Gridlock Is Good

Whenever I hear somebody decry the political ‘gridlock’ in Washington, I am reminded of just how poor a job our public schools do of teaching basic American history. Gridlock is exactly what the founders intended from our government. They crafted a beautiful system that is meant to be ever-embroiled in political struggle, never swinging too far or too hard in any direction, never able to implement any broad, far-reaching, anti-liberty policies for any length of time. Its hands were intentionally tied, its officials forced to navigate the treacherous waters between the federal government and the states; between the co-equal executive, legislative, and judicial branches; and between the two houses within the legislative branch itself.

Yes, our system of government was designed to spend most of its time fighting with itself and accomplishing little. The red tape and roadblocks aren’t a flaw in our government’s design, but are among its most redeeming and timeless features. The founders knew that a small, limited government with broadly distributed power, always busy fighting with itself, would be much less likely to spend its time fighting with us and encroaching on our individual liberties.

This attitude is pervasive throughout the writings of the founders. Thomas Jefferson said, “The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases,” and that “It is not by the consolidation or concentration, of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.” In this same vein, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay—authors of The Federalist, a seminal work of early American political thought explaining the yet-unratified Constitution—went to great lengths to describe the various forms of administrative gridlock they and the other founders had intentionally foisted on the young American republic.

Chrysler: Good News, Bad News

Was It Worth It?

First, the good news: The U.S. Federal Government no longer owns any portion of Chrysler LLC. This one small part of the Bush/Obama Bailout Bonanza is now over. As of right now, Chrysler is 53.5 percent owned by Italian automaker Fiat, 45.7 percent by the United Auto Workers (UAW) union, and 1.7 percent by the government of Canada (a lingering holdover from the bailouts). You and I are no-longer reluctant shareholders in this once-venerable American icon.

But, as has been the case all throughout the Bush/Obama Bailout Bonanza, the bad news far outweighs the good.

This once-venerable American icon is now majority-owned by a foreign automaker, so now it is no better or different from Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Hyundai, or Kia—all of which produce many of their models for U.S. sale at U.S. factories, but neither received or needed an ‘investment’ of your tax dollars to stay afloat (mostly because they were making a decent, desirable product at a reasonable price). But surely, despite all this unconstitutional redirection of TARP money, unconstitutional short-circuiting of the federal bankruptcy laws, unconstitutional government ownership of an auto manufacturer, and unconstitutional investment of U.S. tax dollars in bolstering an Italian car company . . . well, we at least got our money back, right? Well, no. The U.S. Treasury did get about 90 percent of its money back from Chrysler, which is admittedly a lot more than I expected, but that still means that we lost $1.3 billion on the deal.

Not only did we lose over $1,300,000,000.00 we desperately needed for other, more important things, but we still left Chrysler in roughly the same untenable position we found it—saddled with destructive UAW contracts, bereft of quality products, and unlikely to ever recover its former glory. Fiat apparently intends to make Chrysler an American proxy for its Italian products; in other words, Chrysler is effectively dead as a truly American automaker. If this is what Presidents George W. Bush (R) and Barack Obama (D) call a successful government intervention into the free market economy, I would hate to see what an unsuccessful intervention looks like.

And what of ‘old’ Chrysler, the company once known as Chrysler LLC but now known as Old Carco LLC? You may recall that the company now known as Chrysler was fabricated out of thin-air by a short-circuited, government-orchestrated, unconstitutional bankruptcy process. It then purchased (with your tax dollars) the ‘good’ assets from the old company and left the ‘bad’ assets behind. Old Carco LLC is still in the bankruptcy process, and the vast majority of its creditors stand to receive far less than the 90 percent return that the U.S. Treasury got out of its ‘investment.’ I have little sympathy for those who willingly ‘invested’ in a mess like Chrysler; they deserved to lose much of their investment. I do, however, object to the government placing itself in the position of ‘investor #1’ in order to provide the political cover of a 90 percent return while screwing everybody else Old Carco LLC and Chrysler LLC owes money to.

Of course, in the age of the Bailout Bonanza, some investors are more equal than others.

The One-Liner Bible

Introduction

Many years ago, not long after I embarked on reading the entire Bible, I had the idea of compacting the entire Scripture down to one sentence per-book. I put the idea aside at the time, but it continued percolating in the back of my mind, and I thought it was about time I finally sat down and made it happen.

I intend no blasphemy here. Some of the one-liners are necessarily glib, and compressing the over-700,000 word tome of the Old and New Testaments into less than 1,000 words will obviously leave some very important things out. This is most-definitely not intended to be a serious theological work; I am no theologian or Bible scholar anyway. This is, at best, the very barest summary of the Scripture, but I hope you find it interesting and that it leads you to deeper interest in the most important book ever compiled.

The Old Testament is presented in its traditional Christian order, which differs a bit from the modern Jewish ordering. It also includes the seven books of the ‘deuterocanon’ that were recognized as inspired and canonical by the Christian Church very early in her history, but have since been rejected by the Jewish and Protestant communities. The New Testament is also presented in its (largely undisputed) traditional Christian order. In the handful of instances where I quote the Scripture directly, I have used the Douay-Rheims Bible (Bishop Challoner Revision, 1749-52). Enjoy, and God bless you!

Truth in Advertising

I wrote just over a year ago about how dishonorable our society has become in many ways. One particular area I pointed out was in business how things are advertised very simply (e.g., ‘unlimited Internet!’) while the reality is often much more complex and contradictory (e.g., ‘2gb per month’—which is not ‘unlimited’).

Another area of frustration with me is how companies now feel that they can change the terms of agreements at-will (and justify it by pointing to a sentence in a 12,000-word service agreement that says they can). One of the cornerstones of honorable behavior is saying what you mean and meaning what you say, not offering your customers an ‘agreement’ that they have never read or agreed to that gives the company the power to change terms on a whim.

And now we see another example. Sears.com made an error and offered Apple iPad tablet computers for $69, when the particular model in question typically retails for something more like $699. Many people placed orders for the drastically under-priced iPads, received order confirmations with the absurdly low price from Sears.com, and were informed that their order was being processed.

After discovering the error, Sears.com cancelled all of the low-price orders. I consider this unacceptable. Anybody who placed an order on the site when the price was set at $69 is now entitled to a $69 iPad. Sears.com entered into an implicit purchase agreement with those customers, and is morally (if not legally) bound to fulfill its obligations under that agreement. The customers are not responsible for Sears.com’s employees’ error; they were offered a product at a particular price, and they accepted the offer. Sears.com cannot renege on the offer they made any more than a customer can renege on the offer they accepted.

The proper moral of the story is not that customers should be wary of prices that are ‘too good to be true,’ but that companies should check and double-check the accuracy of their offers before putting them on their web sites. That is their job, not their customers’, and they are bound to fulfill the obligations they enter into.

Time for Some (Competent) Leadership

President Barack Obama (D), addressing the need for members of Congress to compromise on raising the federal debt limit, says we need to “pull off the Band-Aid” and “eat our peas” . . . whatever that means. Tortured metaphors notwithstanding, what I’d really like from the president is some competent leadership on our economic policy. Even if we can’t have that, I’d at least like some consistency. Obama’s economic doctrine so far can be best-described as schizophrenic.

Let us review.

When campaigning for the Presidency in 2008, Obama continually painted President George W. Bush (R) and the Republicans as reckless deficit spenders . . . and that epitaph was well-deserved. There is no question that the Republican president and Republican Congress in the first decade of the 2000’s ran up record-breaking deficits and failed to control the growth of government. Fiscal conservatives like myself criticized them for this at the time, and only continued voting for them because we felt they were nominally better than the available alternatives. We were right on that, at least. Obama’s annual deficits—which make Bush’s astronomical deficits look positively tiny—prove that he is not the Clintonesque balanced-budget Democrat he made himself out to be. He campaigned on one thing, and we clearly got another.

In 2006, then Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) made a principled stand against raising the federal debt limit. Congress imposes a statutory debt limit on our government in an effort to keep our federal debt under control, a system that has been in-place since 1939. When Bush wanted the already-astronomical limit increased, Obama described the situation perfectly:

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.