The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower {becomes} the lender's slave.In the Wall Street Journal, Stuart Varney opines about the possible reasons behind the Obama administrations refusal of TARP repayment from a large and prominent bank. My comment, and that passage from Proverbs, sum up the article fairly well.
-- Proverbs 22:7, NASB
Since this whole TARP mess began there have been rumblings about the Treasury forcing (at the point of a figurative gun) banks to accept this bailout money. We now start to see the inevitable ex post facto strings being attached to these funds and many banks want out. This is fine for small banks, apparently, but not for large banks. Varney explains why in the article.
There have been some (I won't name names) with whom I've discussed this who when faced pronounced the forcing of TARP money to be bunk. Their smug response to this was, "Well, if they don't want it they can just give it back." The fact that there were no news reports about this confirmed that these banks really did need the money, and were therefore not forced to take it. Well, if you're reading, you're wrong. At least one prominent bank did not want the TARP money, was forced to accept it, and is not now permitted to return it even with interest.
Neither Varney nor Napolitano (see the article) are willing to reveal the name of the bank. This is wise, as this bank would likely face political retribution from the White House and Congress. I suspect it is Wells Fargo, but I don't know enough about the banking industry to have any real idea.
It's time to call this what it is: fascism. The state, without taking ownership of capital, is dictating its uses. We see this with TARP and with this auto bailout nonsense. This won't be the first American experiment in fascism, but I hope there is enough popular outrage to stop this one in its tracks.
Many of you know that I twice voted for George W. Bush. I don't regret either vote, considering the alternatives, but I was deeply disappointed by this bailout nonsense. Of course George W. Bush was no free-market fundamentalist, as he has been labeled by the ignorant media. President Bush's campaign in 2000 was "compassionate conservatism." This is, and always has been code for "big-government conservatism." Big government is antithetical to a free-market (and liberty, for that matter). I have recognized for a number of years that where George W. Bush departed from free-market and small-government principles he was acting exactly as he said he would during his campaigns. He in no way deceived anyone; he, along with Congress, abandoned the principles of the base of the Republican party, told us what they were doing, and got elected. Then they went and did what they said they would, and now we're mad at them.
All of that is to say this: for eight years there have been very few viable candidates to represent those who want less government. We've had to settle for those who want a government to grow a little slower. Its time for the people to pick up where Reagan left off and either find or build a party that will commit to shrinking the government. Even Newt Gingrich is speculating about a third party.
In four years we'll be luck if we have any liberty remaining. We've already seen ex post facto laws proposed to confiscate income (not to mention the fact that it was also a writ of attainder). Remember: wealth confiscation. We're keep hearing about the return of the "fairness doctrine" with explicit references to taking shows like Rush Limbaugh's off the air. And we have the Deputy Solicitor General arguing that, under McCain-Feingold, the Federal government has the authority to censor any book or movie it likes. Remember: suppression of dissent.
Time is running out, and I hope we're not too late already.
