galilee and travelled up to Judaea, to the town of David called Bethlehem, since he was of David’s House and line, in order to be registered together with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. While they were there the time came for her have her child, and she birth to a son, her first born. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them at the inn. In the countryside close by there were shepherds who lived in the fields and took it in turns to watch their flocks during the night. The angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone round them. They were terrified, but the angel said, ‘Do not be afraid. Listen, I bring you news of great joy, a joy to be shared by the whole people. Today in the town of David a saviour has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. And here is a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.’ And suddenly with the angel there was a great throng of the heavenly host, praising God and singing:
‘Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and peace to men who enjoy his favour.’
Much better to bail out the workers. They deserve it more than the rich people. But if we have to bai lout the rich people in order to do that, then fine. The UAW did expand the middle class, yes Deran you are right about that. The middle class never expands without regime regulation.
The UAW is one of the main reasons we have a middle class, er, had a middle class, in the US. It was the CIO’s militancy that forced Ford etc to stop simply stealing from consumers and made sure some of the prosperity went directly to working people. It’s simple economics and history.
Not just simple, but oversimplified. Regime regulation of the kind UAW lobbies for has actually slowed down the pace at which conditions for workers improves.
I agree; no more bailouts without public ownership stakes in the corporations, or they should taken over and made into public owned operations.
Who are you agreeing with? Not the LP, not me, nor, I think, anyone who posted above you. None of us want public ownership, if by public you mean regime.
I would agree, though, that there are problems with state corporate capitalism. One possible solution is to make every shareholder legally responsible for the actions of the companies they own. If you deduce that this would create a problem for companies which are so big that it is impossible for their multitude of absentee owners to know what they are up to, that is in fact the point.
But, as a firs step, the state should stop ripping off tax victims to “bail out” its crony capitalists.
I agree; no more bailouts without public ownership stakes in the corporations, or they should taken over and made into public owned operations.
The UAW is one of the main reasons we have a middle class, er, had a middle class, in the US. It was the CIO’s militancy that forced Ford etc to stop simply stealing from consumers and made sure some of the prosperity went directly to working people. It’s simple economics and history.
paulie you seem to be Mr. Big here abouts. What’s the deal with me having to enter my password ever week, or evey few days?
I don’t have any similar problems elsewhere.
Michael, I may appear to be Mr. Big around here, but that is only because I have a bunch of time on my hands at the moment.
I do not set policy here. I am opposed to the policy of requiring commenters to register, and have expressed my opposition any number of times, both in public comments here and on IPR’s internal email list.
So far, my suggestion to get rid of comment registration has not been approved by management.
Sorry my spelling is so screwed up in the piece above. Just a real long day at work.
MHW
Point # 2 the LP should be reminding folks that this is Chrysler’s second term at the trough. Additionally they were just bought and went private. Apparently the biuyers didnot do their homework. Otherwise they would have seen that it was in bad shape financially.
Additionally the LP should be putting up bits on You Tube about this any any place else they can get space. Bu a page, or quarter pagfe ad in U.S.A. Today. Asl us to contribute to ads in U.S.A. Today for such purposes.
MHW
That’s because Paulie wants to keep track of your passwords.
paulie you seem to be Mr. Big here abouts. What’s the deal with me having to enter my password ever week, or evey few days?
I don’t have any similar problems elsewhere.
MHW
None whatsoever.
“Read my lips – no new ripoffs.”
What difference does it make whether it’s UAW workers or Bank of America tellers or Goldman Sachs brokers?
How can anyone with a brain want to give taxpayer dollars to support the UAW?
“Corporate welfare” works too; that is also a good jumping off point to talking about redistribution of wealth to all the other special interest groups. Although simply saying, “no more bailouts” gets a lot of people’s heads nodding.
Paulie is secretly a socialist. You’re nothing but a tool in the tool shed, comrade Paulie.
Merry Christmas and a happy new year, CT.
Yes, look at what Howard Dean’s group Democracy for America did. They did all the things that the Libertarian Party doesn’t do but should.
I would like to wish all IPR readers a merry and happy Christmas, and even though it’s not the real anniversary of Jesus’s birth, may all rremember the glorious salvation of Jesus Christ, and pray through the communion of saints and all of God’s secular messengers like Leon Trotsky and Barack Obama.
God bless all of the holy bailouts which the government hath given us.
God bless the pope, God bless Rick Warren, and God bless Barack Obama. Read Job chapter 19 and Isaiah Chapter 40 and Luke Chapter 2. Amen.
100% agreed with that. And then some, if it were possible.
@ 4
The people on the street, the people in the factories, the people shopping for Christmas presents. Those are the people calling this a rip off.
If the LP wants to get anywhere, it better start identifying with the people and begin talking their language. When i talk with people about libertarianism and the LP, I don’t call it a “bailout” (except in a rather obvious sarcastic tone) , but rather a “mass robbery of the taxpayers”. people can identify with that.
Another realm where principled populism needs to be applied!
@ 3
Press releases are important, but they need to go hand in hand with action. There is NO call to action except to donate increasingly worthless dollars to the LP.
Please.
Letters to the editor? No.
Letters to representatives? No.
An organized fax, call, and e-mail campaign? No.
Public protests? No.
In todays Dispatch (generally considered to be a conservative paper), three articles appear. Each refers to the insurance industry “investment”, the banking industry “investment” and the auto industry “investment” by the Federal government. Simple semantics, perhaps. But it shows how far we have fallen behind.
Fight fire with fire. It’s not an investment. It’s not even a bailout. It’s a giant ripoff. Call it what it is.
“Leading advocacy groups” obviously does not include lobbying on legislation very much, but just putting out a lot of press releases instead.
ell, conservatives were never libertarian. Libertarian-leaning in rhetoric only
The rush to give handouts to any industry that has stopped moving has seemingly turned into a stampede. Those critical of the handouts are being trampled and ignored.
In todays Dispatch (generally considered to be a conservative paper), three articles appear. Each refers to the insurance industry “investment”, the banking industry “investment” and the auto industry “investment” by the Federal government. Simple semantics, perhaps. But it shows how far we have fallen behind.
And yet still, I don’t hear much support from the people I talk to. Indeed, most people seem resigned to bailout after bailout.
One way to fight this onslaught could be to use ridicule. I always refer to the banking bailout as the “No Banker Left Behind Act”, which always seems to get a good response. I used the line in every radio and TV interview during my campaign, and people remember it two months later.
Pacem en Terris