The first year of the Obama administration has seen quite a few interesting developments. The first of these were the massive bailout of the banks, which was a continuation of a mistake made by President Bush. In the words of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), while speaking on the Senate floor outlines the problem: "The more we proceed with policies whereby the government owns 80% of the stock of a private insurance company -- having poured $170 billion of our wealth into it -- the more we are inevitably compelled to direct how the company operates, to the point of deciding who their executives should be, what the company’s salary scale should be, or what aircraft it can or cannot have or where or what kind of corporate retreat they may have, and whether or not it can pay bonuses." This direction was taken under the auspices that these banks were too big to fail. However, to the economically
informed, it looks like socialism.
If free enterprise principles were utilized, no doubt financial pain would have been felt, especially by those that put these companies in these situations by their bad business decisions.
This would have also possibly shed more light on the legislative influences that contributed to these problems.
Now the sacrifices are being made by the American taxpayer and employees while many top decision makers have escaped with bonuses in hand.
Take a look at the automotive industry. General Motors and Chrysler have been taken over by the federal government. Nationalized is the word that Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez used. According to a Reuters report on June 2, 2009 President Hugo Chavez said "Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right," Admittedly this was presented jokingly during a live television broadcast, but he was not doing a comedy routine but rather railing against free enterprise in favour of socialism.
Even the cap and trade global warming bill is suspect. ‘The Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation analyzed a proposal to cut CO2 emissions by 70 percent. Such a cut would have little impact on global temperatures. At best, the trade-off is trillions of dollars in lost income and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs versus a fraction of a degree change in average world temperature 85 years from now.’ To make matters worst, it has been recently reported that much of the science supporting the global warming argument has been modified or destroyed to hide the truth of the matter.
Although there are other issues, I will end with healthcare reform. Today, healthcare reform is on everyone’s mind and in all of our conversations. However, America’s health care industry is the envy of the world. People routinely come from other countries to participate in and benefit from the awesome medical advances here in our country. However, there are problems and they need to be addressed. Does that mean that we should destroy that which works for a utopian idea that is unproven and does not adequately address our current health care related issues? I recently read a story in the Wall Street Journal about Bill Murray, who is a Canadian citizen. It seems that Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a "Birmingham" hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was "too old" to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. So he came to America for the procedure. At least he had somewhere to go. Where would you and I go when we get the Canadian style health care? As an aside, why are the health clinics that exist all over this country not included in this discussion?
Free Enterprise Capitalism emphasizes the right of property ownership and the individual’s right to do with that property that which he will. Socialism emphasizes that the collective (masses) is the rightful owner of property and that ownership is to be enforced by the power of the government.(an elite group of leaders) When any administration makes decisions that have the earmarks of socialism the accusations of socialism will be forthcoming, and it seems to me, rightfully so.
Heard your show for the 1st time 7/30, really enjoyed your comments, especially about our national debt. You now have another loyal fan - Great Show
Posted by: Larry W Frazier | July 31, 2011 at 02:36 PM