In more optimistic times, one might have hoped the outrage displayed by Congress and some members of the general population over the American International Group (AIG) scandal marks a turning point.
Sadly, this is not the case.
The latest overreaction by the Democrat-controlled Congress amounts to nothing more than a populist backlash with the overall intent to increase the size and scope of the federal government.
Unless your spring break itinerary included a week long stay on some deserted island, you have heard all about the recent bailout scandal, in which government-controlled AIG paid out $165 million in bonuses to some of its employees. The reaction in the halls of Congress, shrill hypocrisy disguised as legitimate moral outrage, is absolutely disgusting.
The $165 million total sounds like a lot of money – and it certainly is to folks like you and me. However, considering AIG has received in excess of $182 billion in bailout funding, $165 million doesn’t even register. It represents barely nine ten-thousandths of a percent – a miniscule amount – and that just takes into consideration the money given to AIG.
Listening to the hoodwinks in Congress, especially House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, you would think our representatives actually have some semblance of fiscal responsibility, but this is sadly not the case.
In one of her hastily assembled press conferences Pelosi said, “We want our money back, and we want our money back now for the taxpayers. It isn’t that complicated.”
I couldn’t agree with Speaker Pelosi more – I do want my money back, but why stop at the $165 million in bonuses?
Why are Americans only outraged at AIG for fulfilling contractual obligations to the tune of $165 million? As a taxpayer and a laissez-faire capitalist, I want the $182 billion back that AIG received in bailout money.
I don’t want to stop there, either. I want back the $700 billion in TARP funds that the Bush administration wasted, as well as the $787 billion the Obama administration recently shoved through Congress with nary a debate in sight.
President Barack Obama expressed “outrage” over the AIG incident, calling their actions “reckless and greedy.” What about the actions of the federal government? This entire bailout debacle is nothing but reckless.
I’m outraged at the fact that the Federal Reserve recently announced plans to purchase $1 trillion of toxic securities and other assets. I want all the money back that our federal government has fleeced from its citizens.
I want us to return the borrowed money to the countries of origin. I want the federal government to stop printing money around the clock to pay for its promises.
Are Americans so blind now that they think Congress actually cares? The answer is an unequivocal yes, because anyone who freaks out over $165 million, when Congress has recently expanded our national debt in excess of $11 trillion, needs a serious head examination.
The populist pitchfork approach doesn’t end with mere incredulity either. Our exalted leaders in the House of Representatives hastily passed a bill by a vote of 328-93 that would tax recipients of the AIG bonuses at a 90 percent rate.
The Constitution doesn’t apply to Obama or this Congress. The same critics who hammered away at President George Bush for the last eight years for ignoring the Constitution are now eerily silent when this administration and its Congressional lackeys ignore it, too.
Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from enacting laws ex post facto, retroactive legislation.
The law simply states Congress cannot pass legislation that retroactively changes the legal status of an action that occurred before the law was enacted. In this case, an argument can be made that the AIG tax bill violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution.
Congressional leaders don’t care about bills of attainder in the Constitution, either.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Cummings v. Missouri (1866), “any legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment qualifies as a bill of attainder and is illegal.”
To detractors that say this legislation does not qualify as either ex post facto or a bill of attainder, the Supreme Court looks at the intent of Congress when the bill is passed. Anyone who watched C-SPAN or listened to Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY, would conclude that the intent was to punish.
According to Rangel, “We figured that the local and state governments would take care of the other 10 percent. The American people demand protection and that’s what we’re doing today.”
Congress has blown this entire debacle completely out of proportion, while ignoring the fundamental failure – the bailouts themselves. It’s time for Congress to put away the hypocritical torches and pitchforks and quit meddling in the economy.
It’s time for the American people to hold their representatives accountable for destroying any semblance of freedom and liberty in America.
-Joe Hunt is a history and economics senior.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
mustafa 3 years, 2 months ago
Wow. Two days in a row with excellent opinion pieces. The end must be near.
kdbp1213 3 years, 2 months ago
it's cool to see an okla daily columnist actually think that our federal government is too big & costly.....
i'm tired of living in the Nanny States of America and with Big Brother in my back pocket..........
fustigate 3 years, 2 months ago
2028
impatient_with_ignorance 3 years, 2 months ago
gothcehf: "That's the problem with libertarians: we shoot straight, but that's not politically correct so we don't get elected"
"not politically correct" ? Don't you mean these value judgments and policy preferences are strongly opposed by a very strong majority of the people???
so does "not politically correct" mean "not viable or even relevant in a democracy" and, if so, is the problem democracy or the value judgments/policy preferences?
if I were an economic libertarian, which I obviously am not (as opposed to a social and civil libertarian, which I am), I would say "our" problem is that "we" are utterly irrelevant to the real policy debate and the range of real policy alternatives from which the voters and government will decide.
That otherwise intelligent people would persist in being irrelevant and self-marginalizing sometimes seems psychologically interesting, but most of the time actually just seems to be a godsend to those who disagree with you, so thanks and keep it up the, uhhhh, good work...
libertarian 3 years, 2 months ago
It's nice to read an articulate column in the Daily, and Mr. Hunt never disappoints with regards to entertainment value either.
Impatient: Why isn't it viable? I've noticed that you frequently point this out with respect to Joe's columns - but why isn't this train of thought viable? My guess is you're one of those statist types who embraces the status quo and this train of thought is only "not viable" because it deviates from that.
Excellent job Mr. Hunt, I greatly enjoyed reading this piece. It is a welcome and refreshing CHANGE (to use that oft repeated word) to read the opinion of an educated and independent thinker. Kudos again.
impatient_with_ignorance 3 years, 1 month ago
libertarian, i was defining not viable simply as "strongly opposed by a large majority" or perhaps, a shorthand, unable to win 10-15 percent of the vote.
stai3723: in terms of your phrase "people like Obama and Bush," i'm trying to figure out what category both these guys would belong to? I would bet a huge majority of Americans see these two as VERY different, and support one of them but are very critical of the other. People who see them as fitting into one category are almost certainly a small minority and, again, have the absolute right to express their views. Go to it, guys.
And I admit my views are a bit jaundiced, in that I very much do believe in democracy and the right of the people to choose how they are governed
gothchef 3 years, 2 months ago
That's the problem with libertarians: we shoot straight, but that's not politically correct so we don't get elected.I'll watch for your name on the ballot, Joe.
eightbitgirl 3 years, 2 months ago
Even though I don't personally agree with most libertarian viewpoints, it is a fantastic day when an article exhibits qualities of literacy and research. This was a great read.
scrtagnt25 3 years, 2 months ago
Brilliantly composed with factual evidence and a strong passion for what was written.
Bravo, Joe Hunt.