My Take On The Bailouts

With yet another government bailout announced, this one for AIG, some of my faithful readers are doubtlessly somewhat surprised that I have not been railing against them. True, they do go against my belief that government should not interfere with the markets and yes, it is unfair to pick and choose which companies to bailout. However, in the scheme of what is on the table as far as government intrusion into the marketplace, it is one of the better options that has been presented. The reason I say this is quite simple. These type of bailouts often do not cost much, and sometimes turn a small profit.

That of course does not make for a moral justification, but in contrast to the other proposals by candidates, they look fairly inoffensive. Compared to Mr. Obama's platform of tax the oil companies and the wealthy and throw the money around like a rapper at a strip club, it's pretty acceptable. Mr. Obama's "policy" is mostly a list of money he'd hand out to his supporters. Mr. McCain's policy is a bunch of vanilla, though likely effective, tax cuts, and a "pledge" to cut spending. (Note: I am aware of Ms. Palin's oil windfall tax in Alaska. She's better than average, not perfect, and I believe there is a difference in that oil fields in Alaska are owned by the government, and all drilling there is subject to negotiations of royalties.)

The most important part of the bailout is that the government must make every effort to make back the people money, if not turn a profit. Lobbyists must not be allowed to turn these into subsidies. In fact, whenever possible, as large of a profit as possible should be made, and used to pay down the debt. This would also discourage future bailouts, and make them a last resort.