Friday, December 12, 2008

Bush Aims to Be More Progressive Than Teddy

After the Senate effectively blocked the steamroller toward a bailout for the Not-So-Big 3, the White House has signaled its intention to push ahead. One can only conclude that George W. Bush is determined to win away the prize from Teddy Roosevelt for most Progressive Republican President in History.
"It is disappointing that while appropriate and effective legislation to assist and restructure troubled automakers received majority support in both houses, Congress nevertheless failed to pass final legislation," Perino said in the statement. "Given the current weakened state of the U.S. economy, we will consider other options if necessary – including use of the TARP program -- to prevent a collapse of troubled automakers." She said that allowing the economic harm caused by such a collapse would be "irresponsible."
No, what's irresponsible is pretending the government has the right to take money from the taxpayer to give to failing businesses to continue failing. What's disappointing is that this allegedly pro-free market administration has zero real understanding of, or affection for the free market.

Worse than irresponsible or disappointing, there is an equally troubling issue here, a Constitutional one. Why is the President in his waning days trying so hard to defeat the clearly expressed choices of Congress, not to mention the will of the people?

Polls consistently show a majority opposed to the automakers bailout (as they have been to all the others). Congress isn't shy about giving out our money, either, so clearly some members are listening. When are the other elected officials going to start acting as representatives, not rulers?

The answers to all these questions are both rhetorical and, probably, unanswerable.

I never thought I'd read myself writing this, and I'll probably regret saying it, but I can't wait for Obama to take office. At least he admits freely to being anti-free market and shows some awareness of what he is for and against.

No comments: