What do you call it when a gift is forced on you, “for your own good” as well as the good of your family and neighbors? And then what happens when you try to give that gift back, and aren’t allowed to? What happens when the response to the attempt to give that gift back is a veiled threat?
We used to call it a mobster movie. Now we call it the Federal Government.
~~~
That’s what happened in a recent meeting between bankers and President Obama, which happened the same day GM CEO Wagoner was “fired” by the President. According to Politico, this is how it went down:
JPMorgan’s Dimon spoke first. He began by complimenting the president on the economic team he’d assembled. And he said his industry needs to explain more directly to the American people that the economic recovery plans are already working. Dimon also insisted that he’d like to give the government’s TARP money back as soon as practical, and asked the president to “streamline” that process.
But Obama didn’t like that idea — arguing that the system still needs government capital.
The president offered an analogy: “This is like a patient who’s on antibiotics,” he said. “Maybe the patient starts feeling better after a couple of days, but you don’t stop taking the medicine until you’ve finished the bottle.” Returning the money too early, the president argued could send a bad signal.
Now just what in the hell does Barack Obama know about managing a bank? Or an economy? Or antibiotics, for that matter? And what signal is he worried about sending? Is there any American (not in the Obama administration) who wouldn’t welcome that money going back?
And then Obama told the CEOs that they needed his “protection.”
“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
And of course, Obama’s ACORN folks are more than willing to play that role. They’re already at it.
If this was a movie, I’d be annoyed at the absurdity of it. (You can also be assured that a Hollywood movie president who committed such open extortion would be a Republican.)
~~~
Of course, there is only one rational explanation for not accepting tax dollars back from a healthy bank that doesn’t need them, when you have a ton of other spending projects you just can’t wait to get started on.
It’s because you want to control them. Or more accurately, you want to control the money they have in their possession, and who might be allowed to get that money.
No American government was ever supposed to have that kind of power over the economy, or over the personal property of its citizens. But once it has that power, it won’t give it up easily.
It’s one thing to create conditions on people for taking tax dollars when they come with their hat in their hand. It’s another to insist they accept your charity, and then use that as a tool with which to force them to bend to your will, whether you like it or not.
~~~
But what’s the most frightening about this is that if this is acceptable, there is no limit to what Obama (or any President) can do. He can seize any company anywhere “for the good of the nation.” He can control all commerce, even local commerce.
In 1942, the Federal Government went after a small farmer named Roscoe Filburn. The feds told him how much wheat he could grow as a price fixing measure. He grew some in excess of that, but it was for his own, personal consumption.
In one of the most quietly egregious cases ever handed down, the Supreme Court ruled that, because wheat was a fungible commodity and could conceivably enter “interstate commerce” (the limit of federal authority in theory) whether or not it actually did, and therefore be regulated, that the regulation was Constitutional.
And thus it came to be that the federal government stopped being one of limited, enumerated powers as the framers had intended.
For all those hippies out there who voted for Obama, the liberal wing of the Supreme Court used Wickard v. Filburn to justify federal intrusion upon California’s medical marijuana laws. Under its reasoning, and the apparent will of the Obama Administration to micromanage everything it can, your business will not have had to take a dime from the government to be subject to its absolute control.
~~~
The entire point of the Constitution was to limit the power of the federal government (and later, state governments) to take our property, control our lives, and intrude upon our liberty. The right to own and use property without undue interference is a critical component to that liberty.
And it won’t stop with the banks or the car companies. A government willing to act like Mario Puzo characters will go anywhere they want, and will find a way to justify it later. The internet is next in the offing. It’s not about recovery, it’s not about security, it’s about control and power.
If only liberals were as vigilant with that aspect of liberty as they are with free sex and abortion on demand! If only they understood how much more intrusive a government can be when it controls your money than when it meddles in any of the social issues of the day!
We must, as a people, draw these boundaries again, or we have lost our country and our freedom. I hope it’s not too late.
~~~
What Mr. Dimon should have said was, “Mr. President, you can, sir, with all due respect, kiss my ass. I’m giving back the money whether you like it or not. I don’t work for you. You aren’t a king. I’m a private citizen with a private business – a free man in a free country. I’m going to hold a press conference immediately about this conversation, and we’ll just see where those pitchforks get aimed then.”
When our captains of industry and economy start understanding what this President is all about, and start acting accordingly, we’ll all be a lot better off. Until then, every single one of us who profits from a free society and a free economy stand to lose everythign that makes America exceptional.
[…] Really? […]