An in depth analysis of WHY YOU ARE WRONG

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Rule Of Law Vs. Rule Of Thugs

No time to do a more complete comment on this, but David Frum, nailed a real good post about Obama's recent assault on (what's left of) the rule of law.

As a strong Libertarian Republican, I've been very angry about both parties disregard for the rule of law. But, the recent moves by Obama have taken this to a new level. The hide in the cave crowd, which looked so loony to most can now make a strong case that a fully totalitarian state is now weeks or months away.

The thing to understand is that given what we know about what Obama has done already, we can only assume it's the tip of the Iceberg. One thing is clear, this administration -- always thinks the ends justify the means which is the central maxim of the dictator.

Frum focuses on the recent Chrysler "deal" and his threat to withhold Simulus money if California cuts the pay of union workers but sadly one can come up with many, many, many more examples.

Chrysler "deal"

"The trouble was: those assets belonged to somebody else. They belonged to the company's bondholders, who had a legal first claim. Under the administration's plan, those senior-secured creditors would have received just 29¢ on the dollar.

For a failing company to shuffle assets so as to favor some creditors over others with a stronger claim is a very serious wrong, potentially even a crime. There's a sound economic reason for this rule of law: Bondholders accept lower returns in good times in exchange for greater security in bad times. Protecting bondholders in bad times ensures that future borrowers will be able to borrow in good times."

California "deal"

"The state of California faces a desperate fiscal situation. California now has the worst credit rating of any American state. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic majority legislature have struggled to balance the books, as they are constitutionally obliged to do. They have raised taxes dramatically, but they have also cut some programs. Among the cuts: a $2-an-hour cut in the wages of home health-care workers.

Those workers were unionized, and their union -- the Service Employees International Union - carries clout in Obama's Washington. On Thursday, California state officials told the Los Angeles Times that they had received a warning: The federal government would deny California $6.8-billion in stimulus funds unless the wage cut was rescinded. Since the wage cut will save only about $74-million, the state will have little choice but to surrender."

What's happening is a clear pattern of intimidation using all the force of the state sending the message-- do what we say- or else!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

California Deal,

I know a family with a disabled daughter receiving a $2600 month direct payment, free health care, and free day care from IHSS.

Both are teachers. Neither pays social security even though part of their 'benefit' comes from social security. The money goes into trips, new trailers, IRA's, and a second home.

They have plans to bring a disabled relative in from out of state to collect another check from the system.

I have paid into social security my entire life. If I were to become disabled or died my families maximum benefit would be about $2100. That would have to support my four children.

There is something wrong with that picture.