Count'em! Seven Bailouts this Year!

Since Congress couldn’t pass a bipartisan bill to help out the auto industry, the White House passed a loan to the “Big Three” on December 19^th. The 17.4 billion that was approved was a redistribution of funds from the “financial bailout” that was passed earlier this year. Since it was already appropriated, the Executive Branch has the authority to put a portion of that to the auto industry.

As much as I hate to admit it, President Bush has a point. The auto industry has gotten so big; to not bail them out would be a huge blow to our overall economy. It has gotten to a point where we have to avoid a recession/depression by (once again) trying to prop up a failing industry with federal funding. This will have been the seventh time this year that our federal government has gotten involved in the private markets by buying up bad debt incurred by incompetent companies. The use of this type of policy has almost doubled in one year. Prior to our current situation the use of a bailout has only been used eight times since 1970. We can’t do this forever

Is our government trying to nationalize certain industries? The way our government is spending our tax money, buying up huge portions of certain industries; that question has suddenly become a valid one.

Or is our federal government giving out bailouts because they’re too ignorant to realize that there is a deeper underlying problem that is our Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System weakens our dollar by inflating our money supply and therefore weakens our entire economy to include, eventually, huge corporations. Do they think that this extra money, this extra “band aid” is going to solve the problem? Get real. Look deeper Congress.

A bailout from our Federal Government means giving out tax money. Since our Federal Government overspends yearly, the Federal Reserve ends up printing more money further weakening the dollar, which further weakens our US purchasing power, which in the end kills businesses. It’s a cycle that turns into a slow death. Our only saving grace will be if the Ford, GM, and Chrysler CEOs show signs of competence and use the bailout money efficiently and responsibly. I would like to see signs of this, but all I see is them, in front of Congress, rebuking the idea to even lower their own salaries to help the overall health of their companies.

They finally offered to lower their salaries to $1 a year after incessant prodding from a congressional panel. I mean, it’s not like their going to go broke. They still have millions tied in stock options. If they follow the example of Steve Jobs (Apple) or Jeffrey Katzenberg (Dreamworks) maybe they’ll have a reason to work harder for their companies.

In earlier times, when a company went broke, it was the CEO and owners that suffered the worst end of it. I’ve got a feeling if we (ever) let GM, Ford, or Chrysler cease to exist or if they (ever) file for bankruptcy, Henry Ford, Allan Mulally, Robert Nardelli, and Richard Wagoner Jr. are going to be just fine. It’s the factory worker that’s going to see hard times.

Works Cited:

Paul, Ron. "Auto Bailout Speech." Youtube.com. 10 Dec. 2008. 28 Dec. 2008 .

Mayerowitz, Scott. "The Other Side of the $1 Salary." Weblog post. Abcnew.com. 3 Dec. 2008. 28 Dec. 2008 .

Steinhauser, Paul. "Poll: Public OK with auto bailout, but no more aid." Transition of Power. 23 Dec. 2008. CNN. 28 Dec. 2008 .

Bush Jr., George W. "Re: Auto Bailout is the "Responsibile" move." Audio blog comment. Auto Bailout is the "Responsibile" move. 20 Dec. 2008. 28 Dec. 2008 .

The Bush Shoe Throwing Incident...

Now, I'm sure you've seen the shoe throwing incident since it's been played over and over again the past week and a half. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm actually going to defend our (sad, lonely...insert depressing adjective here) President here. I just hate the way the media is spinning it.

On December 14th, President Bush took his first trip outside of the Green Zone (Baghdad area) in Iraq. During this trip, an Iraqi journalist, named Muntadar al-Zaidi, threw his shoes at President Bush. He was quickly detained, thrown from the room and has been subsequently arrested and faces up to two years for this "crime." (By the way, here it is if you haven't seen it yet).



Now, most media around the world has viewed this as another huge black eye to our "lame duck" leader. I think the contrary. I think President Bush was actually on the money after the incident. He says that it’s basically normal for him, as a world leader, to be ridiculed. Now the shoe throwing has been a very public act of protest, but I actually have to agree with our President on this one. But, viewing it in our cultural context, having a shoe thrown at you in the Middle East is like being flipped off or as in Dick Cheney's case, being told to go f*ck yourself.



It's even happened to President Bush in our own country.



My point is if we have set up such a "free" society in Iraq, Muntadar al-Zaidi shouldn't be facing two years in an Iraqi prison. It's not that big of deal, we already know that embarrassing moments comes with this administration.

If Iraq would let this man go, it would be a sign that Iraq is truely free.


Works Cited:

Londoño, Ernesto. (2008, December 23). Shoe-Thrower Is Called Defiant. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from WashingtonPost.com: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/22/AR2008122200371.html?wprss=rss_world

UPI. (2008, December 18). Man seeks leniency for Bush shoe-throwing. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from UPI: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/18/Man_seeks_leniency_for_Bush_shoe-throwing/UPI-82821229629478/

Check this out...

I'm not submitting this as part of my final, but check it out. Ron Paul schooling all of us years ago (Alan Greenspan was still the chairman of the Federal Reserve) about the dangers of our credit and monetary policy. It's coming true!!

Our Government's Basic Problem Solving Skills...

So, I haven't been able to get back on my economic soapbox in awhile but President-elect (it will be nice for him to be inaugurated already) but the appointment of Timothy Gaither as the new Secretary of Treasury goes to show the fundamental problem of our government's problem solving skills.

When there is a major problem with something, why does our government ask the person who screwed it up how to fix it? Wouldn't the wiser thing be to ask the person who warned of and predicted the outcome of the flawed policy in the first place? I don't know, I think I would be more inclined to listen to them.

Mr. Gaither, and current Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson hammered out the first bailout with the financial sector. However, there were some major flaws that have recently come to light with the help of Congressman Ron Paul:

1. They made up the loan by just having the Federal Reserve loan it out which meant the Federal Reserve just printed more money, devaluing the dollar.

2. Nothing in the passing in the loan (that Congress approved) stated that the Federal Reserve, Congress, or the U.S. Treasury Dept. is responsible for any of the oversight that should come with a loan of $750 billion dollars.

So, we have $750 billion dollars that went out by the US Government to certain financial institutions, (with the same leadership that got them in trouble in the first place) with no control on how the money is spent, that can potentially decimate the current value of the US dollar. This is only an opinion, but I think history will remember this bailout as a poor decision.

Gaither, as the Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, was a big part in the financial bailout, and now President-elect Obama wants to make him the next Secretary of Treasury. Why look to someone to fix the problem that he helped cause? If there are certain individuals that predicted that this was going to happen, why not look to them?

Ron Paul has warned on and on about Central Government tinkering with the economy. He believed years ago that we were heading for massive inflation by basing our economy through a Federal Reserve that Congress has NO control over. That's right, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 prevents Congress from auditing the Federal Reserve.

Congressman Paul's position on the dangers of Central Banking comes from his mentors, Austrian Economists, Freidrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Hans Stennholz and Murray Rothbard, all of whom have wrote about the dangers of the highly regulated economy that we have today.



As much as Ron Paul has been mentored under these scholars. It's a wonder why he wasn't considered for Secretary of Treasury. After all, he more than most, understands the strategic flaws in our monetary system and has predicted the predicament that we’re in right now. So, why wouldn’t we look to him for solutions?


Works Cited:

Paul, Ron. "The Neo-Alchemy of the Federal Reserve." Texas Straight Talk. 1 Dec. 2008. 16 Dec. 2008 http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?blog,tx14_paul,blog,999,all,item%20not%20found,id=081201_2549,template=postingdetail.shtml.

Paul, Ron. "The Bailout Surge." Texas Straight Talk. 24 Nov. 2008. 16 Dec. 2008 http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?blog,tx14_paul,blog,999,all,item%20not%20found,id=081124_2545,template=postingdetail.shtml.

Hawes, Matt. "Dr. Paul's House Floor Speech, 12/10/08." Campaign For Liberty. 14 Dec. 2008. 14 Dec. 2008 http://www.campaignforliberty.com/index.php?blogpage=3>.

If the Right to Conscience Law Actually Passes...

So, to continue from my previous post, if the Right of Conscience Law actually passes, can you imagine the ramifications it would have in our society?

If you haven't read up on it, this proposed law would allow doctors and other health professionals the right to refuse health care services based on their personal beliefs.

So, with that, let's play devil's advocate and say we support it and it passes. What would happen? Well, certain doctor's would get their way and we would have certain doctors an health care professionals that would practice medicine under their own personal beliefs, either within a firm or own private practice, without fear of being fired for these moral stances. Sounds great right?

For patients, it would be a whole different story. Remember before abortion was illegal? I predict it would be similar to that. We would have unqualified hacks giving out medications and doing procedures that have NO business practicing. Why? Because people would get desperate to get the medical treatment that they want and deserve. So instead of stopping the behavior and "protecting" their patients, Dr. Moralist would be potentially be promoting more harm than good.





Anybody remember Dirty Dancing?



This proposed law would also tie church and state together like any other law before it. (Since Catholic and Evangelical sects are the ones who seem to benefit the most from a law like this).

So, even trying to Devil's Advocate, I can't see the benefit America would receive by passing this law. This type of ignorance and disrespect of patient's rights needs to stay in the past. It is a total invasion of patient's rights and this bill should be killed on either Congressional floor before it reaches a vote. The Bush Administration should be ashamed as well. America doesn't need to revert back to the 1960's.

The Right of Conscience? What about the Right of Patients?

As of right now, the Bush Administration is trying to push a new Right of Conscience Rule into law. This law will give medicine and healthcare workers more freedom to DENY certain medical procedures that they personally find morally objectionable. This proposed law is much broader than just refusing abortion; “The new rule would go further by making clear that healthcare workers also may refuse to provide information or advice to patients who might want an abortion” (LA Times).

The LA Times also reports that the Health and Human Services Department has also come out with a statement that says “any entity” that receives federal funds would be covered. This can include 4,800 hospitals, 234,000 doctors’ offices and 58,000 pharmacies.

I’m curious to see how the soon-to-be President Obama will react to this. This issue wasn’t brought up much during the election campaign and he side-stepped very skillfully. I believe if this passes and isn’t drawn up right, this law can turn into a HUGE invasion of patient’s rights. This law can potentially “sacrifice patients' health to the religious beliefs of providers” (LA Times).

Eventually, this will have to get resolved. As a patient, if I’m in a public hospital, I should have enough confidence in the medical profession that they can be professional enough to at least offer information of every type of legal procedure that can be offered to me, even though it may conflict with their religious beliefs. (Especially if that facility is federally funded). If a doctor’s personal religious beliefs conflict with mine, we should NOT be having that argument when I’m trying to invoke my right as a patient to receive the care I desire.

I believe the solution is simple; this is the land of the free which includes freedom of religion. I’m not saying that a doctor’s personal beliefs aren’t important; they should have an avenue to practice however they want. If you want to open a private practice or private health clinic that does not offer certain practices based on religious beliefs, so be it, just make sure that is visible and know upon walking in. However, if you work in a federally funded facility, such as a PUBLIC hospital, you should know you can’t deny people the right to certain LEGAL procedures based on your PRIVATE personal beliefs. If it bothers you that much, leave that facility and open your own practice. Now, if the federal government is to give money to private doctors, the same amount of money should be available to doctors on both sides of this private moral argument.

Bottom line; if a patient walks into a PUBLIC hospital or health clinic and decides to protect herself with certain contraceptive measures, that should be HER right, end of story.


Works Cited:

Doss/CNN, David, prod. "Campell Brown: Dec 2, 2008." Campell Brown: No Bull/No Bias. CNN. Atlanta, GA. 2 Dec. 2008.

Savage, David G. "Broader medical refusal rule may go far beyond abortion." National News. 2 Dec. 2008. LA Times. 2 Dec. 2008 .

How come nobody is talking about this?

With Obama in the midst of choosing his cabinet, I'm surprised that there isn't more media emphasis on who he is going to tap to be the next Secretary of the Treasury. I mean, the biggest story in the news is the failing economy right!? So, shouldn't the next prudent story is who the next Secretary of Treasury is going to be? Now, there are articles out there (today) but this very important decision is not getting as much attention as say, the Secretary of State.

Only recently, today really, the media has thrown Timothy Geithner's name out there. I'm worried about this; he's currently the President of the New York Federal Reserve and has been heavily involved in the recent bailouts of the financial sector. This means if he is tapped, we are looking at a huge friend to the current trend of investing the U.S. taxpayer dollars into companies that are going bankrupt. It's incredible how much we're putting our entire economy at risk.

If I was the President elect, I'd look across the isle and see this as a serious opportunity to put a Republican in his Cabinet. The former republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul has great credentials and should be considered for the U.S. Secretary. There are two reasons I think this would be a good this should happen.

One, Ron Paul is a good fit because he is a smart choice politically. Ron Paul would fulfill President-elect Obama's promise to put Republican in his Cabinet yet he does NOT play the partisan game and votes by his own personal conviction.



Two, he has extensive experience and knowledge on the subject of economics. He is on the Joint Economic Committee, the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services and is the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology.

I've got to admit, Ron Paul was my write-in for this election. Out of all of the candidates of the past year, the Ron Paul at the debates spoke to me. Some of his posts on his personal blog and some of his views, like his position on the Iraq war, I strongly disagree with. However, when it comes to current economics and the monetary history of the United States, Ron Paul has few peers.

His view on our current economic system and the reasons it has failed is a stance every one should pay attention to. Please watch the following videos and take time to learn not the details of our current economic dilemma, but the flaws within the entire system:




Here was the hearing he was talking about in the previous video:




So, my question is, why is not this man, who bucks the system, a very independent-minded Republican, and would fit into Pres. Obama's "change" motto, not being considered for the Secretary of Treasury position?

I hope by reading this, it has sparked an interest in the current political power struggle for the future decisions of our economy. There are more videos on this subject at the bottom of my blog.

Works Cited:

SIDOTI/Associated Press, Liz. "Obama's Cabinet slots filling in quickly; Geithner seems in line for treasury secretary." Startribune.com. 22 Nov. 2008. Associated Press. 22 Nov. 2008 http://www.startribune.com/business/34925999.html.

Paul/US House of Representatives, Ron. "Texas Straight Talk." Texas Straight Talk. 22 Nov. 2008. US House of Representatives. 22 Nov. 2008 .

Saxon/US House of Representatives, Jim, ed. "Joint Economic Committee." Joint Economic Commitee. 25 Sept. 2008. House of Representatives. 22 Nov. 2008 http://www.house.gov/jec/.