Socialism takes several forms. Perhaps the best document form of socialism via crony capitalism was the German example from the 1930's to the end of WWII. The German government relied upon their industrial partners to work closely with the government to achieve the political goals of the dominant party, while rewarding those industries who offered no resistance to those political goals. It was this lock-step partnership that allowed the Germans of the 1930's to take foreign and domestic policy steps that worked against the best interests of the average German, although, we are told, the majority of Germans approved the political plans of the dominant party.
Currently, we are aware of plans to force government spending, in cooperation with certain industry groups, on a wide range of political goals being asserted on the national stage by today's dominant political party. We are still looking for the reform of certain agencies, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that led our nation to the brink of financial melt-down, after following an aggresive political agenda of our nation's dominant political party.
"In the wake of the recent financial meltdown, Americans know that we need reform. Not only have many individuals learned lessons about personal responsibility through this, but we’ve been able to engage in a discussion about government’s appropriate role.
"The current debate over financial reform demonstrates what happens when political leaders react to a crisis with a raft of new regulations. First off, the people involved in writing government regulations are often lobbyists from the very industry that the new laws are supposed to regulate, and that’s been the case here. It should surprise no one that financial lobbyists are flocking to DC this week. Of course, the big players who can afford lobbyists work the regulations in their favor, while their smaller competitors are left out in the cold. The result here are regulations that institutionalize the “too big to fail” mentality.
"Moreover, the financial reform bill gives regulators the power to pick winners and losers, institutionalizing their ability to decide 'which firms to rescue or close, and which creditors to reward and how.' Does anyone doubt that firms with the most lobbyists and the biggest campaign donations will be the ones who get seats in the lifeboat? The president is trying to convince us that he’s taking on the Wall Street 'fat cats,' but firms like Goldman Sachs are happy with federal regulation because, as one of their lobbyists recently stated, 'We partner with regulators.'
"They seem to have a nice relationship with the White House too. Goldman showered nearly a million dollars in campaign contributions on candidate Obama. In fact, J.P. Freire notes that President Obama received about seven times more money from Goldman than President Bush received from Enron. Of course, it’s not just the donations; it’s the revolving door. You’ll find the name Goldman Sachs on many an Obama administration résumé, including Rahm Emanuel’s and Tim Geithner’s chief of staff’s.
"We need to be on our guard against such crony capitalism. We fought against distortion of the market in Alaska when we confronted 'Big Oil,' or more specifically some of the players in the industry and in political office, who were taking the 49th state for a ride. My administration challenged lax rules that seemed to allow corruption, and we even challenged the largest corporation in the world at the time for not abiding by provisions in contracts it held with the state. When it came time to craft a plan for a natural gas pipeline, we insisted on transparency and a level playing field to ensure fair competition. Our reforms helped reduce politicians’ ability to play favorites and helped clean up corruption. We set up stricter oversight offices and ushered through a bi-partisan ethics reform bill. Far from being against necessary reform, I embrace it.
"Commonsense conservatives acknowledge the need for financial reform and believe that government can play an appropriate role in leveling the playing field and protecting 'the dynamism of American capitalism without neglecting the government’s responsibility to protect the American public.' We’re listening closely to the reform discussion in Washington, and we know that government should not burden the market with unnecessary bureaucracy and distorted incentives, nor make a dangerous 'too-big-to-fail' mentality the law of the land."
Did you catch it? How sexist are you?
When you read the words of Governor Palin, are you actually listening to the meaning of the words, or are you caught up in her looks, her northy accent or, simply, that she's a woman?
Read her words again, and assume that they're the words coming from someone like Tom Brokaw. He's got a wing-dinger of a regional accent. You simply need to get over your visceral reaction to Governor Palin to realize that there's a lot more there than meets the eye. Or, especially, escapes through the prism of the mainstream media.
You can read her post
here.
