You are herecontent / Bailout Bums: Libertarian-Minded Republicans Are Caught With Their Pants Down As Wall Street Panics The Capital City

Bailout Bums: Libertarian-Minded Republicans Are Caught With Their Pants Down As Wall Street Panics The Capital City

Bailout Bums
Libertarian-minded Republicans are caught with their pants down as Wall Street panics the Capital City
by David Weigel |

To understand how Washington, D.C.’s fiscally conservative and libertarian-leaning Republicans are handling Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial services sector, think of a child who’s just learned that there is no Easter Bunny. Better yet, think of a guy who sunk his portfolio into Lehman Brothers or Bear Sterns and watched everything he was taught to believe about his investments declared moot, wrong, meaningless, at the mercy of the state. 

The bailout "does ensure that President Bush will have a legacy,” laughed Fred Smith, the president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a staunchly pro-free markets group, on Wednesday. “It’s a legacy that will discredit every economic concept that we have on the right. It will set back the concept of economic liberty by a century.”

Openly or secretly, a lot of Smith’s fellow travelers in the Beltway agree. Three weeks ago in St. Paul, Republicans released a platform that declared flatly, “We do not support government bailouts of private institutions” and that “government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself.” 

Yet as the panic over Wall Street woes has mounted, those principles got lost, and a critical number of Republicans are expected to support a $700 billion bailout of failing investment banks being pushed by a GOP president and his money man. Although serious problems with government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have long been evident and despite longstanding anxiety about "too-big-to-fail" market players going belly up, the Republicans were caught flat-footed by recent events. The experience of the most fiscally conservative members of Congress, the Republican Study Committee (RSC), is instructive. Throughout the Bush years, the RSC has proposed alternative budgets heavy on spending cuts. Now, forced to consider a spending package equal to a million earmarks, it was pushed to the side.

Its members did act fast. On Wednesday, September 17, RSC stalwart Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) released a forceful statement: "The federal government's propensity to bail out failing companies in struggling industries ought to be troubling to all taxpayers....Aside from the fiscal impact of spending money that the federal government doesn't have, these bailouts will likely have the opposite of their intended effect." Flake also took aim at the then-rumored bailout of the automobile industry.

On Thursday, the RSC sent a public letter to the White House opposing any Wall Street bailout: “Regardless of the precautions taken, the risk to taxpayers and to the long-term future health of our economy remain just too great to justify.” But on Friday, RSC Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) put out a tentative, milquetoast statement on the proposed bailout that decried the idea without ruling it out completely. “Though my mind remains open,” Hensarling said, “at the moment I remain skeptical, fearful, and unconvinced that this is the proper remedy for our nation at this time.”

The next day the draft of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s plan was released, with a Tiffany price tag and enumerated powers such as buying up bonds galore and a two-year ban on any real oversight of Treasury’s activity. Former RSC Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) rejected “the largest corporate bailout in American history.” But other than that: Crickets. Fiscal conservatives mostly dared not come out swinging against a proposal offered by a White House they had, more often than not, trusted.

This past Monday at 5 p.m., the RSC met to strategize further. Who was opposed to the bailout, full stop? Who had alternatives they could put on the table? According to staff who were at the meeting, the mood was somber, with a majority opposed to the concept of a bailout but without a clear idea of how to challenge it. When the full Republican conference met on Tuesday, there was even less unity. At a Heritage Foundation luncheon, Flake told bloggers that about half of his party’s members opposed a bailout.

While Flake was speaking, a dozen members of the RSC were beginning a press conference in the House to make their suggestions and state their positions. Reporters picked up a pithy one-page memo of RSC proposals, including

—a two-year suspension of the capital gains tax, after which “rates would return to present levels but assets would be indexed permanently for any inflationary gains.”—full privatization of Freddie Mac and Fannie Me “over a reasonable time period.”—repeal the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, which the RSC fingered for the Fed’s suppression of interest rates to artificially low levels (although the Act expired in 2000).—a suspension of mark-to-market regulatory rules (assigning value to a financial instrument based on the current market price).

That was it. The rest of the press conference was, if not a circus, a carousel with a lot of mis-matching horse heads. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) suggested that business tax cuts could attract investors to our shores bring more revenue from “profits left stranded overseas." Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), a dogged supporter of more oil drilling, claimed that the policies he favored would, conveniently, pull us out of the crisis. “The oil revenues that we could get from ANWR have been scored by the Congressional Budget Office at around $200 billion,” Barton said. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) excitedly agreed with him. ”If we open up these areas for energy exploration, well, Katy bar the door! We’d see this economy turn around immediately!”

Mike Pence, still the only member at the press conference ruling out any yes vote for a bailout, tried to challenge the premise. “There are those in the public debate,” he said, “who have said that we must act now. The last time I heard that, I was on a used-car lot.”“I would amend that statement,” added Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.). “The last time I saw the phrase 'act now' it was advertising one of those time-share condo deals that lock you in after a free trial period.””Did you try it?” asked a reporter.”No!” Shadegg laughed. But he didn't line up with Pence against any bailout.The presentation had no notable impact on the debate in Congress. As the Republicans spoke, a few cameramen snickered audibly. When Bachmann called the bailout “the enslavement of the American people,” the snickering reached its loudest pitch. And on the way out, Pence offered reporters more proposals that would probably come to nothing, such as a suspension of the capital gains tax by executive order. "There are learned legal scholars who think that's within his purview as president," Pence explained.

But enough Republicans are ready to support the bailout to make all of this moot. Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), an Ayn Rand fan and potential future head of the RSC, conceded that his party is divided. “People are struggling with it around here like you can’t believe,” he told me on Tuesday. “This proposal is anathema to everything I believe. I’ve voted against million dollar bills, and here’s a $700 billion one. But to do nothing—that really threatens a massive expansion of government.”How so? Campbell doesn’t shy from comparing it to 1929. “If John Q. Lunchbucket doesn’t understand this stuff, and waits in line for a block to get into his bank, and then is told ‘we don’t have your money,’ he will respond to any proposal to prevent that in the future. Any populist who says ‘I’ll make sure these guys never get your money again’ will have his ear.”

There is an external reason for the division of Republicans right now. They don’t control Congress. The Democrats run both houses and are negotiating with the executive branch. They own the agenda. But it is striking how free-market economics have no place in the current debate. They are not seen as a credible response to a Wall Street crisis, even by the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, who is angrily attacking the "greed of Wall Street." Contra Naomi Klein, an economic shock has sent Republicans skittering away from free-market theories; the last thing the party of small government seems interested in letting markets work. The current political debate, not just between Democrats and Republicans but even among Republicans, is not whether the government should take over mortgage firms, but how effectively it can manage them.“

Nobody trusts Republicans on these situations,” said Fred Smith. “For good reasons.”

David Weigel is an associate editor of Reason.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

BS through and through.

There is one libertarian minded Republican: Ron Paul. He has a better idea of what's going on than the idiot who wrote this article. Actually he's been warning about it for years. This country does not have a sound monetary system, the fed creates money out of thin air, loans it to the country at interest year after year. The fed. has kept the interest rates artificially low going on 20 years now. Bernanke and Greenspan are bigger criminals than any wall street fat cat.

The fed isn't even a branch of the government, they are a privately held corporation. The government is technically supposed to oversee the Fed. It never has and never will. Don't believe it, read "America's Great Depression," Murray N. Rothbard. So it's more accurate to say the Fed controlls the government. Always has, since it was created in 1913.

Take for example the interest rate cuts that Bernanke has precipitated down on us over the last few years. (And consider that Greenspan kept interest rates artificially low before that.) There wasn't a single logically defensible position that anyone could use to justify Bernanke's rate cuts. None was needed, Bernanke cut the Interest rates because he could. Any good economist could have predicted that Bank failures would be a result of Bernanke's rate cuts, before he made them. Many economists, including Ron Paul actually did. That's exactly what they said would happen: Bank failures. And consider that we had Washington Mutual fail just recently. How did a bank like that make its money? On interest. Who do you think bought Washington Mutual after it failed? JP Morgan Chase. Was that a predictable result? YES. Why? JP Morgan Chase is one of the Largest share holders of the Federal Reserve.

So the author of this article is bombarding the reader, insulting the reader with disinformation in nearly every sentence. He doesn't know anything about economics. He doesn't know anything about Libertarian-Republicans. If he did, he'd know that there is only one Libertarian-Republican. That Republican's name is Ron Paul. And he's got the same position he had 30 years ago. He doesn't flip flop on anything. And in terms of economics and his predictions about this country, and the analysis of what the problem really is with the economy, he's actually hit the nail on the head.

I guess this author isn't entirely to blame though. Many Republicans deceive their base. They claim to be something their not. The most common thing is to claim that they are Ayn Rand Objectivists. There are many more people who claim to be Ayn Rand supporters than people who really are. Alan Greenspan claimed he was a believer in Ayn Rand's philosophy, and a free market capitalist and all that at his confirmation hearing. Is he an Ayn Rand supporter? NO. How does one know? Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't like existentialism where anything a person does or wants to do can be rationalized. There are specific things that a person may or may not do. Not everyone will do the same thing, personal choices and such. But there are things that would be off limits. And based on his actions, any literate Ayn Rand supporter could tell you that Greenspan is a follower of Marx. Greenspan is willing to play a Trojan horse, pretend to be something he's not. A tactic that Marx called for. Greenspan's deception of being an Ayn Rand supporter was only useful before he was confirmed as the chairman of the Fed. Not after. Greenspan's actions were inconsistent with what people who believed him before would have expected. That's the same game most politicians play, certainly Republicans. So you have to judge them all by their actions. And by that standard, I'll say it again just to be sure you've got it: there's only one libertarian Republican.

How Weigel can tie this giveaway program to Libertarians is a joke. No Libertarian with any conviction would support this bill. Let the free market do its job. As I write this the dow has gained 1/2 of its yesterdays loss and there is still hours left to trade.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Find the perfect Purple Bridesmaid Dresses for your bridesmaids from




Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.