Dear Congressman Frank

Barney Frank is hysterically funny on CNBC this morning. Carl Quintinilla asked Congressman Frank (I'm paraphrasing) whether the government would a) allow inflation to become a problem or b) tighten too quickly and slow economic growth. I'm going to try to quote Rep. Frank exactly, but watch the video (first 30 seconds).

Well, it's interesting. I guess that's kinda' the media approach. Nobody says we might get it right.

With all due respect, Congressman Frank, if it were possible for the government to "get it right," we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with. Congressman, you were the one who said in Congressional hearings on the systemic risk posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that you'd "like to roll the dice a little bit."

Well you rolled the dice, and Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke rolled the dice, and the mortgage originators rolled the dice and the investment banks rolled the dice--all at your prodding--and here we are. For you to now say that "we might get it right" doesn't pass the laugh test--literally. I laughed out loud at how hysterically preposterous your comment was. Why? Because you and your cohorts in Congress will not allow the Fed to get it right. At the first sign of monetary tightening, you will haul Ben Bernanke, whom you praised so highly in this video, before your committee to grill him on how he can condemn millions of Americans to the unemployement rolls.

You, sir, should be a stand-up comedian, because you are not a serious policy maker.

Spending Is The Tax

I could not improve on the title of this post by Jerry O'Driscoll. It's a short post, so read the whole thing.

See my (loosely) related post here.

UPDATE: I heard someone on CNBC today finally say what I've been saying for months regarding the stimulus package, to wit: the money has to come from somewhere.

Is the Obama administration as a RICO enterprise?

George Will has an article in the WaPo today entitled, "Tincture of Lawlessness: Obama's Overreaching Economic Policies". As the title suggests, Will puts forth the notion that Obama is willing to ignore the law. I want to go on record that Obama's actions go beyond "lawlessness."

The Obama administration is a RICO enterprise. Below is the operative sentence--in the Department of Justice's own language--about the scope of the RICO statute.

...the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass illegal activities relating to any enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

What could be more organized or illegal than circumventing the bankruptcy laws as Obama did in the Chrysler deal? What more corrupt organizations could Obama be involved with than the United Auto Workers union, not to mention the United States House of Representatives?

Finally, just look at the following comparisons between a well-known gangster--Al Capone--and a well-known Obama crony--Rahm Emanual. Both started their careers in Chicago. Both used profanity as a tool for manipulating their opponents. Both achieved diminutive statures.

If that doesn't prove the connection between the Mafia and Obama, what does?

Dear Mr. President-4/27/2009

I submitted the following message on the whitehouse.gov website today:

Dear Mr. President,
You need to get a grip. I have little doubt that you did not know beforehand about the so-called "photo-op" that consisted of flying an airliner trailed by a fighter jet over Lower Manhattan. But the fact that such an event could occur in your administration indicates the following. You are trying so hard to deny the importance of the September 11, 2001 attacks--which provided the raison d’être for the Bush Administration--that you are willing to traumatize thousands of people in order to pretend that they didn't happen.

For God's sake, take some of the TARP money and go out and buy a clue. This didn't happen when you were three years old, it happened today. Are you responsible for the actions of those in your Administration or are you not? Are you a clueless three-year old or are you the President of the United States?

Best regards,

If I am President

If I am President in 2017, the country should be prepared for the investigation and prosecution of Obama administration officials involved in the bailouts of financial institutions. These officials deprived private citizens of basic civil rights and appropriated private property without due process.

If I am President, I will prosecute these individuals to the fullest extent of the law. Remember that, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Christina Romer.

Pulling things together

Sometimes certain ideas coalesce in time and when that happens, I'll try to point them out. The first one is this letter of resignation by an AIG executive.

(cwcid/ht) Tigerhawk

The second idea is this article in Scientific American. As interesting as the article is, the commentary by Instapundit really appeals to my love of irony.

(cwcid/ht) Instapundit

Finally, if my reader has read this far and clicked some or all of the links, I leave him or her with this quote.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose...the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtaines as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality."

The character of Francisco D'Anconia
in Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

I can't vouch for the etymology of the phrase "to make money," but the point is that most of the people at AIG were creating wealth. They were condemned and punished for this in a way that was abominable.

Dear Senator Schumer

UPDATE: Ok, so I was wrong. Richard Epstein refutes the idea that the AIG bonus law was unconstitutional. If only I could believe that Chuck Schumer read Richard Epstein.

The following is a message I just posted on Sen. Charles Schumers Senate contact page.

Dear Senator Schumer,
The bill that recently passed the House (H.R.1586) to tax AIG bonuses is very likely unconstitutional and must not become law.

It is, in effect, a bill of attainder. Such laws are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which states:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

You took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I expect you to do so at all times, but particularly in regard to this bill.

I am not an AIG employee and have no financial interest in AIG or any of its subsidiaries.
Sincerely,

How do I know this law is unconstitutional? By relying on my fellow bloggers, of course. Protein Wisdom is one source. There is a link in the comments of that post to this one at Powerline.

I didn't call my Senator as the Protein Wisdom post suggested. I took the Internet route instead.