RNC Vice-Chair throws down the gauntlet on bailout socialism


On Tuesday, James Bopp Jr., RNC vice-chairman, submitted a resolution to the RNC that labels the recent “bailouts” of the finance industry and the Big 3 as “socialism”. This is a bit different for the RNC, as the organization normally does not involve itself in policy-oriented activity (past establishing the party platform). Fox news reports:

The statement says the rescue packages are “moving our free-market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism.”

“What was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility,” the resolution says. “Members of the Republican National Committee call for all members of Congress to oppose any and all future bailouts that might come before the Congress, including President-elect Obama’s public works program.”

Unfortunately, only a small percentage of the RNC members (24 out of 168) have signed off on this resolution so far, most likely because of the somewhat incendiary nature of it…after all, it basically calls out the sitting GOP president. Now that President Bush has less than a month in office, it seems that Republicans are holding back less and less on calling him out for some of his recent actions, including this resolution. The dynamics are interesting, as RNC chair candidate Ken Blackwell also spoke out on this topic this week. In an article published Wednesday, Blackwell refers to the President’s Big-3 bailout as a “Big Government Gambit” and “Bush’s most significant mistake.” Blackwell says:

Out of all the options available to President Bush, he took the worst-possible course.

His actions may not even be legal. Congress considered this bailout and rejected it, while Mr. Bush’s treasury secretary publicly said that using the original bailout funds for automakers would be unlawful without congressional action. The legality of these actions cannot be challenged unless the right party brings a lawsuit, but the fact that ordinary taxpayers cannot bring a lawsuit against federal spending does not change the fact that everyone agreed the first bailout could not be extended to automakers. President Bush therefore usurped the legislative function, doing something Congress refused to do.


“Usurped the legislative function”. Yes, that appears to be exactly what he has done. In fact, many believe that what Bush has done is downright illegal, although the language of the TARP agreement, when read word-for-word (as lawyers have a tendency to do), may leave room for interpretation. I posted a link to a Heritage writeup on this very issue a week or so ago, and in Wednesday’s Washington Times, Terrence Jeffrey breaches the subject of the legality of the Big 3 bailout’s use of TARP funds:

President Bush, of course, failed to get Congress to enact legislation to provide money to auto companies.

That brings us back to the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 reads, “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.”

In his commentaries on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story explained why the Framers gave Congress this power. “If it were otherwise,” he said, “the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation; and might apply all its monied resources at his pleasure.”

President Bush may think his auto bailout spared his legacy a bad mark. In fact, it leaves America to be haunted by the precedent of an executive who unilaterally spends the people’s money without the legal authority required by our Constitution.

If there is anything more infuriating than the socialist nature of the bailout funding, it is the President’s unilateral override of the will of the Congress to not provide a Big 3 bailout. That sort of thing is not supposed to happen in this country. In a dictatorship or a monarchy, maybe. I think there were tea parties held over things like that…

It remains to be seen if Bopp’s RNC resolution will get enough traction to pass during the RNC meeting in late January. By then President Bush will be gone and PEBO (President Elect Barack Obama) will then be PBO and will own the problem - but President Bush will have created the precedent for providing a free ride for the Big 3 with (basically) no strings attached.

We can only hope that this is an indication that the GOP has finally discovered the meaning of fiscal conservatism and will carry that forward by promoting candidates who believe in free markets and limiting governmental meddling in the business of business. Now, realize that President Bush has done many good things for this country during his eight years in office. However, hopefully we will never again hear a Republican utter the words “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system”.

Category: , , , , ,

RSS feed | Trackback URI

16 Comments Leave a comment

About time

forphase1 Friday, January 2nd at 12:02AM EST (link)

The bailouts have been socialism, no if, ands or buts about it. I hope you are right, and that hopefully this is a sign that the GOP will get back to being a fiscally conservative, small government, hands off business government. As to President Bush, I respect and admire the man. But many of his policies were certainly questionable from a conservative standpoint.

I think, therefore I vote Republican

 

About Time

Whitehorse Friday, January 2nd at 12:05AM EST (link)

I support this move. Wrong is wrong, whether done by Democrats, Repubicans, or toy-makers.

I understand that many are reticent to have this “fight.” I think it’s long overdue, & it’s time the grassroots conservatives be heard. The vast majority of this country has been against the bailouts, & too many of our elected representatives didn’t listen. McCain likely lost the election because he became one of the faces pushing for the financial system bailout.

The sooner the Republican party reclaims fiscal responsibility & limited government conservatism, the sooner election wins followed by sound legiislation & governance will occur.

 

So is there anyone who can sue to stop this?

JadedByPolitics Friday, January 2nd at 12:49AM EST (link)

If it is illegal for the President to use the treasury without congressional approval who does have standing to take this to court? and if no one than the bottom line is we are now living in a monarchy and the congress is no longer necessary correct?

Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &
does not destroy him is his own enemy

Wow, great minds think alike...

Hammer2008 Friday, January 2nd at 1:15AM EST (link)

I was driving around taking advantage of Jan. 1 sales today and pondered the same damn question. Is there not a way to sue those who have sponsored, voted in favor of and signed into legislation the billion$ of crap socialism-lite (i.e. liberal policies) and socialist policies themselves..?

To the point of the Vice-RNC’s comments… does this mean we now have seven candidates for RNC Chair?!?

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Too much noise! “Noise! You’ll have noise enough before long. The Regulars are coming out.” ~ Paul Revere (April 18th, 1775’s eve…)

There is a precedent . . .

Steve W Tuesday, January 6th at 3:09PM EST (link)

In answer to the following query . . .

Is there not a way to sue those who have sponsored, voted in favor of and signed into legislation the billion$ of crap socialism-lite (i.e. liberal policies) and socialist policies themselves..?

An earlier generation of Americans penned these words . . .

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.
- Ronald Reagan

 
 

About time is a fact

LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Friday, January 2nd at 1:22AM EST (link)

It’s time to clarify in peoples minds that our party is against all socialism, not against some and for others. Then stand firm and demand spending cuts as necessary to reduce the socialism already built into our budget.

“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”

–Frederic Bastiat
 
 

It's long overdue.

Rod_Patrick Friday, January 2nd at 1:59AM EST (link)

Why only now? The fight against bailout socialism should have started since that ineffective and wasteful Stimulus Package of the Bipartisan WH and Congress.

I’m sad to say that many of the Reps and Cons in the Congress (and even RNC for that matter) have long kept their mouth SHUT in deference to a sitting Republican President who has been lately too busy with compromises and bipartisanship.

Haven’t we learned long time ago that… Bipartisanship always results to either wasteful spending or, sadly, corruption? Bailout is really an example of this bipartisanship that undermines “opportunities for growth in the long run” in exchange for short-term relief.

Early result of the bailout: Socialist agenda is now advancing right at the center of Washington using the bailout as a form of economic “extortion” against the short-sighted and gullible Americans.

If Conservatives and Republicans don’t fight hard, we shall be repeating the history of the American Depression in the early 20th Century.

PS: BS’s diary is superb as always.

 

This From An Unknown Author

davo119 Friday, January 2nd at 6:20AM EST (link)

“A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship”

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1222/p09s02-coop.html

Never give in! Never! Never! Never!

Sir Alex Fraser Tytler

1SGinTN Friday, January 2nd at 6:08PM EST (link)

Edinburgh University 1742-1813

Tu Ne Cede Malis
-Virgil

Thanks

davo119 Saturday, January 3rd at 8:48AM EST (link)

It was driving me crazy

Never give in! Never! Never! Never!

 
 
 

I'm yet to be convinced we have enough in the RNC

NightTwister Friday, January 2nd at 9:42AM EST (link)

that are opposed to what Bush did. I’d love to be proven wrong.

And that is my concern as well

bs Friday, January 2nd at 9:50AM EST (link)

As I mentioned (from the article), the numbers are small. I don’t think they have the guts to follow through with it, although they’re really just beating up Bush, who will be gone by the time it comes up for vote.

Decorum is fo’ suckas - unless it’s one of the good guys

Time to move past Bush and show Republicans they mean business.

NightTwister Friday, January 2nd at 11:37AM EST (link)

Otherwise, my guess is people will find other avenues to further conservative causes and candidates.

 
 
 

So who has signed on?

jwebb Friday, January 2nd at 11:52AM EST (link)

I’ve looked around and can’t seem to find out who has signed on to this resolution. I’d like to praise or chastise my state reps accordingly.

 

Unitary Presidency

ss396 Friday, January 2nd at 12:33PM EST (link)

Bush has claimed unitary authority on past issues. Why is everyone so surprised that he exercises it now? What did we expect?

If you pay people to sit on their duffs, you cannot be surprised when they do.

 

Technically, the Big-3 are not receiving any "bailout money" directly from TARP...

rbdwiggins Friday, January 2nd at 1:02PM EST (link)

Not yet anyway.

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

 

Leave a Comment

 

Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity.