About a month ago, I was watching an episode of 'Meet the Press'. As the discussion progressed, I began to discern a mildly alarming trend in it. I'm expecting someone in the group of participants to pick up on it, challenge it, but no one did. I'm sitting there, thinking, "Uh...is this Constitutional? Sounds like a socialist takeover to me...Why isn't someone saying something?"

The issue up for debate was the financial reform program. Senators Reid, Dodd and Shelby, and host David Grogory, were explaining/debating the different aspects of this & that. What caused my mental 'ears' to perk up was when the issue of consumer protection, through "making sure that no financial institution's going to be unregulated (emphasis mine) in our country"(Sen.Dodd), was laid out on the table. To prevent the need for any future bailouts, Secretary Geithner, on the previous week's program, had made the following statements:

"They will make sure if a large institution ever again managed itself to the point where it can't survive on its own and it has to come for {to?} the government for support, then the government will put it in--put it into receivership, it will wipe out shareholders, it will replace management and board, and will make sure that we wind that firm down. We dismember it. We sell it off so it cannot exist again..."

Let's just kill our wounded?

How could anyone not see such action as way too much Fed? How is this not anything other than a government takeover? Though it presents itself as redemptive, even necessary, I see a whole other animal here. It only takes one spark to get a fire started, you know...they can get out of control quickly, and the damage can be catastrophic.

I literally thanked God (and probably did an 'air' high-five!) when Mr. Gregory said "...but isn't the bigger question about the role of government here?" Ya think??? And, rock on, David Gregory!!! Later in the program, he reiterated that sentiment, saying that hed been thinking that weekabout the debate {concerning} the role of government in society, in the economy, in our lives generally.

New York Times columnist David Brooks feels this debate has not only caused but magnified an intense polarization that is not good for our country, pre-empting what could be more beneficial, bipartisan cooperation structuring-focused dialogue. Which sounds goodbutAmerica is, or is supposed to be first of all a We the People kind of government. (Which, the more I realize about this, the more I get it, how unparalleled, how huge, and how, well, risky! the American venture is, and always has beenfraught with the conflict that comes with being the human species! Conflict unbearable birthed this nation!) So, if the people gravitate towards a stand against big government, which, when reflected in either their own actions or party positions, polarizesthen perhaps cooperation is not in the cards for this particular moment in our history.

ooo

In his exemplary article concerning Americas new culture war
(see Resource box), Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of "The Battle", points out that free enterprise lies at the core of our history and character. I point out, more specifically, that perhaps the most valiant exercise in free enterprise ever carried out was in fact our Revolution - and concur with Mr. Brooks conclusion that continuing our legacy of entrepreneurship requires a willingness to gamble the security of the status quo for a chance of future success.

Not guaranteeing (some think) the security (some think) of the status quo' through overmuch government help.

My belief in returning to the Founders for answers continues to grow. How often have we heard, Go back to the beginning, back where it all started? when looking for evidence of the truth, or to get understanding of an issue? How many answers are found in ones childhood, ones infancy? Should this be any different?

Hands down, our Founding Fathers stood stalwartly against government intervention in an individuals pursuits of industry (Brooks), against equal distribution of goods", that Robin Hood-like tactic (which prevailed in Europe at the time) of taking from the haves to give to the have nots. (Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap) Once government is authorized to perform such acts, the dye has been cast, and power has been given away. The rights of the haves have been violated. At that point, what is to stop federal leadership from taking ANY persons ANYTHING? and moving right along to infringe on the rights of the 'have-nots'? Oh, sure, at first any such actions may be small, infrequentbut escalating manipulation is a real possibility. It is a threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Maybe the specifics dont fit hand-in-glove, but enough similarity exists between the Founders' concerns voiced in the late 1700s and todays proposed and/or legislated financial/health care reform/regulations that I think WE should be concerned, now.

ooo



There are probably at least 2 more parts to this, but I'm out of practice, it's hot & my thinking is getting fuzzy...in fact, I'm pretty sure I'm not saying exactly what I'm trying to!...so I'm leaving off for today....