The American Spectator : The Real Public Outrage

Text Size

The Real Public Outrage

By Brett Joshpe on 4.9.09 @ 6:07AM

Becoming allergic to Obama-prescribed antibiotics.

Last March 27, when President Obama met with CEOs from the battered financial industry, he told them, "The anger gentlemen, is real." Of course, Obama was referring to public outrage over "excessive compensation" received by many business executives whose companies are now receiving public funds. That sentiment certainly exists, but there is a more fundamental source of peoples' disgust. And given what followed in that meeting, it seems Obama is far more in touch with business inside the Beltway than with the frustrations of average Americans.

When the President opened the floor for comments from the bank executives, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon sprinkled him with some platitudes and then said that JPMorgan would seek to return public funds as soon as possible. Good news for the taxpayers, right? Apparently not, because Obama immediately challenged Dimon, saying "This is like a patient who's on antibiotics. Maybe the patient starts feeling better after a couple of days, but you don't stop taking the medicine until you've finished the bottle."

Other executives agreed with Dimon, explaining that it was their duty to return the money as soon as possible and would send a positive sign to the markets. Obama disagreed, saying it would send the wrong signal. The signal to which Obama refers has nothing to do with the health of our financial system, job creation, credit markets, or the recession. Instead, Obama wants private enterprises to know that they have a new partner for life: good old Uncle Sam.

In fact, Obama has threatened banks that insist upon returning public funds with "adverse consequences."

Obviously there is an element of self-interest in banks seeking to return taxpayer dollars. Doing so would free them from certain government conditions and mandated pay scales. But self-interest is what drives our capitalist system, which ultimately benefits everyone. And who knows better when it's the appropriate time to return public money? The banks themselves or the federal government? Jamie Dimon or Barack Obama?

President Obama has repeatedly said that the government has no interest in running private businesses. He has expressed that sentiment when it comes to both the financial and automobile industries. But apparently his administration is perfectly comfortable telling GM what cars they must make or who should run the company. Obama has no problem telling banks how much public money they need, when they can give it back, and how much they can pay their employees.

And for all of the discussion about accountability and responsibility, the administration is completely oblivious to the federal government's role in creating the financial crisis. It was, after all, the federal government that dictated to banks how to issue home mortgages, planting the seeds of the sub-prime disaster. This should not be interpreted as a total exoneration of the banks, nor does the blame lie completely with Obama. The financial institutions ran their businesses pitifully and they brokered a deal with the Devil when they went seeking taxpayer dollars. And it was the Bush administration that basically forced the top banks to accept public funds in exchange for equity back in October.

But now, mindful of the opportunities that come with this crisis, Obama is seeking to expand even further the government's role in private enterprise and in peoples' lives. His antibiotic analogy in last week's meeting was particularly instructive, given his plan for massive health care reform. Obama said it himself. The patient should not decide when to stop taking medication. It is part of a mentality that believes people need government to make decisions for them, including how and where to spend their money. And in the case of private enterprises, Obama evidently envisions the federal government as the system's physician, with the power to let certain companies die and certain survive.

Free societies depend on a degree of skepticism towards government power. Increasingly, the federal government is starting to play God in America. If you are not yet frightened by that prospect, you should at least get outraged. The Obama administration may not realize why yet, but many Americans are already there.

About the Author

Brett Joshpe is an attorney and entrepreneur in New York City. He is Of Counsel to the American Center for Law & Justice and co-authored the book Why You're Wrong About the Right (Simon & Schuster, 2008).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (12) | Leave a comment

Susan| 4.9.09 @ 7:25AM

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/03/justice-roberts-agreed-to-read-all-of.html

The above is written by Orly Taitz who has driven several cases regarding BHO eligibility. She also has proof of IRS fraud,voter fraud, tampering with Court documents--it's an eye-opener. Judge Roberts is in possession of her 3 dossiers.

Robert Rosencrans| 4.9.09 @ 8:08AM

I wonder how long any institution can be propped up and keep public confidence? That also includes President Obama's meager vision of the financial community as opposed to government largess.

- -| 4.9.09 @ 10:16AM

Can you say "Facist?"

Pete| 4.9.09 @ 10:54AM

Only the Americans that seek real news and information are outraged. Those who simply watch and read the mainstream media would have no idea, and sadly might not care anyhow. What's a couple of banks being told what to do with everything else the Messiah is up to? If you can stomach blatant government corruption, the mortgaging of our children's future to line Democratic politicians' pockets, a fabricated climate crisis as an excuse to rob Americans blind, and a general "we are to blame" attitude internationally, even with respect to those who wish us dead, again, what are the whinings of a few banks?

2guns| 4.9.09 @ 6:30PM

The Wells Fargo CEO told Paulson that he didn't need any bailout money, as they were doing fine. Paulson basically said nobody leaves this room untill everyone agrees to accept the bailout, including those who were ok. So, not everyone "Made a deal with the devil".

Terry| 4.9.09 @ 7:29PM

Another problem pushed further down on the calendar is how will the O-bam administration view reducing the size of the behemoths that have been created sometimes (JPM/BSC) with direct governmental assistance. The size of the largest bank, so often described as "too big to fail," continues to dangle the sword of disaster above our financial system's head.

kelly| 4.10.09 @ 11:20AM

To my own shame I have only recently gotten interested in polotics. The more I read about obama and his obsurd "Government is best for everything " plan The more outraged I become. The sad part is I think he believes he is doing the right thing...How can you tell somebody they are not benefiting this counrty when the only voices they turn their ears to are the ones encouraging this mess???? WAKE UP OBAMA WE THE PEOPLE NOT YOU DA MAN....

TC| 4.10.09 @ 1:47PM

We are a people who use to learn from past mistakes and put in wisdom that would keep us from repeating the same error...now we are the people who run-WITH EYES WIDE OPEN into and ideology that has a track record of utter failure ( kind of like taking money from adult stem cells and giving it to embryonic stem cell that has no success at all). Read the signs-Socialism, Destroying the private sector, Judicial tyranny, Government mandated services design to destroy privatization= Communism-WE MUST RAISE THE FLAG OF FREEDOM AND TRUST OUR GOD FOR THE VICTORY!!!

Monte Thrash| 4.11.09 @ 11:25AM

If we fail to plan, we plan to fail. It rings so true. It is clear by the volume of complaints that most of us are in agreement that our government has taken a very wrong left turn. What can we do about it? I've seen petitions that were very well written. The Tea Party events are excellent, but dont' we need to take some action that demands a response?
Since our elected officials failed to read the Stimulus Bill before signing it, they have violated their responsibilities to serve as our fiduciaries according to U.S. case law. We need to have class action law suits filed in each state against the individuals that voted for the Stimulus Bill without reading it. If we each contribute $20, and have at least 1000 participants, then we can retain legal counsel to initiate a class action law suit to seek damages for violation of fiduciary relationship duties.
There are numerous precedents. Again, I will state, that the suit would be filed against the individuals, and not against the office of the politician. This is not a shoot and hope idea, but part of a well considered strategy to seek corrective action in venues that are effective and require a direct action.
For instance, Seminole Nation v. United States is one of the oldest cases. However, the legal characteristics that define a fiduciary relationship are : one party entrusts its affairs to another, there is a grant of broad discretion to another, two parties have an asymmetrical access to information, and one party is vulnerable and dependent on the other. Which one of these four do you find that the courts would disagree with in regard to our relationship with our elected officials?
Of course, we also have Dumarce v. Scarlett (Secretary of the Interior). The court ruled that the Government had violated it's fiduciary responsibility, and the appelate court agreed with the decision, only commenting that the relief was not sought in a timely manner to meet the statute of limitations requirements. Unless we wait for 6 years, we have the same cause of action, and will have the same ruling in our favor for the violation of fiduciary relationship responsibilities.
There are many other cases that can be cited, some involving city officials, government attorneys, etc.
This is not some lame guess at what can be done, but a well considered strategic plan. I can't do it alone, though. What I could use is some cooperation and spreading the word. We really need participation from as many states as possible.
Evil succeeds when good people do nothing.