Obama Citizenship

Varney: Obama Administration Not Accepting TARP Repayments

By Phil

As I originally opined here, I was for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) — specifically, TARP “1″ — because it stipulated that this money is actually a loan, garnering a 5% dividend per year for taxpayers (the government) for the first 5 years, and 9% thereafter up to 10 years out (USNews).

However, as Stuart Varney – a British economic journalist who works for the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network in America — points out in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, these loans apparently won’t be received by the Administration as their payments come due…

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn’t much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street’s black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell ‘em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration’s thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash — which was often forced on them in the first place — the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That’s what’s happening right now. …

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can’t a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can’t special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit — until now. …

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can’t quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

Obviously I must change my stance regarding any kind of TARP funds or even further government bailouts, as this Administration seems to only be able to do one thing during its first 100 days — spend America into oblivion.

What happens if you are in debt up to your eye balls? Do you spend more in hopes that such spending will be on the “right things,” such that, eventually, you will get out of debt? How much sense does that make?

Most people don’t realize unless they take the time to think about it that government spending in the 1930s isn’t what got the country out of the Depresssion; it was World War II that did that. In fact, military spending was not only necessary at the time but it was also constitutional!

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on April 05, 2009 (boomark / email).