Had Enough

Any one who knows me can attest that I no fan of George W. Bush. Yes, I did vote for him twice because his opponents were even more clueless than he. However, it is unfair that his economic policies caused the current financial crisis. What did W. do to precipitate this? The only major economic legislation he has put forth was his tax cuts. That did create an economic boom, but it did not cause the mis-packaging of toxic assets into AAA-rated securities. Freddie and Fannie encouraging home ownership for those who cannot afford it, low interest rates and the unintended consequences of market transparency (which pushed Wall Street firms to trade in derivatives with opaque markets (which began during the Clinton years) are the true culprits.

If Mr. Bush can be blamed for anything it is the performance of his Treasury Secretary, Hammerin' Hank Paulson. Hank talks out of both sides of his mouth and, apparently, is clueless on who to save, who to punish and how to go about either. He has done the most damage since the crisis began.


However, the push or home ownership for all has caused this. Lay the problem squarely at the feet of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.

The Media and Democratic pundits have done a good job of lumping in John McCain with W. ANYONE who has followed the career of John McCain or has the intelligence to read about the candidates instead of listening to sound-bites and looking to see who looks more "presidential" can attest, John McCain is nothing like George Bush.

This is not so say that Mr. McCain instills me with confidence regarding the economy. He does not. However, he is not George Bush. Barak Obama actually frightens me. Class warfare and socialism are failed beliefs. They do not work to run an efficient economy. His suggestion that companies who move jobs offshore be punished with taxes is grandstanding. U.S. corporations pay the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. How about cutting corporate taxes for companies who move jobs back to the U.S. to solve their cost differential problem. That won't happen because that is anti-socialist.

Unions will not agree to such a policy unless their Democratic handlers tell them it is alright to do so, even though it would bring jobs back to the U.S. Certain Unions, such as government workers, municipal workers and teachers want do see a less robust corporate sector as its for-profit tenets run counter to their ideology and lifestyles. What they do not realize is that, if there is no strong private sector, tax revenue falls (even if tax rates rise) and layoffs of municipal workers government workers and teachers result.

I encourage everyone to read "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith or, at least, discussions on Adam Smith and Capitalism. Karl Marx and Trotsky are not the sages the left claim them to be.