Reuters has reported three very distrutbing things in a recent article about the Obama administration’s plan:
1. The Securities and Exhange Commission will “become a more robust agency with increased powers.” We do not need increased government power, especially to an agency that contributed greatly to our current economic situation. President-Elect Obama will appoint a new chairman of the SEC who will presumably be very involved in business’s operations.
The “financial crisis” has opened the door for the federal government in numerous ways. Whenever there is a national crisis, the federal government has the opportunity to step in and seize more power. During the Great Depression FDR implemented huge government increases, some of which were unconstitutional. Congress and the American public did not care because we were in a crisis. During the Civil War, President Lincoln took drastic measures to preserve the Union, even by directly defying the contitution by denying habeus corpus. The most recent topic of debate has been the Patriot Act a a result of 9/11, which some people insist violates a constitutionally implied right to privacy.
The point is that government benefits from crises. It allows them to justify their existence and expand their boundaries. The problem arises when they encroach on the boundaries of others, in this case, businesses. It has been a long time since we have had a truly laissez faire economic system, but the more the government encroaches on a business the more power it has over its operations. According to Reuters, Obama “insisted that the banks taking the [bailout] money accept the rules.” One of these rules is described later as limits on executive pay, or as I like to call it, a maximum wage. Interestingly, the following paragraph to the quote above is Obama’s stated desire for another stimulus package. Can we presume if these stimuli keep coming we must eventually play by the rules in order to benefit?
What I want to know is if the first stimulus package didn’t work, what makes Obama think another one will? He wants to dole out this money so his subjects will feel obliged to him. If Obama throws us a bone he will expect us to do tricks. The average person won’t think of a stimulus package as getting back what was rightfully theirs to begin with (for those who actually pay taxes); they will consider it a gift from the federal government.
2. Reuters reports, “Obama is expected to promote economic growth by encouraging building infrastructure for high-speed Internet use, and has vowed to create a new chief technology czar that may be at the Cabinet level.” A Cabinet level technology czar, Mr. President-Elect? And what will his job be? One can only presume that it will ultimately be to regulate the internet. As the fastest growing technology–-and showing no signs of slowing down–-the internet has been a target for government regulation for years. Thankfully, President Bush has kept his hands out of this cook-eJar during his tenure.
I wrote earlier about Obama’s new website Change.gov. In a somewhat jocoserious manner, I implied that this might lead to a Secretary of Change Cabinet post. Perhaps this is it. If he succeeds in creating this post, regardless of the practical impacts it will have on everyday technology use, billions more in government spending will be created to grow this department and billions more to maintain it. Apparently, Obama’s philosophy on job-creation is to create more government jobs.
Why create more governement jobs? Going back to the first disturbing item, it allows the government to have direct power over indviduals and departments. Perhaps Obama’s ultimate goal is to have every job in the United States be a government job. That would certainly fit in with his socialistic economic philosophies. Departments are created to regulate on a national level. The Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury, Attorney General, and Secretary of State all influence policies according to their respectively related duties. What could the Secretary of Technology regulate that is not already in place? It could require businesses to have broadband internet capabilities, I suppose, evetually, perhaps leading to everyone setting Change.gov as their home page…
3. Ironically, the only mention of President-Elect Obama’s proposed spending cuts had to do with defense spending. I agree that we have spent more than we needed to over the past years in the defense budget, but that is what happens when wars are fought. The Department of Defense wants lighter, faster, and more lethal soldiers; the Department of Justice wants more humane, more politically correct enemy treatment; the troops want lighter equipment and better living conditions; the media wants more access to information; the families want more armor and more protection; the defense contractors are merely trying to comply at the most profit to them. If Obama wants to cut defense spending, at least one of the above “wants” will be compromised.
This proposed defense spending cut is ironic because of its juxtaposition with the technology czar. There has never been a better catalyst for technology than war. For every war we have had, numerous technological advancements have been made that allowed for an everyday commercial use. The internet is perhaps the greatest example. So, if Obama wants to advance technology by regulation AND cut defense funding, he will have created a technological paradox.
In the end, all of these ideas give President-Elect Obama more power, more oversight of the American people, and more government involvement in our daily lives. Plato said, “Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.” I fear that Plato is correct, but it is the job of a conservative by definition to conserve our present democratic principles and not allow the government to further infringe upon our freedoms.
