Indeed, we are not smearing people. However, like Luke who allowed his faith in Jesus to waiver, many free marketeers and conservatives allowed their faith in the free markets to waiver. If some of our most stalwart conservatives will suddenly “sacrifice their free market principles to save the free market system”, as George Bush was wont to say, then how can regular everyday folks be expected to support conservatism and conservative values if they can get socialism from the other party?

You were misinformed. Neither the original Paulson proposal nor the final TARP law said anything about “undervalued mortgage instruments” or ” turning a profit for the taxpayers.”

Argruing about who did or does support something called TARP is like arguing about who supports “torture.” By leaving the term undefined you can attribute all kinds of positions to other people — positions they never held. I guess this kind of phony argument can make one feel very superior and smug. Ask Andrew Sullivan.

Is this your first time to observe the federal government and it’s modus operandi?

I supposed one ought to be pleased, Mr. Bones, when a member of the señoritoly element comes as close as that to recognizin’ the Goose-Gander Principle.

On the other hand, it ain’t all that close. _Und so weiter_ [1]

Happy days.

___
[1] http://riolimbaugh.blogspot.com/2009/05/clubs-r-trumps.html

California is bankrupt. I doubt even Obama can conceal that much longer.

But there is a difference between right and left, on how to handle that reality. The left’s invariable objective is to winnow all pipers’ options down to one piper-payer. Whatever the purpose of that is, for the left’s various constituencies, the result is ensuring that only one tune gets played.

The right recognizes that there are situations in which single-payer piping is appropriate, as with parents and children, or the state and the military. But it also recognizes that life is better for everyone when many payers can make decisions about which pipers to pay, and what to have them play — and pipers can choose which payers to respond to, without their very survival being at stake. The right seeks to PREVENT the single-payer piping situation.

Which is why the right should immediately recognize the threat to federalism, constitutional limitations, and ultimately, our liberties, represented by the insidious “stimulus” enticements.

In fact, of course, many on the right recognized the latent danger of federal revenue-sharing nearly 30 years ago, when the mostly right-on Ronald Reagan made it one of his core approaches to government.

If companies or states take TARP money, you can bet that the government will impose conditions and tell the recipient what to do with the money. I believe this even applies to parents and children. If parents give their children money, especially when it’s a lot of money, you can bet they will tell their children what to do with the money. In that relationship, children can tell their parents NO and the parents will (often) continue to love them. But the kids can’t expect more money! Not so with governments and companies. Saying NO only begets more problems.

The best way to solve this problem is not to ever take the money, as others have noted. What a shame that the people who run the states and companies didn’t learn this part of human nature when they were growing up.

All that one needed to have a “solid, informed opinion” about TARP was a basic philosphy of economic policy — one either does or does not think public funds should be used to support private companies. Do you wonder for even a nanosecond what Milton Freidman would have said about TARP?

Here is George Will’s article on the constitutionality of TARP:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/170355

Then I listened to those who kept insisting that there was no crisis — and that’s when I made up my mind:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/09/29/ok-im-for-the-bailout.php

At that point, I had no idea that the recovery money — and the clout thereof — would be used in such a nakedly partisan and brutal fashion. Sure, I figured there’d be some abuses, but I was more concerned with it being used for political payoffs and corruption — nothing of this scale.

Man, was I wrong. I had NO idea that the whole program would become the new administration’s favored tool for ramming home its political and social agenda, and so quickly. I simply didn’t think that was possible. That was just beyond my comprehension.

I apologize for that, and pledge to be far more cynical in the future.

J.

I’m not inclined to give W. any “if he’d foreseen this …” leeway.

The Obama Administration’s actions with TARP only differ in the order of magnitude – the practice of tying strings to the acceptance of federal money is so long-standing that anyone who didn’t foresee this is a fool or incredibly naive.

As a resident of the formerly Golden State, I hope the whole rotting ediface collapses. The combination of illegals, leftist Democrats and public employee unions has the state coming apart at the seams.

Chris Bolts Sr.:

Are you sure George Will supported TARP? I seem to recall him arguing that it was unconstitutional. I could be wrong, but I would like to be pointed to something he wrote that supports what you say.

We have not yet begun to feel the full effects of the policies of the prior and current administrations.

And this is why the Founding Fathers expressed a deep belief in Federalism. Once the federal government becomes the central focal point of the government and the economy, we cease being a government of the people, for the people, by the people.

And J.G., you cut President Bush too much slack. He didn’t have to know that Mr. Obama was going to use TARP in ways that it wasn’t originally intended (after all, Mr. Bush started it by using TARP funds to help GM and Chrysler). No, all Mr. Bush had to do was understand Mr. Obama’s character and his personal philosophy. You can hardly call Obama a socialist when the last guy – a Republican, no less – started implementing the socialism for him.

That said, its power doesn’t lie in any real impact to the California budget from home-care worker wages. $74 million is the tiniest droplet in California’s vast, bloated budget swamp. The amount proposed to go just for health and welfare services is over $82 billion in 2009-10, of which $38 billion comes from state funding (the rest from the feds). Of course, that amount IS outstripped by one spending area: the $93 billion — state and federal — going to K-12, higher education, and research. (And with its $54.8 billion share of that amount, the K-12 system is already “having to” fire teachers. Right. We hand you $54.8 billion, and you can’t keep all the teachers on? What are you DOING with the K-12 money, folks?)

For the roads falling apart, there will be $10.6 billion. For the state firefighting force, about $850 million. But the Governator has threatened us with cutting that by 10% if we don’t pass the ballot propositions next week, so the state can breathe a sigh of relief and raise our taxes more expeditiously.

Gosh, maybe if Da Schwarz could save that $74 million in home-care wages, he could put that against the firefighting budget cut. Or MAYBE, the problem is the $82 billion going directly to transfer payments for health care and welfare.

J. G. Thayer is incorrect in saying that the Obama administration is doing to California “precisely” what the non-TARP lenders tried to do to Chrysler. The non-TARP lenders in question were secured debt-holders who were pressured into giving up their legal rights. In contrast, the Obama administration is injecting itself into the California dispute to benefit its supporters.