Former Alaska Gov Sarah Palin attacked the Administration’s Cap and Trade proposal in an editorial in the Washington Post this morning and she made some very valid, very important points about the problems with Cap and Trade but her argument was focused on energy production.

Here is my “top three” list of problems with Cap and Trade — problems that were not, IMO, given enough emphasis by Gov. Palin:

Problem 1: Now is the Wrong Time!

We have a very sick economy! Manufacturing businesses are being pushed to their limit by an economy that is providing few new opportunities to sell their products at a decent profit. As a result they are reorganizing, freezing wages, laying off workers, stopping their profit sharing and, in many cases, closing their doors. So why now? Why, at this worst time of all is President Obama so determined to add new burdens to our manufacturing industries. Possible answer: His focus is global warming — he doesn’t care about the “bodies” that lay in the path between the problem and the solution!

Problem 2: Cap and Trade is Completely Unilateral

We will be adding financial burdens and creating personal disasters here, in the United States, so we can reduce our Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions while the rest of the world continues to pollute. We need an IF statement in our legislation: IF the industrialized countries around the world force their polluters to reduce their emissions by some figure (lets say 10%) we will force our polluters to do the same. If they refuse to do to their economies what Obama is so keen on doing to ours, we are being foolish to punish our economy just because of our president’s pig-headed determination to be “Green” (God how I’m starting to hate that word!).

Problem 3: Cost of Living

Here’s an excerpt from a June 1st editorial in the Washington Post — the editorial is the work of Martin Feldstein who’s resume includes: professor of economics at Harvard University, president emeritus of the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research and former chairman (from 1982 to 1984) of the Council of Economic Advisers.

“The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.”

Oh boy, just what we needed — a raise in our cost of living by a minimum of $133.00 a month. If Cap and Trade becomes a reality, start packing your own lunches and start looking for a used bicycle with a basket, to help save gas on short trips to the store; and maybe you can cut back on some of those medications you’re taking.

There are many other problems with Obama’s proposed Cap and Trade legislation. To start finding out more, start by reading Martin Feldstein’s editorial: Cap-and-Trade: All Cost, No Benefit

Also read an factual, unbiased description of Emissions Trading in How Stuff Works

Americans grow up, finish their schooling, get their own cars, their own places to live, go for an easy to get credit card or two, develop a credit history, eventually get married, raise a family, get a bigger place to live and if they haven’t already, at that point many start abusing their credit.

Problem is, the average American has very poor money management and credit management skills (that’s a subject not taught in too many schools) as a result they will quickly run their golden egg producing credit cards up to their limits by making those fabulous minimum payments and will, to their everlasting amazement, then be offered a new even higher credit limit.

What I’ve just described is more than just a series of snapshots that depict people getting into financial trouble, it also describes a culture created by and manipulated by our banks, credit card companies, loan companies and millions of businesses who advertise: “We Finance!” This has been going on for the past two or three generations and it has created a ‘False American Dream’; not the American Dream that says if you work very hard and use your money wisely you can accomplish almost any personal goal — this ‘False American Dream’ has led countless Americans to believe that they can ‘afford’ anything they want because the money is out their waiting for them — past credit history be damned. No one reads the fine print!

From Finance To The ‘Age of Obama’:

In 2008, many American voters were in deep financial trouble because of the False American Dream and this was exacerbated by the Bush Administration’s mismanagement of the economy. With these two conditions in play it’s only natural to assume that these American voters would reject any candidate with any connection to President Bush (i.e., the entire Republican party) and jump at the chance to elect a president who promised the most help. Thus, we entered the age of Obama.

Picking a president based on campaign promises is just as perilous an adventure as applying for that third credit card after the first two are maxed out. It doesn’t seem like you have any choice and you live on the hope that everything will work out all right. Trouble is, with everything you do in life there is “fine print” that needs to be understood and “consequences” that need to be faced. In the case of candidate Obama, the “fine print” was hidden in the practiced eloquence of his speech and in the blinding glow of his well-polished charisma. The fine print didn’t lie either; it presented a fairly accurate picture of the thoughts and aspirations of the candidate, i.e., ‘the free-market does not work; big business is not to be trusted; every individual American must sacrifice so the government can provide for those who have less and need more; only government control can save us all from the ongoing financial crisis and only the government can put American’s back to work.’ That and more was all there in the “fine print” for all of us to “read.”

It’s safe to assume that many people who voted for candidate Obama did not look beyond the rhetoric and charisma to “read” the fine print. Those who did and still voted for candidate Obama probably fall into two categories: 1) those who like the idea of an all-powerful government that would “take care of them” and 2) those who understood the implied socialism in what candidate Obama was saying and assumed that it was all just political rhetoric — like in every election — and not to be taken too seriously. After all who would seriously think that a new president would dare to even consider turning the United States economy and culture into something resembling a European country’s?

It’s time to face the consequences — next time “read the fine print”

Chicago Tribune: U.S. unemployment rate may be more than 10 percent already

Bloomberg: “ U.S. Commercial Construction to Drop 16% This Year, Report Says

Reuters: Waves of job losses sap U.S. states’ budgets

It’s apparent from President Obama’s weekly radio address (taped this week in Italy) that he does not see the same things as the majority of American’s see.

We see unemployment at a near record high and those who believed in Obama (according to every poll) losing their confidence. He sees a recovery act that is taking the country “in the right direction.”

His most astounding statement however was this:

“I realize that when we passed this Recovery Act, there were those who felt that doing nothing was somehow an answer. Today, some of those same critics are already judging the effort a failure although they have yet to offer a plausible alternative.”

Two more Obama lies — blatant lies — in a two sentence quote. NO ONE with any credibility whatsoever has ever said that “doing nothing” was an answer to the economic problems and the most obvious approach to resolving the crisis HAS been suggested hundreds of times; i.e., give businesses incentives to grow and hire by cutting corporate taxes and easing some of the regulation.

But what does Obama do? He starts a new WPA (Works Progress Administration); sure he’s created a bunch of new jobs, but they’re all government jobs being paid for by our much overworked and now practically worthless tax dollars. That’s not boosting the economy — that’s growing the government and in Obama’s reality that’s all that matters and the only thing that works.

Then, as a topper, in Obama’s ‘Alternate Reality’ he grabs hold of the thoroughly disenfranchised “global warming” theory (see John Stossel’s article: “The Global Warming Myth?”) and pushes forward an ADDITIONAL TAX on the economy — the “Cap and Trade” (or as his critics have correctly named it, the ‘Cap and Tax’) Legislation (see: the Washington Post article, “Cap-and-Trade: All Cost, No Benefit”).

President Obama and his lap dogs in the Congress are putting the U.S. Economy into a hopeless downward spiral; creating new legislation that will obviously make it worse; guaranteeing, through ‘cap and trade,’ that the United States will loose millions more jobs when employers have no choice but to move their operations to countries that are more friendly to business; and then he asks for “more time to allow it all to work.”

Perhaps “Alternate Reality” is not the right name for it — perhaps Obama missed the “sign post” that warned him he was entering the “Twilight Zone.”

Browsing through the comments section of an MSNBC article titled: Congress: The centrist threat? The subject of government run healthcare came up. Many people displayed that ‘feed me,’ ‘heal me,’ ‘take care of me’ attitude about that shows how little they respect themselves and how little they care about the people who actually pay for their food, healthcare and whatever else. But just about as many expressed their discontent with the prospect of even more “nannycare”. In my view, the following comment by Mr. Charles Morrison of Atlanta, GA provides the most compelling argument against the prospect of our government controlling the healthcare system:

“I keep hearing people talk about how good universal health care is. Why can’t people see what is staring them in the face? Currently the government controls the VA Hospitals. Go ask a Veteran how good that system is working. I got out of the Marines in 2007 with 11 years of service to this fine nation. Needless to say, my military medical record is full of detailed information regarding all service related injuries and ailments, yet the government run VA tells me that the 2 compressed discs in my back are NOT service related when they occurred while I was carrying gear while with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). My shoulder injuries that occurred while in Iraq (for which I had two (2) reconstructive surgeries) also did not happen while in the military in accordance with the VA. Both of these items I have mentioned above are noted in great detail in my medical records. So while I wake up every morning in pain, the government run VA hospital says none of this occurred or is related to my military service. Now if a relatively small government run heath care system like the VA Hospital is being run in this manner, why on Earth would anyone believe for a moment that the government would do a better job on such a grand scale that would be required to run the hospitals for an entire nation?

If you really want to bring the costs of health care down, look at the real cause. Health care costs a lot because doctors and hospital have to pay for liability insurance. Liability insurance costs them so much because if a patient is disgruntled in any way what so ever, they file suit in the hopes of making a buck for free. If we are really serious about bringing health care costs down, we need to look at reforming or putting restrictions on a litigation happy nation.

Thankfully there are still some people like Mr. Morrison who can apply the logic of personal experience to the ridiculous prospect of bureaucrats providing our healthcare in a manner as inefficiently as they do everything else. In this gentleman’s case, he is in a situation that would cause many people to just give up on the government — but he hasn’t given up, he’s speaking out and even suggesting ways to fix its problems.

For our own survival as a truly free people and for the survival of our nation, we must all speak out, we must get rid of our bloated government and stop electing the kind of dunderheads (in Congress AND the Executive Branch) who promote destructive ideas such as National Healthcare when what they should be focusing on is the REAL reasons healthcare is so expensive: two of which are the liability litigation mentioned in the quote and also government’s own over-regulation of all medical-related industries.

In May 2007, All of the facts that can be gleaned through the news media indicate that the OAS (Organization of American States) is acting irresponsibly. They have called the ousting of former Honduran President Zelaya a “military coup” when the facts clearly indicate that the Honduran Supreme Court ordered the military to remove Zelaya after he insisted on pushing for a referendum that could have removed the current one-term limit for the presidency and allowed him to run for reelection.

Excerpts from a BBC background article on the situation in Honduras:

“Mr Zelaya planned to hold a non-binding public consultation on 28 June to ask people whether they supported moves to change the constitution.

This would in practice have meant holding a referendum at the same time as November’s presidential election on setting up a body charged with redrawing the constitution.

Mr Zelaya’s critics said the move was aimed at removing the current one-term limit on serving as president, and paving the way for his possible re-election.

The consultation was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court and Congress, and was opposed by the army.

“. . . tension had been brewing in Honduras over recent months. Mr Zelaya sacked the head of the armed forces, who refused to give logistical support for the 28 June vote. The Supreme Court overruled him, saying the army chief should be reinstated.

When Mr Zelaya insisted the referendum would go ahead, Congress voted to remove him for what it called “repeated violations of the constitution and the law”, and the Supreme Court said it had ordered the president to be removed from office to protect law and order.

“. . . Mr Zelaya, who came to office in 2006, had been moving the country steadily leftwards, enjoying the support of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other left-wing leaders in the region.

This appears to have alarmed certain sectors in Honduras, who decried his plans for constitutional change as an attempt to stay in power.

For his part, Mr Zelaya argued that the consultation on Sunday would merely have been a survey: a canvassing of public opinion, not a legally-binding election. He told the BBC that legal disputes and political differences were no excuse for staging a coup.

So we have the Honduran Congress, the Honduran Military and the Honduran Supreme Court in one corner — doing what they felt was the right thing for the country — and in the opposite corner we have the OAS, Latin American dictators and almost all the other mostly socialist countries in the world, including our own socialist-leaning president Barack Obama, insisting that the Congress and the Supreme Court of a sovereign country were wrong and should bend to their will.

Something about the whole thing stinks. Perhaps it’s Zelaya’s politics!

Read this BBC profile of Zelaya and you’ll see what I mean; here are just a couple excerpts:

“Despite his centre-right credentials, the former businessman moved Honduras away from its traditional ally the US, winning the support of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other leftist leaders.

Mr Zelaya campaigned for office on a law and order ticket but, Reuters news agency reports, it remains a major drug-trafficking transit point, overrun by street gangs and violent crime.

. . .

“He pledged to tackle gang warfare and poverty in one of Central America’s poorest nations.

But food prices rose and violent crime continued.

Publicly backed by such leftists as Mr Chavez, Bolivian President Evo Morales and former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, Mr Zelaya began to lose the support of his own party.

Mr Zelaya ordered all of the country’s TV and radio stations to carry government propaganda for two hours a day, accusing them of giving his government unfair coverage. “

A plague of unkept promises, a burgeoning relationship with dictators and then a typical leftist move to stay in power after he would have been removed by the country’s Constitution.

I do believe the current Honduran Government did the right thing.

Do you like the idea of a bank that works for you, one that can create specialized financial products that suit your needs? Well your president says ‘fugetaboutit’! Under Obama’s newly proposed Federal Consumer Protection Agency, banks will no longer be in business to meet meet your individual needs, they will be under strict control of the Federal government and will be directed to only meet the needs of the Americans who know the least about financial matters.

Why this drastic measure? Well, the government thinks that most people may be too dumb to know when they can or can’t afford something and too dumb to be able to make individual decisions about their finances. They may be right — most people were dumb enough to elect a president who made it very clear during his campaign that individuals are much less important than the masses.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says “This agency will have only one mission — to protect consumers,” but that’s a lie! This agency has another, more important mission: to gain complete control of the banking industry. Under the Federal Consumer Protection Agency, in the words of Ed Yingling, president and chief executive of the American Bankers Association, “Basically, the government is deciding what every bank in every circumstance should offer.”

There are cases, of course, where individuals ARE too ignorant about financial matters to know what’s best for them but the problem with this new agency — as well as EVERY government agency — is, we will ALL, once the legislation passes, be in the same category. No individuality is allowed, no risk taking allowed for those who enjoy taking risks and another step in the direction that got this country way off course in the beginning, no personal responsibility.

A milestone in this trend of doing away with personal responsibility was when the government decided to buckle under to the insurance industry and force, under penalty of law, every driver to wear a seatbelt. The thought process was that the government’s role was not only to protect people from other people — people must be protected from themselves.

I guess, on a personal note, what bothers and depresses me most about this agency and this ‘no personal responsibility’ trend are that most people seem to be OK with it!

Here are links that will help you learn more about the Federal Consumer Protection Agency:

From Injuryboard.com: New Agency – One Mission- To Protect Consumers

From the Wall Street Journal: Consumer Protection on Wide Scale

Unless the California legislature finds a way to balance the state’s budget today (July 1st) everyone who receives money from the state, state employees, contractors, welfare recipients, etc., will receive IOUs in their ‘pay envelopes’ instead of money. Why? Because the California Constitution requires (demands) a balanced budget every year.

Why the state budget got out of whack is explained very well by Associated Press Writer Eric Carvin in an article published in the Southern Ledger titled: Meltdown 101: California’s budgetary troubles.

Mr. Carvin explains that one thing that got California in trouble in the first place was:

“Lawmakers and voters have agreed to higher levels of spending over the years without identifying a dedicated funding source. Over time, that means the state’s general fund has had more obligations than it can afford to pay.”

Requiring a balanced budget, as the California Constitution does, is a great thing but electing irresponsible lawmakers, as California apparently has done, is the worst way to meet that Constitutional requirement.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to solve the problem by cutting spending, say what you want about the “Governator” but he is a very logical thinker; according to Mr. Carvin’s article, the governor wants to cut $16 billion from state programs, borrow $2 billion from local governments and borrow about $6 billion from other government accounts. It’s not a solution but a stop-gap measure.

The Democratic majority in California’s legislature however have a typical Democratic resolution to the problem in mind; from the article:

“Democrats have countered with $11 billion in cuts and nearly $2.5 billion in higher taxes, primarily on tobacco products and companies that drill for oil in California. They also want a $15 increase in the vehicle registration fee, which already was raised earlier this year, to ensure that state parks remain open.

“Schwarzenegger and Republican lawmakers have steadfastly refused to raise taxes after the state Legislature approved nearly $13 billion in higher sales, personal income and vehicle taxes earlier this year.”

Kudos to the governor and the Republican’s who refuse to raise taxes any more than they have.

Shift focus for a second to Washington DC and think about what the President is doing with the Federal budget. Rather than proposing massive budget cuts like Governor Schwarzenegger has done, or any responsible president would have done, President Obama is on a spending spree. He’s putting the country trillions of dollars in debt and why not — he can do something that no governor can do — he can print money. Of course that makes our money worth much less — and by the time he’s through — unless the congress or us voters give him a swift kick in the rear and bring him to his senses — our money may be completely worthless. I guess the president plans to worry about that later.

Since January I’ve been wondering if an individual can secede from the union . . . at least temporarily!

I’ve always been an anti-union guy, mainly because unionization all but eliminates individual incentives to achieve. The concept of providing the biggest raises and bonuses based on performance is a basic (and necessary) concept for any business that wants to be successful — this makes unionization a formula for failure.

I know that back when unions were first conceived and formed they WERE necessary because working conditions in many shops were beyond disgusting, they were dangerous and many people ran their businesses like slave-owners ran their plantations. In truth there are, without a doubt, still some (possibly many) businesses that provide sub-standard wages and terrible, dangerous working conditions; the people who work in this kind of place are usually either so unskilled they have few other choices or are, in some other way, locked into working there. These people DO need unions but will never get them without walking out and refusing to work until the pay and conditions are improved.

Beyond these special situations, however, unionization is the most counterproductive step a business can take. A look at what the unions have done to the auto industry should be all the proof you need.

To me, what is most reprehensible about unions is their ability to buy politicians — and that is not an exaggerated claim. This Investors Business Daily Editorial about the proposed National Health Care plan supports this notion of unions having politicians “in their pockets”. A key excerpt:

“Spending a trillion dollars as a down payment for a government takeover of health care is a dream of many Democrats. The current plan in Congress would create a government insurance plan that would drive out the private ones.

The problem, though, is the cost. Even moderate Democrats are having second thoughts about that, as well as all the quality problems associated with socialized medicine. Even so, health care nationalization’s biggest boosters are cooking up bad new plans.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., both would like to slap a tax on private health plans to pay for a new government one.

But they’ve carved out one very big exception: unions and their gold-plated benefit packages. This effectively gives Big Labor an advantage in the market and forces nonunion workers to subsidize unions for their share of this bad idea.

The logic behind this tax giveaway is that union health plans, which are lavish, would be subject to higher taxes than those of workers with regular private sector health care plans.

According to news reports, if unions get a special tax break for themselves on health care taxes, they’ll gladly muscle “their” Congress members into supporting a “public option” health care bill.

In short, it’s little more than a political payoff to unions for spending $400 million in campaign cash to elect Democrats to Congress and the White House last year. As if the outrageous favors they’ve received from the auto bailouts aren’t enough.

This article, pointing out the unions influence on “THEIR” congresspeople is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg. Literally hundreds of special interest groups are OWED FAVORS by those in the House and Senate (Republicans as well as Democrats) who accepted their generous “donations;” and those favors are being granted daily — by us — through the use of our tax dollars. While on the subject, let’s not forget our president who is eagerly ‘paying back’ unions, for helping to get him elected, by pushing “card check.”

Having crooks and lowlifes in the seat of government with their focus primarily on winning their NEXT election seems to me to be a very stupid way to run a country!

My other homes for my posts are: The Blogger News Network — it’s real news from real people and Opinion Forum A Forum for Opinions on News, Politics, and Life.

“It’s up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be . . . having said that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television.”

President Barack Obama

In the wake of the Iranian election, hundreds of thousands of supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi are taking their very lives in their hands to protest the election result which saw Mahmoud Ahmadinejad retain his presidency by a large margin. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has threatened “bloodshed” if the protests continue — but they do continue and who can guess how far this will go.

I, like Mousavi’s supporters, think the election was probably, somehow, rigged; but I find myself in complete agreement (do wonders never cease?) with President Obama on the proper American response to that election (quoted above); i.e., let Tehran know how we feel about the attempted silencing of the protesters and about the blood that has already been shed by the Iranian “Nazi” army and leave it at that.

President Obama also went on to say something else, he said: “It’s not productive, given the history of U.S. Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling.” That probably need not have been said — since it can be portrayed as weakness — but it is an excellent internal White House policy.

John McCain, ever the 21st Century man, “twittered” his feelings to the Iran situation: “Mass peaceful demonstrations in Iran today, lets support them & stand up for Democracy and freedom! President & his Admin should do the same.” McCain didn’t really specify what form that “support” should take but one feels that he is advocating a covert but active role in the forces behind Mousavi. Many, many other Conservative politicians and especially commentators feel as McCain does — they seem to want us to motivate an uprising against the Theocratic government, but it is pig-headed blindness like that that may lead us into another unwinnable situation. McCain and the others fail to understand what the Middle-East experts are saying about Mousavi; he does not desire a change in government, he only advocates a change in the “tone” of government — he wants to join the 21st Century and take the theocracy with him; with mullahs in charge that will likely never happen but that seems to be his game plan. That’s just one reason any involvement in the Iranian situation on our part, with the objective of drastic change, would certainly be a lose-lose situation for the U.S.A..

Aside from the Iranian election aftermath its well past time for the U.S. to stop stirring the “lets spread some more democracy” pot. I’m sure it gives the majority of Americans a warm and fuzzy feeling inside to be able to say we are the saviors of oppressed people around the world but the President has it absolutely right — it’s meddling and it’s no more correct for us to meddle in other countries politics than it would be for them to meddle in ours.

One final thought: The best friend you could have had in High School when trouble came your way was that 6′ 5″, 200 lb football player standing next to you looking imposing and invulnerable; he was a friendly, happy, non-judgemental guy but everyone knew that if he was provoked he could be as vicious as a grizzly bear. In the eyes of the world, the U.S. needs to emulate that football player. Unfortunately, that possibility is unlikely as a change in the “face” of Iran; President Obama does not appear to be a man with a mind of his own. Whatever public opinion suggests and whatever his advisors lobby for will be our constantly-changing policy.

News Links:

Voice of America: Obama: Iran Must Stop ‘Violent and Unjust Actions’

Washington Post: Cautious Response Reflects Obama’s Long-Term Approach

Blog Links:

Mind Your Own Damn Business Politics: Obama’s response to Iranian protestors correct; I was wrong

The Kansas Progress: Paul Wolfowitz on Obama, Iran: No Comment is not an option

My other homes for my posts are: The Blogger News Network — it’s real news from real people and Opinion Forum A Forum for Opinions on News, Politics, and Life.

We all know how the current economic crisis began right? Maybe not right! I emphasized “current” because what we are seeing now really began some decades ago but if you understand the current situation and the forces leading up to it you will be able to look back and clearly see the basic problem.

Following shortly will be an excerpt from a short essay that illuminates the source of the problem. The essay is titled: Misrepresenting “How We Arrived at This Moment” and is written by Alex Epstein an analyst focusing on business issues at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

I can hear some of you moaning at the mention of Ayn Rand’s name; that either indicates that all you know about her is that she’s a fiction author or it indicates that you know that she, and her acolytes, after her death, are the country’s most vocal spokesmen for the free market and you don’t believe the free market works. In either case you’re wrong. Ayn Rand was much, much more than an author, she was a philosopher, a visionary and, even though she was born and raised in Russia, she was one of the most dedicated American patriots of her time. As for the free market; many (or most) of you who are reading this have never seen a truly free market in operation — there hasn’t been one for forty or fifty years.

Getting back to the economic crisis and to Alex Epstein’s essay: Lets start out with Epstein’s central thesis: The misdirection and misrepresentation we receive from our President; Epstein argues that Obama believes that the reason our economy is in a crisis situation is because the market, leading up to this crisis, was too free. It needed controls, direction and, most of all, regulation.

Obama has never once mentioned the fact that it was the Federal government’s systematic manipulation of the financial and housing markets that led to today’s crisis. Think back, you’ll remember this: the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to all-time lows to “stimulate the economy”; so mortgage lenders now had cheap loans that they could make and people came in droves to apply for mortgages. The only hitch was that the mortgage lenders had standards that they had to apply and many people could not qualify for home loans, based on their income. Some say that the federal government forced mortgage lenders to lower their standards so that more people could own homes, others say that the mortgage lenders didn’t need to be coerced they just wanted to suck in every potential customer they had with the low initial rate mortgages, rates that would be “adjusted” later. Either way it was the government stimulation of the economy through the lowest interest rates in decades that started the ball rolling toward the eventual collapse of the housing market when the loans that shouldn’t have been made, defaulted.

Epstein considers the cause and effect and a possible (but, alas, improbable) solution:

“. . . a genuine explanation of the financial crisis must take into account all the facts. What role did the Fed play? What about Fannie and Freddie? To be sure, some companies and CEOs seem to have made irrational business decisions. Was the primary cause “greed,” as so many claim — and what does this even mean? Or was the primary cause government intervention like artificially low interest rates, which distorted economic decision-making and encouraged less competent and more reckless companies and CEOs while marginalizing and paralyzing the more competent ones?

“Entertaining such questions would also mean considering the idea that the fundamental solution to our problems is to disentangle the government from the markets to prevent future manipulation. It would mean considering pro-free-market remedies such as letting banks foreclose, letting prices reach market levels, letting bad banks fail, dismantling Fannie and Freddie, ending bailout promises, and getting rid of the Fed’s power to manipulate interest rates.”

Epstein’s solution: getting the government out of the markets and allowing those who fail to fail so those who succeed can succeed, is something we may never see and will certainly never see under an anti-free market president like Obama (and, to be fair, just as we never saw it under the other recent presidents who were manipulators and not true believers in free and unfettered markets: Bush, Clinton and Bush (41).

So Obama is forging on to add more controls (government controls) to every market: financial, housing, health care, education, and so on. If unchecked, there is only one place this can lead; it will certainly lead to statism. Obviously the situation President Obama is dealing with was not of his making but the choices he is making are setting a disastrous course for this country and its economy. Unless our course is changed, your children’s children will never know the America that we grew up in.

I guess the moral of the story is: next time, be more careful who you vote for!

News Links:

ABC News: Obama to Outline Biggest Regulatory Overhaul Since 1930s

Daily Finance: IMF sees economic crisis getting worse, others expect recovery

Blog Links:

PUMABydesign001’s Blog: Congress Unlikely to Reform Root Cause of Economic Crisis! But we already knew that, didn’t we?

Mostly Economics: Obama to announce Financial sector reforms yet again

My other homes for my posts are: The Blogger News Network — it’s real news from real people and Opinion Forum A Forum for Opinions on News, Politics, and Life.