More about the unconstitutional bailout legislation

There has been a lot of interest in the constitutionality of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) and the TARP funds. I see a lot of Internet searches about this. George Will has a very good piece in the Washington Post about this topic:

By enacting it, Congress did not in any meaningful sense make a law. Rather, it made executive branch officials into legislators. Congress said to the executive branch, in effect: "Here is $700 billion. You say you will use some of it to buy up banks' 'troubled assets.' But if you prefer to do anything else with the money -- even, say, subsidize automobile companies -- well, whatever."

FreedomWorks, a Washington-based libertarian advocacy organization, argues that EESA violates "the nondelegation doctrine." Although the text does not spell it out, the Constitution's logic and structure -- particularly the separation of powers -- imply limits on the size and kind of discretion that Congress may confer on the executive branch.

One of the beauties of the U.S. Constitution is separation of the three branches of power: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. With EESA, Congress is giving the president unconstitutional powers by allowing him to write the specifics of the law, i.e. how the money is to be appropriated. That should be Congress' job!

Taxpaying citizens like you and I ought to be enraged by this! It's evident that we have a lazy Congress bowing to the demands of a fear-mongering President. And now the next two or more generations of Americans are to pay for the astronomical debt -- bought up by the billions by Communist China. The consequences of ignoring the Constitution is grave...

Rising inequalities in America?

Here's more evidence of liberals high on President Obama's multi-trillion dollar budget proposal. E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post griping about inequalities:

The central issue in American politics now is whether the country should reverse a three-decade long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth.

Politicians will say lots of things in the coming weeks, but they should be pushed relentlessly to address the bottom-line question: Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy? Everything else is a subsidiary issue.

Dionne and many liberals seem to lack a clear understanding of capitalism. Capitalism works when the individual has the will and opportunities to work hard and accumulate wealth. Everyone can have the same opportunities, but not everyone has the will. Liberals tend to forget this facet and bring in the government as the Great Equalizer. That is socialism, not capitalism.

Capitalism is never fair because there will always be lazy punks who make the wrong decisions and waste their talents. Socialism wants to be fair, but that means taking money from the responsible members of society and feeding it to the lazy punks. No, thanks.

Government, please just stay out of the way. All I want is economic freedom and opportunities to work for my wealth.

The action Democrats need, Obama's fear-mongering

That ought to be the title of President Obama's article in the Washington Post. The President laments:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

First of all, nobody is saying that tax cuts is the only solution to this crisis. The opposing Republicans just want more tax cuts -- let it be a significant part of the stimulus. The Democrats just want to spend, spend, spend.

Obama tries to re-ignite the flame of change during his campaign, but you know what? Season's over. Now he's in the White House so he better own up to the mistakes and criticisms. Obama is not delivering a message of change. Here he is delivering a message of fear.

WaPo defends unions and criminal trespass

When an article titled "Unions Aren't the Problem" shows up, you know it's going to be entertaining and amusing to read. Marie Cocco of the Washington Post graciously provides us the intellectual stimulation we need this morning...

I do agree with her on the original intention of unions:

Creating a viable middle class has been the goal of organized labor since labor first became organized. And it is this goal that was abandoned outright by American political and business leaders as they did all they could over the past three decades to encourage a relentless race to the bottom in wages and benefits.

So what happened? Like many organizations, unions became powerful and its leaders turned into mob bosses with influence over politicians and businessmen. And when one is sitting at the top with so much power, more than likely the person wouldn't want to leave and would do anything to remain at the top, including abusing its members.

Also, Cocco doesn't think personal financial responsibility applies to the middle class:

Strip away the financial mumbo jumbo and the credit crisis comes down to this: For decades, as wages and benefits for working and middle-class people stagnated or fell, the only way for them to purchase the goods that make the economy hum was through credit. This was true whether the item purchased was a home, a car -- or all the unnecessary gizmos that retailers have been more than happy to tell consumers were the must-haves of the day. Until we understand that we are in the midst of two crises -- one the short-term credit crisis and one the longer-term crisis in the failure to pay workers what they need to sustain themselves -- we are doomed to repeat this horror.

Why are people buying everything through credit? Cars, furniture, electronics -- everything is financed! My parents raised me to only buy what you have the cash for and try your best to avoid debt. That BMW is a sweet ride, but if I only have the money to buy a used Ford Escort then that's what I'll be driving for a few years. Our economy shouldn't hum on credit. It should hum on cash purchases!

And is she condoning trespass?

This is why we can only hope that events such as the unfolding peaceful occupation of a Chicago window factory by its newly laid-off workers is the start of something much, much bigger.

Laid-off workers returning to work, except it's not work because they are actually disrupting the actual paid workers the company kept. What nonsense is this?! Why aren't they scouring newspapers and researching online to find work instead of wasting time harassing their former employer? Move. On. Please.

Calls against Hillary as State Secretary

Hillary is being vetted as a candidate for Secretary of State in the Obama administration, but there are many out there who do not like the idea. David Ignatius explains in the Washington Post blog:

The game changer in foreign policy is Barack Obama himself. Traveling in Europe earlier this month, I was stunned by the excitement he has aroused. The day after the election, the French newspaper “Le Monde” carried a cartoon atop its front page that showed Obama surfing a red, white and blue wave. Above him, it said: “Happy New Century!” You can sense the same enthusiasm around the world -- in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia. Even among the followers of radical groups, such as Hamas and the Taliban, Obama has inspired a sense of change and opportunity.

Furthermore, Ignatius worries about Hillary stealing Obama's thunder in foreign policy should she become Secretary of State. I hate to say it but with Obama's thin resume, almost any Washington politico would steal Obama's thunder if appointed to a post.

I applaud Obama's effort to unify his party, but I can't help but wonder if this move is to keep his enemies closer? Besides, we all know that Hillary voted for McCain/Palin, right?

Latest bailout saves UAW, not Big Auto

Another bailout package is in the works in Congress, one that's even less popular but that's not stopping the Democrats from pushing for it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said a government lifeline would be provided only if the auto industry meet new fuel-efficiency standards and restructure to limit executive compensation. Of course, there is no mention of concessions from the United Auto Workers (UAW) union.

We all know that the Democrats are good buddies with the UAW. This bailout will infuse fresh blood into the dying General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler so that the UAW can drain them some more. Big Auto already knows to make better, fuel-efficient cars. They came late to the green game and are paying the price. But the root of the problem is unionized labor in the auto industry. It's interesting how Jeffrey D. Sachs never mentions this in his Washington Post article. Michael E. Levine, writing for WSJ, is on the right track: Why bankruptcy is the best option for GM.

WaPo admits unequal campaign coverage, but doesn't sound sorry

Is this an apology or gloating? I'm reading the article by Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell, and I don't get a sense that she thinks it's embarrassing that the newspaper tilted Obama's way in political coverage. She reveals all the evidence of pro-Obama coverage and unwillingness to dig deeper into stories which potentially hurt their candidate, but still gives the journalists -- writers, rather -- a pat on the back.