0 for 7 and Going for Broke: 0 for 3 Fannie Mae + Freddie Mac

Not only do government programs fail to serve the recipients of others wealth, they also could have a negative effect in the private sector such has Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did. Fannie Mae has been in “business” for 72 years and Freddie Mac for 40 years, these two government supported companies played the biggest role of our most recent economic downturn and are broke. All these programs that are broke play by different rules than the private sector and are able to still exist, running huge deficits, at tax payer’s expense.

These programs, of course, are claimed to be for the welfare of others. At what cost do these programs stop being a benefit and become a burden on economical growth? A simple answer is to say, the program becomes a burden when you have a larger number of dependents than you have producers to support the programs needs.

Senators Barney Frank, Christopher Todd, and Charles Schumer had much to do with the huge economic downturn. These criminal politicians with the help of other liberals in Washington, through extortion like methods, used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for social engineering. Offering people home loans they could not afford. Eventually, these loans were offered on such a large scale that once these unrealistic loans started to foreclose, causing huge losses in the housing market. This was done in the name of welfare and fairness but, eventually helped plunge us in the situation we are in now.

Many in the Bush administration warned that these loans and the practices of these two programs were not sustainable. Liberal after Liberal told Federal regulators that they were wrong; Gregory Meeks goes as far as calling regulators incompetent and along with Maxine Waters and other liberals claiming there was no crisis with housing loans in the housing market.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

If this was the private sector, the leaders of these programs would be brought up on charges of fraud and more. That is the beauty of government programs; they rarely are represented by the people and rarely answer to those that are not profiting in some way from them. We the people need to stop politician gravy trains like this, and get rid of this notion that government programs can correct all that is wrong. The sad reality is government programs line more pockets of the government, and take away more money from the producers that make this country the success story that it is.

- Micheal Garry

Saving Public Transportation or Prolonging its Failure?

Socialism versus Free Market has failed once again, with Public Transportation. The government’s answer is, pretty much admitting to it being a failure, to make new law (The Public Transportation Act of 2010) to bailout the problem and pass on the cost to the tax payer under the guise of preserving public transportation.

Where the problem begins is that, public transportation is competing with other forms of transportation (Cabs, personal vehicles, etc…). They are competing with the cost of what maybe cheaper to do. I calculate how much it is to pay for gas versus the fare to take me back and forth from work. With this competition, come the decisions that a normal company playing buy the rules of the free market would have to make regarding many costs of operation.

The costs of operation would include fuel, maintenance, and employee payroll. Has with all businesses in the Free Market, this formula depends on the right percentage of funds being allocated to each expense in order to compete and stay in business. The formula is where the problem is, the drivers, mechanics, and other operations jobs are union workers making a scale of pay that is not justifiable and out of wack with the percentage of other costs to run public transportation. This makes it harder to compete in the Free Market. Plus, being subsidized, eventually the money will run dry and more taxes will be needed and the cost will also be passed to the consumer because, tax increases will not be enough. The bus riders will only stand or afford so many hikes before seeking alternatives and you need riders to stay in business. Thus, bringing us to The Public Transportation Preservation Act.

This type of government solution through subsidizing with taxes and than, after the venture fails, using taxes to preserve it, is in part why we are in trouble now. This behavior does not reward success, it rewards failure by punishing those who do succeed with higher taxes to support those that don’t.

What should be done in this case and in many others? Much like innovation is born from necessity; innovation can be stifled by subsidizing failed and or out of date ideas. What if government decided to subsidize the horse and buggy business or Kerosene lamps when electricity was discovered? I personally think that Public Transportation's best bet for survival at this point is to leave it to the experts. Leave Transportation to people who know how to run businesses and compete to survive, privatize it.

The economy naturally expands and retracts, and with this comes new ways to do business and the old ways die. The economy is not in a vacuum, we can either try to fight innovation or we can adapt to it and build our businesses upon it. Government does not succeed in and should not attempt to create innovation, it simply should step out of the way and make an atmosphere where innovation is free to grow and thrive. It is only when government steps aside that we have been at our best.

Let us not use legislation to save a failure, let’s deregulate the market so that ideas can be truly free to inspire and grow our economy. To deregulate is not bad, we need to enforce the laws we already have to protect against wrongdoing in the private sector. Where we most need regulation is with our government.

- Micheal Garry

0 for 7 and Going for Broke: 0 for 2 - Social Security

Social Security, the most notable of the programs that came out of the “New Deal” in the 1930’s, had it’s start in 1935 has a good intended supplement for retirees by redistributing others wealth by force to give to others that did not save or have money. What they are not mentioning in government run schools is that, The Supreme Court actually struck down a large portion of the “New Deal”, ruling them unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not go far enough and the birth of Socialism began with the stroke of President Roosevelt's pen for much of the 1930’s.

Again, we will put aside the fact that it is wrong to take a percentage of ones money and give it to someone else because they did not properly save and manage their finances. What did people ever do before this? People today act has though people would be starving in the streets if it was not for Social Security. That is simply not true, like many other safety nets that are at the expense of others, people would be forced to take matters into their own hands and take responsibility for their own families. This would also serve has an incentive to live within ones means and keep families together.

What I can not put aside in looking at this program is the fact that it is giving out more money than it is taking in. Remember Bernie Madoff? Much like the Ponzi scheme he was imprisoned for, the Federal government does in the name of Social Security. Has a matter of fact, I think it might be worse. Social Security investors are being forced to invest into a program that promises a return but, the investor puts more in than they receive on return. The most generous predictions by the Congressional budget Office shows a decade until the system goes broke. Unless they bring more money in through more taxes or raise the age, this will surely only delay its end. I would say that instead of keeping Mr. Madoff in prison, The Feds should have him on the payroll.

So, 75 years of Social Security, how much longer does it take to admit failure? I say give real freedom of choice and let people decide what investments to make on their own. This idea is more in line with freedom than the way the system is now. There are risks to this idea but, when you look at the proven track record of failing government programs, privatizing Social Security sounds like a good bet.

- Micheal Garry