Kick the Anthill

To quote Palpatine (before he became Emporer) in Star Wars:  Episode II: 

“It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy… I love the Republic. But I am mild by nature,  and I do not desire to see the destruction of democracy. The power you give me I will lay down when this crisis has abated, I promise you. And as my first act with this new authority, I will create a grand army of the Republic to counter the increasing threats of the separatists.”

Does this remind you of anything?

If you’ve been reading The Washington Post lately, there was a rather, um, disturbing article in this morning’s edition.  When I read it, two things came to mind.  First, the scene that I quoted from Star Wars:  Episode II (except in this case, Geithner would play the part of Jar Jar Binks–the hapless cad who is easily duped into doing whatever it is Palpatine wants him to do, and Obama would play the part of Palpatine–who also started out as a Senator before he was elected Chancellor.  Coincidence?).

The other thing that I thought of was a flash-back to the 1992 presidential election.  H. Ross Perot ran as an independent, and, for better or worse, gathered a bit of a following.  He reminds me somewhat of a certain 2008 Republican who tried to run for PotUS, but was washed out in the primaries.  Slightly weasel-y, funky ears, radical ideas that most thinking Republicans scoffed at…  If Perot had run in 2008, I wonder if his campaign would have been as viral as the rEVOLution?

Anyway, if you remember Perot’s 1992 campaign, you’ll already know this.  If you don’t, let me refresh your memory.

And yes, I do know that he ran again in 1996, but he didn’t make nearly the splash he did in 1992–when he received almost 19% of the vote.  In 1996, he only received 8% of the vote.

In 1992, his main campaign focused on the (surprise!  surprise!) economy.  He was convinced that, if elected, he could do all kinds of things that pretty much all politicians claim they can do.  He would balance the budget, reduce unemployment by “ending” the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, and many other social-type things (he’s pro-choice, opposed to gun control, dispises NAFTA, loves trade protectionism, supports EPA, the list goes on).  He was convinced he could all of these financial things if he ran the country like a business.

He also dispised the members of Congress and it’s effects on Washington.  It…

… has become a town filled with sound bites, shell games, handlers, media stuntmen who posture, create images, talk, shoot off Roman candles, but don’t ever accomplish anything. We need deeds, not words, in this city.

So he claimed that he was going to “clean up this town,” basically. 

Does this sound familiar to anyone else?  Does it sound similar to someone else’s campaign promises?

If you go and read today’s Washington Post article over Geithner asking for Congress to give the Treasury Dept power to seize non-bank financial companies whose failure could collapse the economy (like AIG, et al), and combine that with the power that they already have to seize banks that are in the same circumstances, to me, it just smacks of “empire building.” 

And considering that Teh One has yet to fill seventeen of the eighteen Treasury Dept positions (well, according to the Washington Examiner, there is a nomination for Neil Wolin to fill the number two spot in the Treasury), this kind of power would literally give Geithner power to take over and control any of the “financial institutions” within the United States. 

The Sith has a Rule of Two–one master, one apprentice.

The Treasury Dept has one person running the show with no one to keep the balance, keep tabs on Geithner, etc.  Geithner answers only to Teh One.

One master, one “apprentice.”

Sure, I compared Geithner to Jar Jar at the top of this article and Darth Vader right above this line, but is it that far off? 

In Star Wars:  Episode II, Jar Jar asked for emergency powers to be given to Chancellor Palpatine–thereby making him an Emporer.  Here, we’ve got Geithner asking Congress to grant the Treasury Dept emergency powers.  And since Geithner is the only one in the Dept at the moment, and he answers only to Obama, isn’t it basically symantics to say that what he’s asking for is that Congress grant Obama emergency powers? 

I can understand the Treasury Dept having the powers to take over a failing bank.  After all, whenever we go deposit our paychecks, etc. into our bank accounts, they’re federally insured.  It’s called FDIC, people.

But what he’s now asking for is the ability to take over other “financial” companies that do not fall under FDIC rules.  Take AIG, for example.  What do they do?  They’re an insurance company.  Sure, they’re HUGE.  They have offices in New York, London, Paris, and Hong Kong.  They underwrite commercial and industrial insurance, as well as sell auto insurance (which, technically, is sold under “21st Century Insurance“).  Geithner believes that, if he–and, subsequently, Obama–had the ability to seize a firm like that, they could have prevented it from failing and taking the economy with it.  He wants to do this with any “financial” company that, if he believes the failure of said company would have negative effects on the economy, they take control of the company.

Is it outside the realm of possibility that, if given this kind of power, it could be stretched to include any failing company that, if collapsed, could have a serious detrimental effect on the economy? 

Let’s say that GM collapses.  GM employs 250,000 people.  If it collapsed, I’m fairly certain it would have a detrimental effect on the economy–both to those hundreds of thousands of employees as well as the US and (potentially) the gobal economy.  Why?

GM owns 49% of GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation).  True, GMAC is controlled by Cerbrus Capital Management (they own 51% of the company, as of 2006), but that’s almost beside the point.  Why?  Because GMAC has received bailout money.  According to WSJ:

Lobbying spending by GMAC LLC, GM’s auto- and mortgage-lending arm, more than tripled to $4.6 million in 2008 from 2007. GMAC has received $6 billion in government money to help stave off a financial crisis. GMAC has suffered heavy losses in its mortgage unit, Residential Capital LLC, or Rescap. GMAC spent $1.5 million on lobbying in the fourth quarter, about $400,000 less than in the previous quarter. GMAC is 51% owned by private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP, which also controls Chrysler.

 So if the Treasury Dept can get its hands on GMAC or GM, then they can control the other.

And considering that GM controls Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, Hummer, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Vauxhall and Wuling, that allows the government to control a rather large percentage of the automaking industry. 

GMAC controls GMAC Real Estate, ResCap Holding (an umbrella corp for GMAC Mortgage, GMAC-RFC, GMAC Bank, Ditech.com, and Homecomings Financial), and Simperian (they do customer service, collections, relationship management, stuff like that).   Plus, it’s a bank.

Cerberus Capital Management controls Chrysler (has 80% stake in the company), Talecris Biotherapeutics (formerly Bayer’s plasma products division), Four Points Media Group (part of CBS Production Co), Albertson’s (grocery store), Mervyn’s (yes, I know they’re bankrupt), National and Alamo car rentals companies, Bushmaster Firearms and Remington Arms, several bussing companies as well as bus builder companies, GMAC, and the list goes on.  If the Treasury Dept can get its hands on GMAC, then by extension, they could (potentially) get its hands on Cerberus.  Yes, it would be a tricky maneuver, but still, it’s inside the realm of possibility.  Unless, of course, Cerberus were to spin off GMAC…

But let’s say that they didn’t.  If the Treasury Dept could get its hands on GMAC, and, by extension, Cerberus, they could potentially control two of the big three automakers–GM and Chrysler.  And before you say anything about it, GM stopped its bid to buy Chrysler.  That’s two-thirds of the auto industry, give or take.  I wonder if they could, potentially, put Ford out of business?

What about the financial institutions who hold mortgages?  If the Treasury Dept were given power to take over financial institutions whose collapse could have a detrimental effect on the economy, it could easily control housing.  For example, JPMorgan Chase received $25 billion via TARP.  $25 BILLION.

JPMorgan Chase is deeply involved in mortgages.  According to Bloomberg, they have over a trillion dollars worth of mortgages.

According to Fierce Finance, other big banks who received TARP funds are CitiGroup ($25b), Bank of America and Wells Fargo (each $20b plus $5b for their recent acquisitions), and both Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs received $10b each.

Think about this.  JPMorgan Chase, CitiGroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs.  Each of these companies are deeply involved with mortgage holding.  If these financial institution giants were suddenly taken over by the Treasury Dept (assuming it received these “emergency powers”), the president would then have the power to control your home. 

Not to mention the fact that these financial companies also have investment branches.  Investment branches do things like control 401ks, 403bs, etc.  Basically, your retirement.

Do you really want the president to have that much power?  Do you really want the president to be able to control your house, your automobile, your bank account, your investments, your retirement?

So, as inconsequential as it seems for Geithner to ask for emergency powers to allow the Treasury Dept to take control of financial institutions to stabilize the economy, the effects are rather far reaching. 

Just as an innocent (and utterly stupid) Jar Jar Binks was duped into asking congress for the Chancellor to be given seemingly innocent emergency powers, it seems (to me, anyway) that the same thing could potentially be happening here.

It won’t matter if he claims that he’ll set aside the powers once the crisis is abated.  Have you ever seen someone willingly relinquish serious power once he had it?  With great power comes great responsibility.  How responsible has Geithner–and, by extension, Obama–acted lately?  Our grandchildren will be paying for the $1 trillion bailout crap sandwich that was forced upon us.  Obama is contemplating an even bigger second TARP.  Our great-great-grandchildren will probably be paying for it if it goes through.

And if it doesn’t, then it pretty much explains why Geithner’s asking for these new powers.  Americans are, by and large, against a second TARP.  I wonder if Geithner’s asking for these powers as an “either-or” scenario–either the second TARP passes so the gov’t can stabilize the economy, or the Treasury Dept/President can take over companies who, if they were to go under, could have a serious detrimental effect on our economy.  I’m betting that Congress will not see the long-term side effects of the latter choice and will grant him the request.  I fear it, I pray that they won’t do it, but I can see them doing it.

If they do, say goodbye to the United States of America.  Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.

Update–Brietbart is reporting that Obama says he hopes “it doesn’t take too long” to convince Congress to approve new authority to oversee financial firms.

Update II–Ed at Hot Air has posted an interesting look at this–as well as Wolin’s nomination–here.  It’s a must read!