Financial Tyranny, Fedzilla-style by Ted Nugent

[Excellent post in "An Angry Mob of One"]

(First, props to by Ted Nugent for the term “Fedzilla”)

According to Webster’s. tyranny may be defined as 2(a) a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state; (b) the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant.

In the instance of Bush’s proposed bailout, the shoe fits- it is tyranny of the highest order.

According to the proposal, the Feds will basically be able to do as they will (emphasis mine):

Treasury Seeks Asset-Buying Power Unchecked by Courts (Update2)
By Alison Fitzgerald and John Brinsley

Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) — The Bush administration sought unchecked power from Congress to buy $700 billion in bad mortgage investments from financial companies in what would be an unprecedented government intrusion into the markets.

Through his plan, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson aims to avert a credit freeze that would bring the financial system and the world’s largest economy to a standstill. The bill would prevent courts from reviewing actions taken under its authority.

“He’s asking for a huge amount of power,” said Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University. “He’s saying, `Trust me, I’m going to do it right if you give me absolute control.’ This is not a monarchy.”

As congressional aides and officials scrutinized the proposal, the Treasury late yesterday clarified the types of assets it would purchase. Paulson would have authority to buy home loans, mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage- related assets and, after consultation with the Federal Reserve chairman, “other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets,” the Treasury said in a statement.

The Treasury would also have discretion, after discussions with the Fed, to make non-U.S. financial institutions eligible under the program.

The plan would raise the ceiling on the national debt and spend as much as the combined annual budgets of the Departments of Defense, Education and Health and Human Services. Paulson is asking for the power to hire asset managers and award contracts to private companies. Most provisions of the proposal expire after two years from the date of enactment.

(Read the rest at Bloomberg.com)

It’s all bad, but two things stand out as particularly troubling:

• “Other assets.” What exactly does this mean? Is there anything in the proposal that would safeguard US taxpayers from Paulson using this vague and undefined term to buy anything he desires? It seems that, acting in cahoots with the Federal Reserve, all he would have to do is say, for example, that the steel industry is causing turmoil in financial markets, and the government could buy their assets.
• “The bill would prevent courts from reviewing actions taken under its authority.” This means the US taxpayer would have no legal recourse to challenge anything Paulson decided to do. According to the provisions of the plan, if Paulson decided to bail out a foreign bank, no citizen could sue to stop it.

Does this qualify as tyranny? Well, Paulson would have virtually unchecked authority to act- meaning he would have absolute power. By definition, this is tyranny- and your congressmen and Senators are lining up to support the plan.

Things will get only worse under either Obama or McCain, as both are champions of both Fedzilla and the Federal Reserve, and would do nothing to reign them in (or, in the case of the FR, get rid of it). A vote for either of them is a vote for tyranny.