'Stimulus' Reeks - What Republicans Can Do
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:58 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen
McGann
How should House and Senate Republicans react to the Trojan horse
stimulus package proposed by the Obama administration?
In the name of economic stimulus, it not only has
every item any liberal ever asked of Santa Claus on Christmas eve,
it also contains the seeds of a permanent shift toward a
European-style socialist democracy.
Its dramatic exemption of more than half of
Americans from paying federal income taxes (it is now about
one-third who don't pay them) and its generosity in awarding
this voting majority a welfare check - called a refundable tax
credit - moves the politics of taxation sharply to the left.
The federal government's acquisition of
preferred stock in virtually all our major banks sets the stage for
full nationalization. After all, if the feds are using their
"preferred" status to hog all the dividends, why should
any private person buy bank stock?
By demanding that Citibank cancel its plans to buy
a private jet, the Obama administration is tapping into a justified
populist anger against the greed, privilege, stupidity and sense of
entitlement of the Wall Street biggies. But he is also setting the
precedent for government control over the actions of private
banks.
If Obama extends his power to the selection of
management and policies regarding the lending of money,
nationalization will become a de facto reality. And once the
government controls the banks, it controls the economy.
At best, we will have a Japanese system where winks
and nods from bureaucrats turn industrial policy upside-down; at
worst, we will have outright federal control, with
government-appointed latter-day Blagojeviches determining who gets
loans and who doesn't.
With only 41 votes in the Senate and a distant
minority in the House, what should Republicans do in the face of
this onslaught against the basic free-market, private-enterprise
system?
The answer is for the Republicans to caucus and
come up with a "free-enterprise" amendment to add to the
stimulus package. The amendment should spell out what the
government may not do in influencing the policy of private
banks.
It should, for example, make it illegal for the
feds to urge certain lending policies on banks or to suggest
specific loans that might be granted. It should enjoin the feds
from intervening in decisions on who should manage various aspects
of bank operations. The idea would be to cordon off large parts of
the private sector, even in subsidized institutions, to bar public
federal government influence.
A well-drawn amendment would be akin to the
protections in the Bill of Rights against government intervention
in certain activities such as religion, press, speech, petitioning,
and assembly. It would lay down markers indicating what the feds
may not do.
This amendment could draw strong support from
Democrats and might even be negotiable with the Obama
administration. Democrats are not anxious to be labeled as the
party of socialism; and Republicans, who know the stimulus package
will pass anyway, are looking for a way to, at minimum, influence
it.
Sitting on the sidelines and voting no is not the
way to win friends and influence people.
If moderate Democrats and the administration prove
truculent or overly limited in what they will accept, the
free-enterprise amendment gives the Republican Party a place to
stand in a filibuster.
To filibuster merely to reduce the size of the
stimulus or to influence the mix of the tax cuts or the specifics
of the spending would not appeal to an America in shellshock over
the depression. But a strong stand - refusing to allow the stimulus
package to come up for a vote - in order to make sure that our
economy remains private and that socialism does not come inside the
Trojan horse makes a great deal of sense and will be seen by the
American people as a wise use of power by the Republicans.
Rather than asking the Republicans why they
won't pass the stimulus package, they will ask Obama why he
does not accede to so acceptable an amendment.
And the amendment, once passed, will be worth its
weight in stopping bureaucrats from crossing lines that should not
be crossed. One can easily see the day when prosecutions for
violations of this amendment become commonplace.
© 2009 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
