Howard: Obama’s policies strip liberties

Government is the enemy of liberty. Every increase in government power and services comes at the… Government is the enemy of liberty. Every increase in government power and services comes at the expense of the individual citizen’s liberty. Each welfare program, each financial regulation, each environmental protection is paid for in tax dollars and freedom. Some of these sacrifices are necessary: a modern military, for instance, cannot be organized by the individual citizen nor can it be supported without taxes. However, the Obama administration’s recent economic proposals go too far in restricting the liberty of private citizens. On Monday, the administration announced that it could soon be the largest shareholder in a number of major U.S. banks, including Citigroup and Bank of America. The New York Times reported that the administration’s plan would exchange tax dollars for common shares in major banks, which would give the government a voting interest in some of the nation’s largest financial institutions. This new relationship would constitute an egregious conflict of interest in which the government would be a major investor in financial institutions at the same time it is responsible for regulating them. ‘Armed with voting shares, government officials would have more power to oust existing management and change the company’s strategy,’ reported The New York Times. When he was building his Cabinet, Obama thought that Tim Geithner, the man whose press conferences send the stock market plunging, would be a good choice to run the Treasury Department. And his first choice to serve as commerce secretary, Bill Richardson, is under investigation for corruption. How can we trust Obama to make management changes at major banks when he can’t successfully staff his own government? Obama’s plan amounts to a takeover of this nation’s banks under the guise of free market institutions. It is an attempt to single out banks as scapegoats, when in fact the responsibility for the current financial crisis rests with three parties: the banks, the government and the American people. The problem is that Obama is unwilling to admit that the American people are partly to blame for their own suffering. Individuals who lost their homes as a result of an adjustable rate mortgage shouldn’t have signed them in the first place. Yes, government deregulation of the financial system, and the mortgage industry in particular, is partially responsible for the current crisis. Yes, banks took advantage of this deregulation to make money at the expense of the naive. However, neither the government that deregulated the system nor the banks that made the mortgages available ever forced someone to buy a home beyond their means. Now we are all paying for the folly of these three responsible parties, and the mob, with the Democratic Party at the forefront, is in search of a scapegoat. The government’s plan to control a voting interest in the U.S. banking institution constitutes the latest sacrifice to the mob. It is simply an attempt to appease the poor and stupid by turning financial control over to its representatives in Congress and the White House. Well, I don’t trust the people, their representatives or their burgeoning statist economy. Nationalization will only produce long-term mediocrity in a nation which has traditionally thrived on the marketplace of ideas that free-market capitalism encourages. Pittsburgh itself is a testament to the societal success of the free market. Every time we make use of the Carnegie Museum, the Hillman Library or Schenley Plaza, we are reaping the benefits of the successes of capitalism in our city. But the fortunes and innovations of the Carnegies, the Hillmans and the Schenleys would have been impossible under an economic system dependent on permanent government intervention. Obama is turning his back on the legacy of great entrepreneurs that have helped this country flourish. He is taking advantage of the current economic climate to enact a far broader and more intrusive economic agenda than he was elected to put forward. The Obama administration’s proposal constitutes an assault on this nation’s history and potential. It is an example of transparent pandering in which the worst and weakest in this society are being assuaged at the cost of liberty. E-mail Giles at gbh4@pitt.edu.