What it means to say that the Fed's balance sheet assets will increase from $1.9 trillion to $4.5 trillion must be understood in the proper context, that being, that the neither the Fed nor the government has anything close to $4.5 trillion with which to purchase any assets. The reader will recall that the Treasury has been conducting auctions on a regular basis whereby it auctions off U.S. debt to whoever will buy it. And, just recently, Secretary of State Clinton made a special trip to China to assure them that the U.S. will make good on it's debts held by foreign entities and encourage them, particularly the Chinese, to continue to purchase U.S. debt. Considering that the U.S. government is in fact bankrupt, in order to embark on this bold new policy endeavor, the Fed will print $1 trillion dollars now, and certainly more later, with which it intends to purchase said “toxic assets.”

Through means of vastly increasing the amount of currency in circulation by printing it literally out of thin air, the dollar must necessarily become grossly devalued, its purchasing power will be greatly reduced and the unfortunate result will be hyperinflation of the kind mentioned in the examples above.

If allowed to continue, this policy will ultimately result in the total collapse of our monetary system, likely followed by a collapse of government. What will follow next is any body's guess. It is most unfortunate that those who currently wield political power so stubbornly cling to the same failed theories of interventionism that they predecessors also clung to. Indeed, at present how many times have we been told by those in Washington that because the current financial situation has deteriorated so rapidly that it is necessary to “change” capitalism in order to “save” it.

The fact of the matter is that we are in this current financial mess because they have already “changed” it. What was changed from the first half of the 20^th century was the almost universal adoption of a policy of active interventionism by western industrialized governments, based upon the misguided and now disproven theories of Keynes. Interventionism, it was posed, was to be neither true capitalism nor true totalitarianism, but rather, “as a third solution of the problem of society's economic organization, stands midway between the other two systems, and while retaining the advantages of both, avoids the disadvantages inherent in each.”³ In fact, all that interventionist theory has really accomplished is the mass deception free peoples, and the unsubstantiated and wholly unrealistic promises of “lasting prosperity” or “permanent” prosperity. An appeal to common sense would instantly reveal the impossibility of a permanently prosperous economy as the interventionists would define it.

In a very general sense, interventionism means government meddling or coercion upon the various aspects of the economy in order to effect specifically desired results. An example of a desired result is the buzz-word, “total employment,” sought by the governments of almost all industrialized nations whereby the government over-regulates and thereby influences various industries by a variety of means to “stimulate” the economy along a path of what it hopes to be a permanent state of growth, production and consumption. Yet what is missed by so many supposedly brilliant economic minds is the inescapable fact that wherever government intervenes, whether by passing mandatory “living wage” laws, price controls, or whatever, the immediate effect is to artificially raise the costs of production – and therefore raising the costs of the goods produced for consumption - above what the unhampered market (you and I) would wish to pay. If the price of the good becomes too high and consumers buy less of it, the costs of the producer increase further and ultimately end in higher unemployment. Thus, the means employed are entirely self-defeating relative to the intended goal. The law of unintended consequences thus manifests itself – what the interventionist policy sought was higher employment, but what resulted was higher unemployment.

Typically this result prompts even further interventionism on the part of the government as it seeks to correct the unintended consequence of the original policy. For example, in the case of price controls, the next move may be to decree that as the cost of the good to too high to attract consumers, then the price of the good will be fixed even lower. This still leaves high costs for the producer, who will be forced to either go out of business (because his revenues do not exceed his costs) or to seek redress from the government. Again, the typical response from government would likely be to fix the costs of those commodities employed in the production of the good to be produced. However, it becomes immediately apparent that the size and scope of the original policy has just been expanded instantly and exponentially, for in fixing the price of these commodities the government must continue fixing prices of others and mandating more and more controls over many aspects of the overall economy. Thus, interventionism, if not abandoned when the law of unintended consequences becomes apparent, must always lead to increased bureaucratic control incompatible with free market capitalism.

A worse form of interventionism, however, is the one that has been employed by the Federal Reserve since its creation in 1913: the policies of so-called “easy money.” The name is an irony in and of itself, for in the end there is nothing “easy” for those who suffer the results of massive credit expansion (creating money out of thin air), deficit spending, and inflationary monetary policy. Indeed, the fundamental underlying cause of the current fiscal crisis, and the thing that has enabled all of the other factors to come together to form this perfect economic storm that threatens to bring this nation and possibly the world to its knees is these misguided interventionist policies of massive credit expansion and inflation. And now, as the nation waits for results of an ill planned and mostly ineffective “stimulus” bill to be manifested, the Fed has been loaning money to banks, buying debt and printing money behind the scenes, almost unnoticed. What they do now, they do in relative obscurity, but the effects of their actions will certainly be felt in the years to come. With trillions upon trillions of dollars being newly created, printed, and injected into the financial system the short term effect may well be a temporary recovery. The effects of the massive inflation that will result have yet to be accurately estimated, as nothing on this scale has ever been attempted. The closest situation to ours was Weimar Germany, and the results, as we know, were not good. Inflation is bad policy to be sure. Just how bad it will ultimately be, and how devastating effects will be remain to be seen.

What is the true cost of the proposed government bailout?  While most of America was enjoying the last weekend of summer and watching football, our unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve were busy working on how to “solve” the financial crisis that seems to grow bigger and worse by the day. The “initial” solution that they came up with will cost between $700 billion and $1 trillion. That is the initial estimate of the cost. You can bet it will go much higher.

Wall Street has essentially collapsed and its geography has been forever change due to the deadly combination of greed, ineptitude of oversight, and government interference in the form of too much bad regulation. All this coupled with the Fed eternally manipulating interest rates and printing money in a vain attempt to affect a positive outcome and stave off the looming crisis as it simmered only served to compound the problem, and we are seeing the results. The result is an economic collapse or meltdown.  It is primarily due to government manipulation and meddling in something it has neither the authority nor the tools nor the competence to be meddling with. It is the result of “command economics” and central planning. Central planning is always bad for an economy, and in this case really, really bad planning results in a really, really bad problem

Admittedly, there was a certain degree of satisfaction watching the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and the rest of the criminals on Capitol Hill standing there like deer in the headlights, with the shock and awe clearly displayed on their faces after their conference with Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke. One has to wonder, though, if the looks of grave concern were precipitated by the fact that they had just been told that the economy would imminently collapse if AIG were allowed to fail, or if it was because they understand that they are complicit in this financial catastrophe and are terrified that they will be found out. 

Sadly they have no real cause for concern, though, because the only pseudo-mainstream publications that actually report the truth of this mater and name who is complicit in creating the conditions and ignoring the signs that allowed this financial meltdown to occur are your usual “right-wing conspiracy” theorists like the editors and reporters at the Wall Street Journal, Portfolio, National Review, Weekly Standard, Investors Business Daily and the like. Guaranteed you won’t hear Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson bringing up names like Donna Shalala, Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson or, heaven help us, William Jefferson Clinton.

A remarkable thing is occurring before our very eyes in Washington, though – Republicans and Democrats seem to be genuinely working together to implement a solution as quickly as possible to calm fears and the markets. Certainly there are many differences being voiced, but in general they are all in agreement and the final product will be a matter of hammering out the minutia, so to speak. This is actually more frightening than the actual financial crisis. Why? Because these are the folks that got us into this mess in the first place due to their own narrow self-serving interests, incompetence and corruption, and purposeful lack of oversight of the Leviathan wherein this meltdown began – Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The solution as it stands would give at present would give Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson extraordinary, unprecedented and essentially dictatorial authority to essentially do what he pleases with $ 1 trillion in taxpayer money. The Wall Street Journal called it for what it is: “Lots of money. Lots of power. Naked, ugly dictatorial power.”

The actual language in the proposed bailout Act as written by Treasury lawyers doesn’t inspire comfort either: “Decisions by the Treasury pursuant to the Authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.” This language is self-explanatory. And it is frightening.

And this is most likely only the beginning, the tip of the proverbial iceberg. On Monday former President Bill Clinton called for a bailout for all those homeowners who can’t afford to make their mortgage payments. The auto industry in Detroit is lining up for handouts to the tune of $50 billion minimum, a deal that has all but been cut between Detroit lobbyists and Speaker Pelosi. One can be sure that credit card debt will mushroom sooner rather than later and all those banks holding that debt will be demanding their share of the taxpayer-funded pie. The airlines won’t be far behind as they are being crushed by unprecedented fuel prices. And on it goes with no end in sight, and that is precisely the problem with government bailouts on such a massive scale; once they begin they do not end.

Right now it is difficult to assess whether we are still at the crossroads or if we have turned a corner toward authoritarian socialism, but is the language in the proposed plan is any indication suffice it to say that things to not look good for the future of a free market or for liberty in the US. And this is unconscionable.

In undertaking to engage in the extraordinary practice of massive government bailouts and nationalization of the most fundamental sector of the economy the US government has stepped into territory unknown since before the Revolutionary War. In fact, it was this exact type of arbitrary government authority that was the reason for fighting the Revolutionary War. While the talking heads on TV and radio speak of entering into “uncharted territory,” the brutal fact of the matter is that this is far from uncharted territory for this same unchecked and arbitrary government power was seen, understood and resisted the Founding Fathers of our republic as they were not afraid to call it for what it is. It is called tyranny.  

It is no secret to anyone who has read the Constitution of the United States with even a modicum of understanding that al three branches of the Federal Government have been violating their Constitutional authority for quite some time now. However, the actions taken by the government over the course of the last week are truly unprecedented. No branch of the government has any Constitutional authority whatsoever to takeover operations of a private business. No government authority is granted by the Constitution to appropriate public fund for such purposes. And certainly no Constitutional authority exists to allow for granting dictatorial powers to a cabinet secretary to run and attempt to manipulate the economy as he sees fit. It is unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional.

And yet knowing it is unconstitutional, out of fear this Congress will overwhelmingly approve this illegal action. And they will hope and pray that it works. And if it doesn’t? It this plan doesn’t work – and keep in mind that there is no Plan B because this is Plan B – amid all the uncertainly that would follow such events, the one thing you can be assured of is even more invasive and strict government intervention. But to what end? Government issued and approved credit becoming mandatory and the sole acceptable manner of conducting commerce? Government seizure and control of all banks and credit issuing agencies? Where does it end?

And what if it does work? What if those administering the government later decide that the government should remain in total control of the financial sector and through still more illegal Acts of Congress continue to "renew" the contrived authority to seize and maintain private companies in conservatorship? What then? 

Perhaps most frightening is that no one in government is listening to anyone who is raising these concerns because that is what happens when fear rules the day, and more alarming still is the known fact people will accept anything that promises even temporary security when real fear is being held over their heads. Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not rise to power because people were happy and comfortable and felt secure politically and economically. Fear is a dangerous weapon and history has shown time and again how fear, when employed and exploited by government, always proves fatal to liberty. And when government moves quickly to address a problem, even a well-intentioned solution will result in some very foreseeable repercussions that no one in Washington wants to acknowledge, much less address.

When a people willingly sacrifice their liberty – as is about to occur here – they are no longer sovereign, but subjects, for a republic exists only when a free people willingly submit to a governmental authority de jure, that is an established and mutually agreed upon system of government that by law may operate only with clearly defined limitations, purpose and intent. Should said government exceed any or all of those limitations, thereby exceeding its constitutional authority, it is the responsibility of a free people to take what power with which it is vested – that is all real power – and bring an abrupt end to government abuses of authority. 

In a republic, government exists and operates at the pleasure and by the authority of the people. That is what is meant by government de jure – government by and of legitimate law. When government abuses its power and acts outside of its legally defined authority it acts arbitrarily and becomes a government de facto, that is government by decree or imposition. In such a case citizens are no longer sovereign, but subjects; and, so it almost goes without saying that given the purpose of government being control, thus it’s natural tendency to encroach on liberty and thereby necessitating a clear legal definition of its valid scope of authority, once government exceeds said limitations of authority with impunity it will continue to do so. And in doing so it will continue to encroach upon and usurp individual rights and liberty unless the people fulfill their own obligations as a free people and stop it. 

In a republic such as ours, all true, valid and legitimate power and authority is vested in the people, not in the government. That is unless or until the people relinquish that power either by action or inaction to the government. Such is our present predicament.

As stated above, we all know that all three branches of our government have been exceeding their legitimate authority for many, many years now, encroaching on liberty and violating the Constitution. With this latest government incursion and illegitimate execution of authority it does not have the stakes have become frighteningly high and all too real in a vey short span of time. Now is the time for the people to decide: subject or sovereign, courage or cowardice. This action now being undertaken by the US Government takes the idea of sanctioning the violating of the Constitution to an unprecedented and very dangerous level. This time the politicians and bureaucrats have not only arrogantly wiped their hind-sides with the Constitution, but once they are finished wiping they intend to rub it in our collective faces – but only if we let them. 

If we rise up and let our voices be heard, they will respond, for nothing motivates career politicians like fear, especially in an election year and with the elections a little over a month away. We have a choice: we can make our collective voices heard now, loud and clear and force them to respond, or we can wait and see what happens. The problem with the latter choice is that the next time the people decide to rise up in the face of tyranny they may have to do it with torches and pitchforks and rifles.

So what is a trillion dollar government bailout really worth? What does it really cost? The true cost of the thing is liberty and a free market economy. The price we will eventually pay is subjection to tyranny.

Have you seen the news? Have you been watching the financial sector self-destruct? Did you hear about the latest $85 billion bailout of AIG? Did you hear Dana Perino’s briefing from the White House today? Here’s a little exchange that caught my attention:

Begin transcript

“Q And to the people who say, you know what, AIG should have failed so that you clean out the system and you don't delay whatever recovery -- you have a bottom and you start to move up. What do you say to that?

MS. PERINO: Well, we remain concerned about other companies, and that's why the Secretary of the Treasury continues to work with the team to see if we can stem any other losses.

But they're -- as I said, they're taking this on a case-by-case basis, and we will have to continue to do so; at the same time, looking at what we do to make sure that the taxpayers, to the greatest extent possible, are protected. But the considered judgment here was that if you don't take the recommendations of the senior economic advisors, who are very experienced and have decided on decisive action that can help stem the tide of broader economic damage, that that's the best thing that we can do to try to help protect all taxpayers in the long run.

[W]e are dealing with very challenging times and Secretary Paulson -- I'm sorry, the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, and the President's economic advisors had determined that there were some -- some of these companies were so big that to allow them to fail would have caused even greater harm and damage to the economy.

So the goal has been to take action where necessary to promote stability and strength in the marketplace, so that we can prevent or limit more damage to the broader economy. In all cases, the President has wanted to make sure that the taxpayers are kept foremost in mind. In these agreements, if you look back, the shareholders have been wiped out. A lot of employees have lost their jobs. Management has been replaced. And the taxpayers will be paid back first.

While no one would have liked to have ended up in this situation, you have a government that is willing to lead, act where appropriate, and govern, to make sure that we limit broader financial harm to the economy.

Q You say taxpayers will be paid back first. They may not be paid back at all.

MS. PERINO: Well, that is true. And that is why we take great care in making sure that President has asked a lot of questions, to make sure that his economic advisors have thought things through, have made the best determination and have moved forward. But I think the tax -- I think the argument is that the taxpayers might be harmed even worse if the economy was -- if we allowed it to just have a lot broader damage.

And we think that the actions that have been taken were appropriate ones. I believe that Treasury thinks that they will be able to pay the taxpayers back. But it's just going to take us some time to work through this crisis.

Q Where does it stop? (The Bailouts)

MS. PERINO: You know, I would be misleading you if I knew. What we are doing is taking this on a case-by-case basis, evaluating each one carefully.

Then there was this exchange that really caught my attention:

Q Dana, what do you say to Americans who are looking at the AIG deal and saying, we don't have a free market economy; how can you call this a free market economy?

MS. PERINO: We do have a free market -- the free market is alive and well, and we have systems in place here in our country to be able to deal with shocks to the system like this. And Secretary Paulson and the Fed Chairman have taken action where they think necessary in order to prevent broader shocks to the economy.

Look, the market has had a lot of information to digest over the past several days, and it's going to take a little bit of time for us to see where this goes. But I think the considered judgment -- the collective judgment of most people today is that the action they took last night on AIG was the right move.

Q And to the people who say, you know what, AIG should have failed so that you clean out the system and you don't delay whatever recovery -- you have a bottom and you start to move up. What do you say to that?

MS. PERINO: Well, we remain concerned about other companies, and that's why the Secretary of the Treasury continues to work with the team to see if we can stem any other losses.”

End Transcript

Is it just me, or is everyone in Washington kind of sticking their collective heads in the sand and pretending that waving the flag around and pontificating on what little they know of the Constitution and the actual limits and constraints upon governmental authority relative to the economy, they will be able once again to bamboozle the people into thinking that big-daddy Uncle Sam will make everything OK?

It is disgusting, it is unconstitutional and it is very, very disturbing. And I am one very, very pissed off American today. I don’t usually use such language on this blog, but I just don’t know any other words to describe how I feel – OK I do, but if I use them they’ll throw me out of here.

I am pissed off that everybody in DC says they didn’t see this coming, but the evidence shows otherwise.

I am pissed off that every branch of the government is deliberately exceeding its Constitutional authority and doing whatever it feels like with impunity, because they think that the people are so apathetic that if they just throw us a bone here and there we’ll simply ignore their gross transgressions.

I am pissed off that these politicians and bureaucrats pretend like there is nothing wrong with calling our system a "free market" economy while at the same time they are messing with it from the Fed and thereby making it anything but free.  The fundamentals of a strong economy are indeed ther, and it would work if only government would let it instead of trying to constantly manipulate it.

I am most pissed off that no one will speak the truth in DC! How stupid do they think we are? Am I the only one who feels insulted? 

When you look at the players in this meltdown and trace the money and people, you get back to Clinton’s pandering to minorities and the poor and pushing that multiculturalism nonsense that the progressives love so much. You also inevitably get back to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – two unconstitutional quasi-government agencies that cost taxpayers a bundle and make rich bankers richer and hook up members of Congress with a money machine that is akin to an ATM, so that these behemoths will never die, cause no one wants to turn off the money spigot.

I have no problem whatsoever with people getting rich, but not on my dime - not at the public trough.  And, I want to know why the former executives of Freddie and Fannie are still getting paid to stay on for the "transition."  Only in Washington DC can you ruin the financial sustem of the nation and get rewarded for it.  Freddie Mac’s Richard Syron and Fannie Mae's, Daniel Mudd are still getting paid, even though they knew what was going on.  You and I both know that if they worked for a true privately held firm, they'd be persona-non-grata and awaiting indictment and trial.  But there will be no trial.  Probably no hearings either.  nancy Pelosi is a big fan and recipient of Fred and Fan's lobbying money.  Imagine that!

You also have career political hacks that would sell their souls for money, dark amoral people who can smile and put on a look of concern and lie right to your face and mean it at that moment. People like Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Jamie Gorelick, Franklin Raines, et al.

You have people who do not give a crap about people like you and me because they are better than us – they work in DC. They are members of Congress. They are bureaucrats.

They are all liars!

You have a guy like Obama who’s bemoaning greed and avarice on Wall Street, and talking nonsense like this: “’Since this turmoil began over a year ago," the Illinois senator said, "the housing market has all but collapsed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be effectively taken over by the government. Three of America's five largest investment banks failed or have been sold off in distress. Yesterday, Wall Street suffered its worst losses since just after 9/11.’ He said McCain and President Bush subscribe to the same approach: ‘support ideological policies that made the crisis more likely, do nothing as the crisis hits and then scramble as the whole thing collapses.’”

Wow! Suddenly he’s outraged about Freddie and Fannie. Gee, he didn’t seem too upset over the fact that he has accepted $126,349 in lobbying money from Freddie and Fannie since 2004. In fact he’s the Number Two recipient of money from those two abominations. And let me put it in the proper context for you: the list at opensecrets.org was compiled from 1989 to 2008. Obama is second on the list. Chris Dodd is Number One, having received $165,400 since 1989. Obama received $126,349 in just four years, and half of that time he’s been running for President.

Why the hell isn’t anyone except those of us on the blogs talking about it? Why won’t McCain bring it up? I don’t know – maybe he has, but I haven’t heard about it.

This stuff isn’t secret – it’s all public information.

And now McCain goes and disappoints me terribly by flip-flopping on the bailouts in just 24 hours. Yesterday at this time he was against them. Today he says it was the right decision. Helloooooo! How the hell is tacking $85 billion onto the taxpayer’s tab to bail out foreign interests the right decision? Oh, you didn’t know that? Yeah, AIG is a multinational corporation whose holding company, which was the entity bailed out, is backed 85% by foreign central banks. Where is the outrage? Where does it stop?

It’s wrong and it’s unconstitutional! McCain ought to know better!

Where does it stop? It won’t unless the people make them.

This has prompted me to do something different: I am writing several articles in various parts not only about this financial meltdown, but also on my take on our economy and the Constitution. I’ll be posting them in several parts, each with a disclaimer, because it is possible that without first reading the preceding parts, a current post may not make much sense. 

To my readers, I thank you for reading and I apologize for my ranting format – and language. I would also ask that, if you can, to please let me know when I post these multi-part articles if they flow and work for you – if they are coherent and lucid, so to speak. 

Until tomorrow, I’ll be pissed off and writing…

Bad things happen. It screws up everything – even the correct understanding of what, exactly, government is supposed to do and, more importantly, what it ought not to do. For those within the government, especially you “progressive” and faux-conservative politicians out there, here’s a little clue: the government has no business messing with the economy. Our government has become so monstrous that the confused masses of America now overwhelmingly look to this Leviathan to cure all that ails our nation. Why? Because they’ve been taught to. They don’t know that government has no such Constitutional authority as helping citizens and funding businesses and fixing the economy. Perhaps they (especially politicians) ought to actually read the document some time – it is very enlightening indeed.

Here’s how bad it is: when most people are asked who is to blame for the economy being screwed up, they tend to answer that the government is responsible. This answer is not at all incorrect. But, here’s the problem: when asked how the woes of the economy ought to be healed, most believe that the government needs to “do something about it.” Then they demand that Congress and the President act now! Seriously – isn’t the government the entity that is responsible for screwing things up in the first place? Now we are demanding that this screwed up government “fix” things? We want to entrust an impotent and self-serving Congress with a 9% approval rating and an Administration with little understanding of Constitutional restraint to “fix” things? The government has no business messing with the economy in the first place because in doing so it just messes things up even more and ends up costing the taxpayers (don’t even get me started).

On Sunday Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were being placed in a “government conservatorship.” The plan to take control over the companies was approved by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. Paulson also affirmed that the Treasury would do “whatever it takes” to keep these two bastions of government excess from failing. Initially the Treasury would receive $1 billion in preferred shares, and then is initially prepared to provide up to $200 billion to help the companies heal from their financial hemorrhaging over excessive risky home loans. Remember that word: initially… you’ll see why in a minute.

The CEOs of both companies were fired – sort of. Freddie Mac’s Richard Syron and Fannie Mae's, Daniel Mudd, were respectively replaced by David Moffett, a former top official at US Bancorp and Herb Allison, formerly with Merrill Lynch. But, Syron and Mudd won’t be leaving immediately – they’ll be sticking around for the transition. If that weren’t enough, The Treasury's plan puts the two companies under a conservatorship, giving management control to their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency.   FHFA was created recently by Congress specifically to oversee Freddie and Fannie. Are you beginning to see the pattern here?   Try Googling FHFA.gov to find its website and you’ll see that there is none. Either the agency is too new, or the government has become so big there’s no more room left in cyberspace for any more.gov websites. I am inclined to believe the latter.

According to the Wall Street Journal, with the government seizure of Freddie and Fanny, “the U.S. mortgage crisis entered a new and uncharted phase, potentially saddling American taxpayers with billions of dollars in losses from home loans made by the private sector. Bush administration officials argued that the cost of doing nothing would be far greater because of the toll on the economy of falling home prices and defaults in the $11 trillion U.S. mortgage market.” Potentially? Are they kidding? The bill is already in the mail.

But, the best is yet to come. Secretary Paulson noted that more than $5 trillion of debt and mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie and Freddie is owned by central banks and other investors world-wide.

Do you know what that means? Think back to where the Treasury pledged to initially provide up to $200 billion and how Secretary Paulson stressed that the Treasury will do “whatever it takes” to save Freddie and Fanny. Factor that in with the $5 trillion of debt that is owned by foreign central banks and investors and then put Congress into the mix, and guess what you have? A Congressional authorization for our comrades at the Federal Reserve to do “whatever it takes” even to the tune of, oh, say, $5 trillion. After all, it won’t really be “debt,” because said “debt” will just go back to the Treasury to be auctioned off to more foreign central banks and investors. And eventually, our taxes will go up and we’ll pay for foreign bankers to get filthy rich. 

Keep in mind that the whole reason Freddie and Fanny were created by Congress is summed up in the following signature mission statement: “Freddie Mac is a stockholder-owned corporation established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac raises capital on Wall Street and throughout the world's capital markets to finance mortgages for families across America.” Translated from Congress-speak this means: all investments through Freddie and Fanny are safe because Uncle Sam guarantees them. 

There is no risk at all to the investor. And that is exactly the problem. That is exactly why government should never, ever be involved in messing around with the economy.

From the Wall Street Journal: “The intervention also marks the failure of the public-private experiment that was created to boost home ownership among Americans. Fannie and Freddie were created by Congress to help prop up the housing market, and investors have long believed the government would bail the companies out in a crisis. But the companies have long been owned by private shareholders seeking to maximize profits.”   And they will. And the people will be angry, but Congress won’t care. You can bet on a new-and-improved “public-private scam that will certainly fleece the taxpayers of even more money. 

One economist from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School said, “Without government support for the mortgage market, home prices would fall much further, exposing the country as a whole to greater economic strain.” Any reasonable person who has ever read the Constitution with even a modicum of understanding and who gets the basic principles of supply and demand as the basis of a free market capitalist system of economics would argue the exact opposite. Why? Because of the difference between a supply system vis-à-vis a command system: once the government enters into the business of supporting various sectors of the economy the entire economy becomes de facto an artificial bubble, ever more removed from the reality of the market and prompting more and more government intervention until the government has to take control of or nationalize most of the economy in order to regulate prosperity and production and keep the whole thing from imploding. The problem here is obvious: Freddie and Fanny are the most startling examples of who our Founding Fathers never intended the government to be involved in such things.

Today President Bush had this to say: “Putting these companies on sound financial footing, and reforming their business practices, is critical to the health of our financial system and to making further progress with the housing correction that today is weighing heavily on our economy. Allowing the companies to fail or further deteriorate would damage our home mortgage market, and could weaken other credit markets that are unrelated directly to housing." He went on to stress that this is not a government bailout. 

Well, if a pledge of $200 billion for starters with a real possibility of running into the trillions is not a government bailout, I don’t know what it is. Wait a minute - maybe I do. It’s called nationalization. It’s called command economics. It is a deadly endeavor for a free republic. It is the inevitable result in a series of mortal errors that began with the creation of a central bank, the Federal Reserve System, by the Federal Reserve Act enacted December 23, 1913. That Act alone was a treasonous violation of the Constitution that has effectively sealed the ultimate fate of this republic – unless it can someday be repealed. It was shortly followed by another treasonous abomination, the 16^th Amendment ratified 03 February 1913 resulting in the Federal Income Tax Act of 03 October 1913. All must be repealed because all are deadly to a free republic because they by their nature usurp Liberty and encroach upon the rights of the individual. Not surprisingly a progressive income tax and a strong central bank are number 2 and 5, respectively, of Karl Marx’s list of 10 essential measures that must be enacted in order “to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.” For those who are interested, this list is located toward the end of Chapter II of the Communist Manifesto. 

Every American should read the Communist Manifesto. They should read it so that they all understand what happens when government gets too big. They should read it all be frightened and angered. They should read it so that they can better understand why our Founding Fathers gave us the Constitution of the United States of America, and why that document was crafted so as to never to be tampered with or reinterpreted, lest we lose our Liberty to government hegemony, for such hegemony against individual Liberty is the only possible result when government grows too big to be stopped. It feeds on Liberty and snuffs out freedom. And this is only the beginning – unless it can be stopped.

Yet another part of the “Stuff That’s Not Quite Right In America” series…

As I turned on my computer and saw this headline, “FDIC may borrow money from U.S. Treasury,” glaring at me, I thought, “Wow! This just keeps getting better and better!” [Small hint of sarcasm]. The article on forbes.com stated, in part, that, “Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) might have to borrow money from the Treasury Department to see it through an expected wave of bank failures, the Wall Street Journal reported.” Isn’t that just great?

So, let me see if I have all of this right: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you know the government-sponsored-public-private partnerships that you and I are required to financially back via our contributions through the IRS in an enterprise that is able to take on the riskiest of loans without fear of loss because it is all guaranteed by Uncle Sam, are essentially broke because they took on too many risky loans. They also sold many of these loans to other banks that took them, presumably, because they are guaranteed through Freddie and Fanny to be backed by the government. So, the mortgage bubble bursts and banks begin to fail, but that’s OK because they’re just the smaller Mom & Pop banks – Oh. Wait! All, that is, except IndyMac in California… But that’s OK, because there are only a few that failed, right?

Wrong. Though only a few failures have resulted the dollar value has apparently exceeded the $45.2 billion FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund used to repay insured deposits at failed banks has been drained. What this essentially means is, you choose a bank to deposit your money in and then deposit it. The bank takes your money that you deposited and loans it out to other parties and entities in various ways in order to make more money for itself, all the while giving you – the people who make it possible for the bank to make more money in the first place by entrusting them with your money – a small percentage of interest. The bank makes more, likely because it can pool more money together to loan out than you can as an individual. So, then the people or entities default on the loans they took out from the bank – again using your money. The bank loaned them your money and now it no longer has your money because those who took out the loan couldn’t pay it back. So, the bank no longer has your money. It no longer has any money with which to repay those who deposited money there in the first place. This is a problem – especially when it is your money and you show up at the back to collect it, wait in a line for over eight hours and then see the manager put up a sign in the window – from behind locked doors of course – that the bank is closed and will re-open under the control of the Federal government as soon as the FDIC figures out what to do. 

FDIC is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. According to the FDIC website, “The FDIC receives no Congressional appropriations – it is funded by premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage and from earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities. With an insurance fund totaling more than $49 billion, the FDIC insures more than $3 trillion of deposits in U.S. banks and thrifts – deposits in virtually every bank and thrift in the country.” Receives NO Congressional appropriations – that’s good, right? On the surface, yes, but…

Now I’m no economist, but to me this is a bit misleading. FDIC says it “is funded by premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage and from earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities.” [Emphasis mine] This is, I think, a more intelligent sounding way of saying that the banks themselves pay for the FDIC insurance. Here’s where I get confused, I think… “With an insurance fund totaling more than $49 billion, the FDIC insures more than $3 trillion of deposits in U.S. banks and thrifts – deposits in virtually every bank and thrift in the country.” See my point? They have $49 billion to cover $3 trillion. I guess they don’t think it possible for much more than $49 billion to go into default. I hope they’re right, but I think they’re wrong, as evidenced by the very fact that FDIC needs a bailout.

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said that with a rise in the number of troubled banks, the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund used to repay insured deposits at failed banks has been drained.

“In a bid to replenish the $45.2 billion fund, Bair had said on Tuesday that the FDIC will consider a plan in October to raise the premium rates banks pay into the fund, a move that will further squeeze the industry. The agency also plans to charge banks that engage in risky lending practices significantly higher premiums than other U.S. banks, Bair said.” [Thomson Financial News] This hasn’t been done since the savings and loan crisis in the 1990s.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “The fact that the agency is considering the option again, after the collapse of just nine banks this year, illustrates the concern among Washington regulators about the weakness of the U.S. banking system in the wake of the credit crisis.”

This is the way I see it: Freddie and Fannie get away with doing what they want, investing in riskier loans for increased profits because their original private funding is guaranteed by the government – so why not take the risk. They can then sell those loans to other banks that also understand the risk involved – and the potential payout. If the loans are defaulted on, no problem for Freddie and Fannie – Congress to the rescue! For everyone other than Freddie and Fannie, they count on FDIC. Obviously a problem arises when the FDIC fund is spent and lots more money is needed to stabilize the banks, so FDIC NOT being funded by Congress goes to the Treasury to borrow money. That would be the same Treasury that has to auction off U.S. debt to anyone who is willing to hold it in order to keep the government running. So, now we are at the point to where the agency that insures our banking system – a rather important aspect of the overall economy- is broke and needs a bailout from a Treasury that doesn’t have any money. 

Who will pick up this debt? Who knows? Undoubtedly the lowest bidder. At present, over 25 percent of our entire debt is being financed by foreign interests and of that, over 20 percent is held by the Communist government of China. Suffice it to say that there is indeed a rather high probability that the Chi-Comms will pick up the tab for this one too – at least for now.