So, let’s say the Redhead went outside one day with his Airsoft M4 and proceeded to terrorize the crap out of the neighborhood by hiding in the bushes and shooting the residents, leaving them with welts and a significant amount of pain.  Let’s also say he was caught by one of the neighbors and dragged home by the scruff of the neck.  Let’s also say that instead of forcing him to face the consequences of his actions by apologizing and maybe even paying some restitution to the neighbors in the form of manual labor, I berated the man who dragged the Redhead home and bought the Redhead a new rifle with which to continue terrorizing the neighborhood.  Would you consider me a good parent?

Now, let’s say the Teeny Bopper decided she was going to spend her nights on MySpace and in front of the television, watching her favorite shows, neglecting her homework and allowing her grades to slide.  Let’s say, it had gotten to the point where her teachers became concerned and called me for a parent-teacher conference, telling me that Teeny was flunking every subject.  And let’s say that instead of taking away her computer and TV privileges, I bought her the latest season of Smallville and a new computer game.  What kind of parent would I be?

Most people with half a brain would call me a crappy parent and berate me for rewarding bad behavior.  But many of those same folks don’t bat an eyelash, and actually support the government’s actions for essentially doing the same thing!

Government regulations (bad parenting), bad judgment on the part of banks and mortgage companies (After all, who the hell lends money to people who have no assets, and whose income is obviously too low to allow them to afford to make payments?) have led to what some would describe as a financial crisis.  And yet, much like a crappy parent, instead of allowing these companies to face the consequences of their bad judgments, the government simply doles out money to prop them up, essentially rewarding bad behavior, claiming free market failure as justification for more government regulation and control.

There’s one big difference.  If I reward the Redhead and Teeny with new toys for their lapses in judgment, I’m using my money to do so.  I’m not stealing earnings from the neighbors to pay for the Redhead’s new Airsoft guns.  Meanwhile, the government is using money that does not belong to it – money that belongs to the taxpayers – to reward the bad judgment of mortage companies and banks, raping all of us in the process.

Does this sound right to you?

Parental involvement in the above situations should have sent the Redhead and Teeny into paroxysms of frightened frenzy upon getting caught.  But if I was the type of parent I described above, they would have no fear, and would continue their crappy behavior, knowing that I would reward them in the end.

A recent column by Ken Blackwell illustrates this same point when it comes to federal bailouts.



The prospect of government intervention should be terrifying to corporate leaders.  For too long many of them viewed it as a safety net.


First, as many have suggested, if the feds become involved the corporate executives responsible for the failed company should only receive a government salary. But more is needed.


So if federal regulators become involved, all supplemental, deferred, and other non-salary compensation should be immediately canceled.  Beyond that, federal regulators should also have the option of terminating officers, forcing the corporate board to find new leadership.


After all, if someone is running a company so poorly that it goes under, why should one get paid enormous sums for one’s incompetence? If a company goes under, those responsible should not be rewarded. And after the recent federal bailouts, some corporate officers are likely considering seeking the same bailout.

But the government will do what it always does – steal more money from the taxpayers (be it by printing more, thereby further devaluing the money already in circulation, forcing the taxpayers to pay higher prices, by increasing taxes, or by borrowing the dough) – to bail out the wrongdoers.  And both candidates support this travesty – be it for Fannie and Freddie, or the latest effort to pander to states such as Michigan and Ohio by tossing more taxpayer cash at the struggling automotive industry, rewarding it for its asshatted decisions to continue pumping out gas guzzling trucks and SUVs, even as every indicator pointed toward the fact that high gas prices would reduce consumer demand for these worthless hunks of metal. 

And yet, the same folks who would rail on me for bad parenting in the above scenarios, would go out and vote for one of these yahoos.  Why?   Because apparently, idiot economic decisions can be overlooked, as long as there’s an “R” or a “D” behind a candidate’s name.  We’re headed for a train wreck, people, and I’m just sitting back and watching the show, as excuses are thrown around as to why one socialist is better than the other.

Advertisement