"we're from the government and we're here to help"

That Ronald Reagan might not have been all of the savior a lot of folks make him out to be, but he sure had some much-needed common sense and a good wit to go with it. And he was right when he said those are the nine scariest words in the English language. And on that note, let's take an uplifting and encouraging look at some of the feds' latest actions, as noted in the article from the previous post.

First off, check out this naive quote:

White House Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman Christina Romer defended the stimulus package and financial rescue plan. "I have every expectation, as do private forecasters, that we will bottom out this year and actually be growing again by the end of the year," she said.

Okay, let's all remember that quote a year from now. Of course, my prediction is that she'll be proved dead wrong. There were plenty of forecasters saying we'd be out of this rut in the first quarter of this year, then it was this summer, and now the green light has been pushed back to the end of this year. See a trend?

And this one comes to mind:

...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported on Friday the president's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade — more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency.

But wait, haven't folks of many political stripes generally agreed that the ballooning of deficits by Dubya and the Repub-controlled Congress was a bad thing? Then why are we doing the same thing again and hailing it as a "path to recovery"? I mean, either deficit spending is a good idea or it isn't. If it's part of what got us here, continuing the problem isn't gonna get us out. If it's not part of what got us here, then quit haranguing Dubya for running up the debt. Oh, it's okay to spend it domestically but not on foreign wars? Then the complaint is not with the deficts themselves but on how the money was spent. Come on, people, before we point fingers let's at least figure out what to get mad and indignant about.

And now on to one of the usual suspects:

Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the powerful banking committee, supported the legislation but said Washington should consider more steps, including suing AIG to recoup the money. The government has an 80 percent equity stake in the financial giant, a position Frank said should be used "to assert our rights."

Figures. Typical Barney Frank--use the hammer of the government to impose his will upon whatever group he happens to be at odds with that day. Is there any better litmus test in D.C.? I can't think of one. The "if Barney supports it then I oppose it" rule is quite a reliable one when it comes to any House bill.

Speaking of which, I can't help but remark on the crew of leaders who will supposedly guide us through this morass into better times not too far ahead. I mean, look at the champions we have: Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Geithner. Maybe they have some great intellect and foresight hidden somewhere in there that we haven't seen yet, but so far, has any one of them done anything since this all started that has inspired confidence in their leadership? They've been in reactionary mode from the outset and that's not a mark of a sound, planned approach. Seems to me that they don't have a grasp on what forces are at work and don't know what to expect, and so they feel obligated to come up with another fix every time they're caught off-guard. Granted, they can't be expected to be in complete command of such chaos given that too many things are out of their control, but if they can't figure out what's happening before it happens then they need to just chart a course to keep us taxpayers out of harm's way as much as possible and stick with it, and accept that some things simply can't be controlled and will only be made worse by poorly targeted intervention.

And yet this is the team that perhaps holds great sway over the future of the country. We are so screwed.

_____