Home » blogs » Dave's blog

Money and strings

Submitted by Dave on Tue, 2009-01-27 17:44. |

Citigroup took bailout money from the federal government. Now the feds are telling them how to spend it, specifically that they should not take delivery on a corporate jet that they had planned to purchase. The administration apparently told Citigroup that "such jets aren't 'the best use of money at this point,' and are 'an outrageous use of funds' for a company getting taxpayer dollars."

The point of my commentary has nothing to do with whether I think Citigroup should or should not buy the jet. I'm also refraining from commenting on whether the government has the right, even under these bizarre circumstances, to tell a private company how its money should be spent. My point is, as a pragmatic matter, if you accept government money then you submit to a certain degree of control by the government regarding what you can do with that money. This is one reason it is never a good idea to accept government money, especially if you are in a situation where you actually need the money.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1441
» Dave's blog | login to post comments | Printer-friendly version

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Socialism at its finest

Submitted by Dave on Wed, 2009-02-04 16:53.

The Obama administration continues to regulate companies that accept bailout money. It is now imposing a $500,000 cap on executive compensation for some of these companies.

I'm not a fan of government regulation in general, but I have to say that I like Vox's take on this situation:

Many corporate executives have demanded socialism in the form of a government bailout, and so it's satisfying to see that they're getting it good and hard.

» login to post comments | Printer-friendly version

Boortz has a point

Submitted by Dave on Tue, 2009-03-24 13:39.

As I stated earlier, if you accept money from the government, then you accept the strings that go along with it. However, in the case of the AIG bonuses, the government isn't pulling on those strings. As Neal Boortz points out, they are using a much more sinister and dangerous technique. They are imposing a punitive tax (i.e., a tax for the purpose of punishment rather than for raising revenue) on a certain class of individuals.

Boortz makes a number of good points. If they get away with this (and neither he nor I sees any serious impediment to that), then Congress can tax any group, or any individual, for any reason they see fit. They can, in effect, confiscate the property of anyone without a trial. Neal makes his point by speculating on a few headlines that could appear in the future, such as the following:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi dispatched a delegation of flying monkeys this afternoon to deliver a message to the media that she was calling for legislation to establish a 90% tax on all book royalties payable to tall blond women weighing less than 110 pounds.

Funny, and sad.

» login to post comments | Printer-friendly version

Constitution as Serious Impediment

Submitted by tacbrave on Tue, 2009-03-24 21:49.

Boortz makes a number of good points. If they get away with this (and neither he nor I sees any serious impediment to that), then Congress can tax any group, or any individual, for any reason they see fit.

I know that most of America doesn't these days, I consider the US Constitution a "serious impediment" to the proposed tax. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3, states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed." What is a "Bill of Attainder"? A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. It's one thing to obliterate the constitution by sneaking in socialist policies. But when there is a specific sentence included that prevents Congress from doing something, and they do it anyway? My word, how far we've come.

» login to post comments | Printer-friendly version

Constitution is dead; Price of liberty

Submitted by Wayne on Wed, 2009-03-25 08:35.

Oh, come on! Get with the times! The Constitution is dead. The Founders are dead. The Republic is dead. God is dead. Here's the fun part: WE THE PEOPLE are to blame!

We were not vigilant. We let the fedgov grow without measure or control. We handed our gonads over to them already on a chopping block, then we paid for the axe. We did not keep our leaders in fear for their lives should they overstep their legal bounds, and they felt the power rush to their puny heads. We let AWOL courts, Congress, Presidents, and 20 million bureaucrats step all over us, and we did nothing.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." —Thomas Jefferson

It's been 144 years, not 20, since our last rebellion, and that one failed. Perhaps our fate was sealed then, when we were clearly told we were slaves to the "Union", and we wrongly acceded. We should have continued to resist tyranny by Lincoln, et al., until the very last freedom-loving patriot was slaughtered. And if today is any indication, another rebellion is in order. This patriot will gladly donate his blood to the tree of liberty.

» login to post comments | Printer-friendly version

Constitution is no impediment

Submitted by Dave on Wed, 2009-03-25 09:00.

Sadly, the Constitution is no impediment to lawmakers or presidents any more. Examples of this have been noted in this forum. You can "consider" it an impediment all you want, but unless those in control of the governmental machinery agree (which they don't) then the Constitution is effectively moot (which it is).

When people regard government as something external, imposed from outside, then the law loses its force. The Constitution cannot enforce itself. Those to whom power is given must understand it, embrace it, and submit to it. In doing so, they (we) are engaging in self-government. We restrain our own lusts, in their various forms, because we believe in the principles expressed in the American founding documents. Without such self-restraint, the Constitution truly does become "just a g--damn piece of paper," as a recent president, so beloved by so-called conservatives, is alleged to have said.

As a people, we have chosen lust over self-restraint. This choice is concomitant with our rejection of the Word of God and His Spirit. Fallen man has no hope of self-government without the Holy Spirit, not in our personal lives and certainly not in elevated positions of power. This is why John Adams said,

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human
passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only
for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government
of any other.

We are no longer a "moral and religious people," and the Constitution is indeed "wholly inadequate" to our government.

» login to post comments | Printer-friendly version