Cascajun

I’ve called or written to my Congressman, Rick Larsen, four times regarding the bailout legislation that has been proposed over the last two weeks. I received an email response from his office today, which I’ve posted below. You can find my reply immediately below Congressman Larsen’s message.

Dear Mr. Arabie:

Today I made the difficult decision to vote for the financial rescue package. I would like to take this opportunity to explain my decision to you.

Over the past five days, I have heard from many of you concerned with the financial rescue package. I have read the messages you left with my staff. I have talked with constituents visiting my DC office. I have read your emails. I have spoken with local banks and small business owners, students, and families.

Many of you have said you were worried about the huge cost of this bill. Others thought we should not act to help the Wall Street investment firms whose irresponsible choices led us to this terrible situation. Some of you were concerned that this bill helped Wall Street but did nothing to help families struggling with foreclosure and the economic downturn.

I have heard your concerns and have worked to address them.

Our nation faces an economic crisis that has the potential to impact every family in the country. The Bush Administration responded to the crisis by requesting a $700 billion blank check with no oversight, no protections for taxpayers, no returns on taxpayer investment, and no help for homeowners.

Congress said no way, no how, no blank check. Instead, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to make improvements to the Administration’s plan. We included the oversight, accountability and stake in our investment that American taxpayers need and deserve.

That is why I voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (HR 3997). Although I voted in favor of the bill, it failed by a vote of 228-205. This improved financial rescue package would have cut the $700 billion payment in half and conditioned any future payments on Congressional review. It would have banned golden parachutes and exorbitant bonuses for Wall Street executives who participate. It would have provided help for families who have been hit hard by the foreclosure crisis. It would have ensured that taxpayers get a fair return on our investment, benefit from any future profit, and it would have provided strong oversight and prohibited any conflicts of interest.

The economic rescue package I voted for today is not about helping banks or Wall Street. It is about protecting all of us — American families in Washington State and across the country who need our economy to recover and grow.

Due to the credit crunch we already face, banks in Washington State and around the country have already tightened lending, and families and business are finding it more difficult to get the loans they need in their everyday lives. If you own a small business and need a loan, are planning to buy a home, or if your son or daughter wants to go to college, you could pay the price.

Without an emergency intervention, Americans who play by the rules, Americans who pay their bills on time every month, and Americans with good credit will suffer due to Wall Street’s mistakes and the Bush administration’s refusal to provide the appropriate regulation our economy needs.

Under the financial rescue package, the federal government would buy bad debt from troubled banks to unclog our financial system, allowing banks to once again provide the capital our economy needs to recover and grow.

In the coming days, it is critical that Members of Congress come to an agreement and pass a financial rescue package as soon as possible. Our economy depends on it.

In the coming weeks, Congress must also act to deliver the appropriate regulation and oversight our economy needs for the long-term - regulation and oversight the Bush administration has failed to provide.

Sincerely,

Rick Larsen
United States Representative
Washington State, 2nd District

My response follows:

Dear Congressman Larsen,

I appreciate your response outlining your reasons for supporting the Bailout bill. While I understand some action is necessary, I firmly believe this plan would have done more harm than good. At the very least, it sends the message that poor management and decision making don’t have dire consequences and lays the burden for such behavior on the backs of the taxpayers - which coincidentally is ONLY ~60% of those who file income tax returns.

Furthermore, I’m a bit dismayed by your attempt to lay the blame for this credit crisis entirely on Wall Street and the Bush administration. I’m not going to defend Bush or his economic policies, though I will point out two facts that must have escaped your consideration.

1. This crisis was brought about largely by the subprime lending fiasco of recent years, which was fueled by the Community Reinvestment Act and mismanagement at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - both government sponsored enterprises (GSE). These are not “Wall Street” firms.
2. Congressional hearings were held in 2004 & 2005 regarding this mismanagement and, at that time, Republicans were calling for more oversight and regulation of these two entities. The Democrats in Congress, however, prevented such reform.

Personally, I believe there is plenty of blame to go around - Wall Street greed, crony capitalism, and both parties have created this mess. Furthermore, I believe the American electorate should own up to most of it for putting partisans like you in office. I, for one, will not fall for your blame game politics. I would desperately like to see changes in Washington, but it is obvious to me you won’t be part of it.

Regards,

Randy Arabie
Independent Voter

CSPAN footage of congressional oversight hearings held in 2004 and 2005. The regulators were predicting the mortgage industry meltdown and DEMOCRATS blocked the REPUBLICAN efforts to enact regulations to prevent it.

George Friedman, Chief Intelligence Officer at Stratfor, is preparing a four-part report on the United States Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy. That debate is scheduled for Friday, 26 September 2008. The first installment frames the questions that the next president will face and is linked below. I’ll update this post daily with links to the other three installments as they are made available.

Part 1 - The New President and the Global Landscape - September 23
This introductory piece frames the questions that the next president will face. Regardless of a given candidate’s policy preferences, there are logistical and geographical constraints that shape US and foreign options. The purpose of this analysis is to describe the geopolitical landscape for the next administration. The analysis concludes with a list of questions for the debate that define the parameters facing both candidates.

Part 2 - Obama’s Foreign Policy Stance - September 24
Senator Obama has issued position papers and made statements about his intended foreign policy. Like all Presidents, he would also be getting input from a variety of others, principally from his own party. This second analysis analyzes the foreign policy position of Sen. Obama and the Democratic Party.

Part 3 - McCain’s Foreign Policy Stance - September 25
Senator McCain has issued position papers and made statements about his intended foreign policy. Like all Presidents, he would also be getting input from a variety of others, principally from his own party. This second analysis analyzes the foreign policy position of Sen. McCain and the Republican Party.

Part 4 - George Friedman on the Presidential Debate - September 29
The final installment in this series will be produced after the debate. This is NOT an effort to call a “winner” or “loser.” That’s for pundits, not an intelligence service. This will be an analysis of the candidates’ statements and positions.

People say many things about Ron Paul, but one thing he should be given credit for is this: Ron Paul talks about important issues that almost no one else does. Given his status as one of the biggest critics of the burgeoning national debt, I’ve been waiting anxiously for his reaction to the $700 billion debt-funded bailout of the financial industry.

Well, I just received this email from a friend who get alerts from the Ron Paul re-election campaign.

I agree with him on this issue; this bailout will only make our problems worse and will only accelerate the erosion of our freedom and liberty.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.
The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress‘ throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! “This is welfare for the rich,” he said. “This is socialism for the rich. It’s bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters.”

That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we’re being told it’s unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.
• Financial institutions are “designated as financial agents of the Government.” This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.
• Then there’s this: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.” Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this “sadly necessary.” Sad, yes. Necessary? Don’t make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we’re supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they’re not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we’ll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?
Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

In liberty,

Ron Paul

via Insapundit.

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
–New York Times, 11 September 2003

I have frequent email exchanges of political nature with friends I’ve made throughout my journey of life. This post documents a recent exchange I had regarding the religious affiliations of Sarah Palin.

Subject: Sarah Palin, Morningstar Ministries, The Third Wave and Joel’s Army

These are dangerous times my friends.

Listen, read and learn.

Indeed, these are mentally sick and dangerous people, the American Taliban.

Sarah Palin’s Churches and The Third Wave: New Video Documentary
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/sarah-palins-churches-and_b_124611.html

Is this the world in which you wish to live? Not me.

I read the piece and responded to it, point by point, below. I have to say, it was actually fun and much easier to pick apart than I had expected. I kept waiting for the part where they stoned a women for being raped or hung a teenage boy for being gay…but it wasn’t there.

Palin’s dedication to the Wasilla church is indicated by a Saturday, September 7, 2008, McClatchy news service story detailing possibly improper use of state travel funds by Palin for a trip she made to Wasilla, Alaska to attend, on June 8, 2008, both a Wasilla Assembly of God “Masters Commission” graduation ceremony and also a multi-church Wasilla area event known as “One Lord Sunday.”

Have any formal charges of improper use of state travel funds specific to this event been filed, or is this simply McClatchy news’ assertion that it may have been an improper use of state travel funds? I suspect the latter, as it is well known that the Palin home is in Wasilla. Therefore, it would not be unusual for her to travel home for a weekend at state expense. Would attending church on the weekend make the entire trip home for the weekend an “improper use of state travel funds?” Doubtful.

At the latter event, Palin and Alaska LT Governor Scott Parnell were publicly blessed, onstage before an estimated crowd of 6,000, through the “laying on of hands” by Wasilla Assembly of God’s Head Pastor Ed Kalnins whose sermons espouse such theological concepts as the possession of geographic territories by demonic spirits and the inter-generational transmission of family “curses”. Palin has also been blessed, or “anointed,” by an African cleric, prominent in the Third Wave movement, who has repeatedly visited the Wasilla Assembly of God and claims to have effected positive, dramatic social change in a Kenyan town by driving out a “spirit of witchcraft.”

Surprise, surprise. Laying on of hands is common practice in many Christian denominations, most famously the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. Palin and her Lt Governor simply joined the ranks of countless other politicians who have been publicly blessed by preachers, priests, and the Pope. Wow, that’s scary!!

Well, I suppose it would be frightening to anyone who is supportive of demonic spirits, inter-generational transmission of family curses, and is opposed to positive social change. Perhaps this fear of blessings is an insight into the hidden agenda of the Left. I should note, however, the author said nothing of the actual blessing bestowed upon Palin and her Lt Governor. He simply notes that the preachers who bestowed the blessings have preached about theological concepts of demonic spirits, etc. Once again, that isn’t uncommon in Christianity, or most religions for that matter.

The Wasilla Assembly of God church is deeply involved with both Third Wave activities and theology. Their Master’s Commission program is part of an three year post-high school international training program with studies in prophecy, intercessory prayer, Biblical exegesis, authority and leadership.

And the point is? Perhaps big words like intercessory and exegesis frighten Liberals. Guess what, intercessory prayer is prayer “on behalf of another”. Intercessory prayer, then, is intended to benefit someone else. For shame!! Leave it up to those devious “fundamentalists” to pray on behalf of others. Exegesis is the art of close reading in order to interpret a text. What an outrage, the “fundamentalists” are teaching their future leaders to read and comprehend the Bible.

The Third Wave is a revival of the theology of the Latter Rain tent revivals of the 1950s and 1960s led by William Branham and others. It is based on the idea that in the end times there will be an outpouring of supernatural powers on a group of Christians that will take authority over the existing church and the world. The believing Christians of the world will be reorganized under the Fivefold Ministry and the church restructured under the authority of Prophets and Apostles and others anointed by God. The young generation will form “Joel’s Army” to rise up and battle evil and retake the earth for God.

I can certainly understand someone not understanding such beliefs. However, what is there to fear? I mean, if you don’t believe in God, the end times, and supernatural powers what is there to fear?

The beliefs and manifestations of the movement include the use of ’strategic level spiritual warfare’ to expel territorial demons from American and world cities. Worship includes excessive charismatic manifestations such as hundreds of people falling, ’slain in the spirit,’ and congregations laughing, jerking, and shrieking uncontrollably.

And exactly why would a non-believer feel threatened by such beliefs? If you don’t believe in spirits or the spiritual what is there to fear? If you aren’t a territorial demon then, so what? If you don’t worship in a “fundamentalist” church then why all the concern over their “excessive charismatic manifestations?”

In early 2008 an outbreak of those phenomena commenced at the palatial former ministry estate of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, recently bought up and restored by prominent Third Wave author and leader Rick Joyner’s Morningstar Ministries. The (spiritual) “breakout” lasted for many weeks and was publicized in an extensive collection of video footage available on YouTube. Healing services in the Third Wave movement claim to heal the sick and injured through methods that in some cases can appear bizarre - including, as in recent cases involving Todd Bentley, the patient being head butted or kicked by the anointed healer. Recipients of such “spiritual” or miraculous healing make a wide range of astonishing claims - to have been cured of life-threatening illnesses, had joints repaired or replaced, been given gold teeth or gold fillings, regrown stunted limbs and even had deformed skeletal structures straightened and reshaped. Worldwide mission efforts of the movement are built around the idea of combating witches, warlocks, and generational curses, which prevent churches from being able to take root.

Was Palin there? Is this a church she attends? What is the point? Aside from the fact that this behavior would be considered bizarre and perhaps ignorant by many, is there any harm in this “phenomena?” Unless you are opposed to miraculous healing and in favor of witches, warlocks and generational curses this actually sounds positive.

Thomas Muthee’s Word of Faith Church is featured in the “Transformations” video which details an account on how Muthee drove “the spirit of witchcraft” out of Kiambu, Kenya, liberating the town from its territorial demonic possession and enabling a miraculous societal transformation. The “Transformations” video set is used as an argument for social improvement through spiritual instead of human means, and as the best method for fighting corruption, crime, drugs and even environmental degradation.

So I gather this is all bad, too? Is the author so ignorant that he believes the Word of Faith Church is the first to invoke spiritual means to fight corruption, crime, drugs, and environmental degradation?

In the video, producer George Otis declares that after Thomas Muthee and his followers banished the “spirit of witchcraft” from the town, the crime rate in Kiambu dropped almost to zero, along with the rate of alcoholism, and according to Otis most of the residents of the town joined churches.

Sounds great!! Zero crime and alcoholism. Why does that frighten Liberals? I suspect they hate to see people help themselves via any means other than Big Government.

Wagner’s top leaders often conduct spiritual warfare campaigns against the demons that block the acceptance of their brand of Christian belief, such as ‘Operation Ice Castle’ in the Himalayas in 1997. Several of their top prophets and generals of intercession spent weeks in intensive prayer to “confront the Queen of Heaven.”

This sounds horrifying, presuming you are a demon that believes in the power of prayer. To be honest, this point appears to be focused entirely on the Christian practice of prayer. How is this different than any other religion or spiritual belief that places value on the practice of prayer or meditation?

The Third Wave movement is cross-denomination and is not synonymous with any specific denomination, nor is it synonymous with Evangelical or Fundamentalist. Although the movement emerged from Pentecostalism, it draws its support from a variety of denominations and religious streams. They believe they are forming a post-denominational church to take the world for the end times.

Bingo. The author has now widened suspicion to all Christian denonimnations and even castes a cloud of suspicion over all religion. Thus, in summary, the piece was written to paint Christianity as an abomination.

I’m not surprised in the least. I’m extremely skeptical of anything published on the Huffington Post. In my opinion that web site is simply a mouth piece and echo chamber for the Liberal Left.

For what it’s worth, I lived in communities with a high proportion of Christian “fundamentalists” until I was 26 years old. They didn’t, and don’t, frighten me in the least bit. Yes, many of my of Christian “fundamentalists” acquaintances did, and still, do hold beliefs more conservative than mine. However, I have never felt uncomfortable around them. I’ve never felt like I was despised for holding different beliefs or having a different opinion.

On the other hand, since I’ve moved to Bellingham I have found myself extremely bewildered and frightened by the Left’s willingness to buy into outrageous conspiracy theories, their desire to censor diversity of opinion and thought, their disrespect of individual rights, their animosity towards capitalism, and their desire to cede all aspects of personal responsibility to the state.

During the previous two election cycles I got sick of hearing Liberals talk about the “theocracy” Bush would establish. In the intervening years I have grown quite weary of the repeated jokes about and crude remarks aimed at fundamentalist Christians and evangelicals. Yet, there is no comparative treatment of Obama and his church. In my opinion this is yet another example of the hypocrisy so common in Liberals today.

For those who are afraid of Palin’s religion or churches, I would ask “Why are you not equally afraid of Obama’s?”

The Freddie Mae/Fannie Mac problem was reported by the Wall Street Journal back in October 2004. (emphasis mine)

Fannie Mae Enron?

We’ve looked closely at the 211-page report issued by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (Ofheo), and the details are more troubling than even the recent headlines. The magnitude of Fannie’s machinations is stunning, and in two key areas in particular they deserve to be better understood. By improperly delaying the recognition of income, it created a cookie jar of reserves. And by improperly classifying certain derivatives, it was able to spread out losses over many years instead of recognizing them immediately.

In the cookie-jar ploy, Fannie set aside an artificially large cash reserve. And — presto — in any quarter its managers could reach into that jar to compensate for poor results or add to it to dampen good ones. This ploy, according to Ofheo, gave Fannie “inordinate flexibility” in reporting the amount of income or expenses over reporting periods.

[…]

Well, in its wisdom, Fannie decided to recognize only $200 million, deferring the other half. That allowed Fannie’s executives — whose bonus plan is linked to earnings-per-share — to meet the target for maximum bonus payouts. The target EPS for maximum payout was $3.23 and Fannie reported exactly . . . $3.2309. This bull’s-eye was worth $1.932 million to then-CEO James Johnson, $1.19 million to then-CEO-designate Franklin Raines, and $779,625 to then-Vice Chairman Jamie Gorelick.

[…]

Fannie Mae isn’t an ordinary company and this isn’t a run-of-the-mill accounting scandal. The U.S. government had no financial stake in the failure of Enron or WorldCom. But because of Fannie’s implicit subsidy from the federal government, taxpayers are on the hook if its capital cushion is insufficient to absorb big losses. Private profit, public risk. That’s quite a confidence game — and it’s time to call it.

Who are James Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Jamie Gorelick?

Obama’s Choice of Insider Draws Fire, Republicans Assail Head of VP Vetting

Last month, Sen. Barack Obama turned to James A. Johnson, a former Fannie Mae chief executive and Washington insider since the Carter administration, to lead the vetting of potential running mates for the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee.

But four years earlier, as Johnson was angling for a job if Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) was elected president, Fannie Mae did some vetting of its own. Company executives had grown so worried about the lucrative consulting deal they had cut with their former CEO that they considered enlisting an outside investigator to comb through the deal “in light of issues that could come up during Senate confirmation . . . or White House review of the consulting contract,” according to company documents unearthed by federal regulators.

Isn’t it curious that Obama is the second largest recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac campaign contributions?

All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

#1 Senator Christopher Dodd (D) $165,400
#2 Senator Barack Obama (D) $126,349
#3 Senator John Kerry (D) $111,000

There must be some history there.

Fanny, Freddie, and Obama (They go way back)

Both Raines and Johnson have served as CEO of Fannie Mae, with Raines taking over from Johnson. Both are key political and economic advisers to Obama.

[…]

It isn’t just Fannie Mae where Obama has a problem. Another close political adviser, in fact the one man responsible for rallying support for Obama early on among Congressional Democrats, is Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who served on the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac after leaving the Clinton White House. According to Freddie Mac insiders, Emanuel during his time on the board opposed every reform proposed by the Bush Administration that would have impacted Freddie and Fannie Mae.

Emanuel claimed to be neutral in the primary race between the wife of his old boss and his longtime Chicago acquaintance, Obama. But the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who would be first in line for the vacated Senate seat of Obama should he win the presidency, quickly dumped Clinton when it was clear Obama had a head of steam for the nomination.

As it turns out, the real culprit in this meltdown is Big Government.

The Real Culprits In This Meltdown

Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the “trickle-down” economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”

[…]

As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.

Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.

[…]

The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today’s nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we’ll all be paying for Clinton’s social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.

[…]

While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.

This is just another example of Big Government Gone Bad. I still can’t comprehend why so many people keep looking to the government for solutions to their problems. We see example after example of well meaning government intervention that only exacerbates the problem, yet we have roughly 50% of the electorate who believe the government should have a greater role in providing health care, education, and jobs.

Make no mistake, I’m not a free market extremist. The government certainly has a role as an infrastructure-builder. This however, is a prime example of the problems associated with government involvement in the economy. Too often the goals are wrong. Even when they are right, progress is often hampered by politicians, their friends, and businesses hoping to game the government system to benefit themselves at the taxpayers’ expense.

I spent a few hours after work with the boys mountain biking on Galbraith.