The Great Depression was on everyone’s minds when banks began failing in 2008. No one wanted to see a 1930’s-style run on banks, least of all the Treasury, which had promised to protect people’s bank accounts, but which began to sweat as the number of collapsing banks grew; there was not enough money in the FDIC to cover the simultaneous failure of too many banks.

Did the government need to step in and stabilize the banking system? I think yes. After all, I had money in a bank that I did not want to see evaporate. However, I also feel that the federal government went too far, gave too much, demanded too little in return. When the federal government gave me a loan for college, I had to pay it back at 4.75% interest. Why did the banks not have the same terms? It’s not like the federal government couldn’t use an extra source of income.

Then there was the AIG bailout. I still don’t see what impact its failure would have had on me, the average American, but it was bailed out nonetheless. And then there was the auto industry bailout. I was content to let them go bankrupt, like many other businesses before them; they could have still reorganized and emerged from bankruptcy on their own. But in addition to giving them money, much of which will not be paid back, the government also used our tax dollars to fund the purchase of some people’s new cars. The government not only saved their business, but they artificially created customers for them too.

The government has failed to notice one glaring problem with the economy: the American consumer generates approximately 70% of the economic activity of this country, and Americans aren’t spending. And now, as many people’s unemployment benefits are starting to run out (mine included), and unemployment continues to rise, Americans are going to clamp down on their wallets even more. And more individuals and businesses will default on their loans and mortgages as a result—the very thing that crippled banking in the first place.

Bailing out the banking, insurance and auto industries is treating a symptom, not the disease. Until the American consumer has a job and money in his pocket to spend, we will continue to be a country in a recession.

 

Do NOT Boycott the 2010 Census.

Libertarians rejoice, the controversial 2000 “long form” consensus is gone. Do you have a flush toilet? How do you get to work? What did you pay for electricity last month? Are you a U.S. citizen? Do you have a physical, mental or emotional condition? Questions like this will no longer be asked!

The 2010 Census asks for name, gender, age, race, ethnicity, relationship, and whether you own or rent your home. It’s the shortest consensus since 1790 and quite a bit more sensitive...

Questions Asked on the 1790 Census

• Name of the head of each household.
• How many free white males age 16 and older.
• How many free white males under age 16.
• How many free white females.
• How many of all other free persons.
• How many slaves.

But why is the Census important?

The consensus determines the distribution of more than $300 billion annually of government funding for critical community services, generates thousands of jobs across the country, impacts your voice in Congress, and determines how many seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives as well as boundaries of legislative districts.

The following is a press release from Rep. Patrick McHenry’s (R-NC) office:

Republicans Encourage Bachmann to End Census Boycott:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Brock McCleary
July 1, 2009 Phone: (202) 225-2576
 
WASHINGTON – Congressman Patrick McHenry (NC-10), Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (GA-3), and Congressman John Mica (FL-7), Republican members of the Census Oversight Subcommittee, released the following statement regarding Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s boycott of the 2010 Decennial Census.

“We share Ms. Bachmann’s concerns about ACORN’s involvement in the 2010 Census and will continue pressuring the Bureau to follow their own guidelines for partnering organizations and dump ACORN.  However, we can not emphasize enough how important it is for every individual to fill out their census forms.

“Every elected representative in this country should feel a responsibility to encourage full participation in the census.  To do otherwise is to advocate for a smaller share of federal funding for our constituents.  Boycotting the constitutionally-mandated census is illogical, illegal and not in the best interest of our country.

“The unfortunate irony is that Ms. Bachmann’s boycott only increases the likelihood that ACORN-recruited census takers will be dispatched to her constituents’ homes.  Anyone who completes and returns their census form will remove any need for a census taker to visit their residence.

“Furthermore, a boycott opens the door for partisans to statistically adjust census results.  The partisan manipulation of census data would irreparably transform the census from being the baseline of our entire statistical system into a tool used to wield political power in Washington.”

NOTE: The 2010 Decennial Census, not to be confused with the American Community Survey, will strictly utilize a short-form questionnaire for the first time ever.  Under Sections 9 and 24 of Title 13, information collected by the Census Bureau is confidential and not shared with any other federal agency.  Only an act of Congress could alter this statute.

###