Single issue voter?
This bailout business and the financial crisis has really just chaffed my rear. I’ve only posted a couple blogs about it, but my facebook profile has seen post after post on it.
I’ve always made sure not to let myself become a single-issue voter, but this might’ve done it. Let me explain by taking abortion as an example. I’m pro-life. Very much so. However, I have always felt that Roe vs. Wade (RvW) being overturned will happen one day, as long as we continue to support conservative principles and conservative presidents. So the abortion issue was never my only consideration when voting. Instead, it was wrapped up with the idea that we need judges that will interpret the letter of the law and the Constitution and NOT make ruling based on their emotional feelings on an issue. This is a conservative position. Overturning RvW would make the legality of abortion a decision for the States, where it should be. Then the battle becomes one to convince the people on the moral issue, which isn’t as hard as getting a Supreme Court verdict. Right now, the moral issue is irrelevant as long as the RvW stands. My point is that as long as we are promoting a conservative agenda: federalism, small government, low taxes, liberty, keeping the government out of the home, etc., the abortion issue is included, even if a conservative is pro-choice (as long as it’s pro-choice, but should be left to the states).
This bailout is included in that. If our supposedly conservative politicians would stick to principles, we wouldn’t have just spent $700 billion keeping investment banks from failing in a futile attempt to prevent a financial crisis. Instead of listening to economists and conservative principles (which say: let the banks fail and the free-market will take care of the crisis faster than any government can), our “conservative” politicians adopted the Marxist playbook. Now they’re talking about the government buying preferred shares (e.g., stock) in banks (hat tip: Michelle Malkin). This is basically nationalization of the banking industry. It’s not just a STEP towards socialism, but a giant leap. We are not entering the realm of socialist economic theory - the same theory that is at the heart of many economic collapses over the years. Want evidence of what happens when socialism (read social engineering) is mixed with a free-market economy? Look around you (hat tip for summary: Small Dead Animals. This economic disaster isn’t a result of deregulation as the Democrats say. It’s the result of the government forcing banks to give mortgages to people who should never have had one. When the risky mortgages go from 2% to 30% of total loans within a few years, you get the current crisis (that was softened by the deregulation).
The true crisis we are facing isn’t the financial one. It’s the political direction we are taking as a nation. The temptation that we are facing is strong: let the government take some of the burden off of our shoulders at the “small price” of giving up a bit of freedom. The temptation is even stronger when the promises are coupled with lower taxes for the working class. We are told that nationalizing health care will provide for everyone affordable coverage, regardless of income. Yet, at what cost? This bail out will help mainstreet, we are told, by bailing out investment banks (preventing a credit crisis - which economists say will not be prevented) and also renegotiating bad mortgages. This comes at a price of roughly $2300/citizen. But don’t worry, the rich will pay for it. Nevermind that the national debt has broken $10 TRILLION dollars. That’s a lot over $33,000/citizen. Nevermind that the economists say it won’t work. All that matters is that the public *believes* it’ll work between now and election day. And if that part of the bailout doesn’t work, the government will buy control into private businesses so that they can look out for our interest.
Whatever happenned to taking personal responsibility and living with the consequences of our poor decisions? Whatever happenned to helping our fellow citizens instead of turning our backs because we pay taxes so that the government can look out for them instead?
I’m digressing. This bailout runs contrary to conservative principles to the point that we cannot even say that we believe in a free-market. Under President Bush our government hasn’t gotten smaller as you’d expect under conservative control of both the legistlative and executive branches. It’s grown - a lot. And now, that same president and Congress bipartisanly passed this bail-out bill.
My litmus test for politicians has now become much simpler: did they vote for the bail-out? If yes, then I cannot consider them true conservatives. If no, then I can look at other issues: did they vote against the bail out because it increased government too much? Or not enough? Only then can I go down the list.
That’s not to say I won’t vote for them as the “lesser of two evils,” but I very simply cannot call myself a supporter of that person. John McCain lost my support with this bill and his recent proposal for Treasury to directly buy up bad mortgages. I’ll hold my nose and vote for him to prevent the Socialist Obamassiah from getting into office and furthering the agenda of domestic terrorists and radicals. But is a socialist-lite Republican who finds amusement in stabbing conservatives in the back really that much better? Unfortunately, highlighting the poor choices we have, the answer is an obvious yes.
Palin-DeMint ‘12
