NAUGHTY BAILED-OUT BANKERS ARE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE

Советские Решения Современных Экономических Проблем в Америке Обамы

(SOVIET SOLUTIONS TO CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IN OBAMA'S AMERICA)

By : Mr. Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria, Member, Communist Party of the Soviet Union; Commissioner, National Office of Internal Affairs (NKVD)(1938-1945); Senior Investigator, People's Commissariat to Eradicate Spies, Traitors and Unpatriotic Defeatists Uncommitted to the Public Good (1934-1948); Close Confidant to Joseph Stalin (1926-1953); Orchestrator of Soviet Wartime Production (1941-1945); Manager of Undesirable Population Relocation Program to Central Asia (1941-1951); People's Prosecutor against Lithuanian, Polish, Latvian, Estonian, Ukrainian, German, Hungarian, Czech, Romanian, Slovak and Yugoslavian Traitors and Capitalist Counter-Revolutionary Troublemakers (1938-1953); Pistol Enthusiast and Marksman; Executed 1953; Resurrected 2010.

I am here in America at the request of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Mr. Ben Shalom Bernanke. This Mr. Bernanke--Jewish capitalist intellectual counterrevolutionary though he may be--is a capable man. He understands that your country is in grave danger. He knows that the American economy is teetering on the brink. Most importantly, he understands that traditional "American" methods will not return your country to prosperity. That is why he called me.

Let me briefly summarize my conversation with Mr. Bernanke. He said that the United States is now suffering from a "persistent recession" that has resulted in massive unemployment. He attributed this "recession" to unregulated banking practices and large-scale greed among large financial firms. He also informed me that government has begun playing a much larger role in private financial affairs. He even said that government has paid billions to private banks in order to prevent them from failing. I believe I say this correctly: Your government "bailed out" the wealthiest capitalist pigs in order to allow them to continue loaning money to everyone else.

I applaud America's new commitment to government intervention in the economy. Although it does not come close to the Soviet example, it nonetheless represents a step in the right direction. In Stalin's Russia, we regulate everything. There is no private property. The State owns the banks. If a miserable little banker gets out of line, we shoot him and bury him in an unmarked grave. We even shoot his children and wife. That's how we regulate bankers in Russia. True, this frightens bankers. But it also prevents them from defrauding the people. Sometimes pistols are more effective than laws.

I understand that your country is not the Soviet Union. Mr. Bernanke informed me, however, that these ungrateful bankers have actually taken government money and used it to pay their own bonuses. Additionally, they have thumbed their noses at the very government that saved them from ruin. Mr. Bernanke told me that "something must be done" about these devious, greedy bankers. He asked my advice on the subject.

I am happy to lend my expertise in dealing with your banking problem. First off, let us understand the situation. Your government has taken an unprecedented step to rescue private banks from their own capitalist follies. It has actually given State money in order to prevent them from failing. In return, government can expect allegiance from the banks. In essence, "bailed-out" banks are no longer private. By taking government money, they have subjected themselves to government regulation. They have ceded their private nature. As such, they must listen to your orders. If they don't, they must suffer serious consequences.

Yet now the bankers act as if they never took your money. Worse, they have used your money to invest in the evil New York stock market, where they earned spectacular profits. Rather than return the money to you, they have insolently awarded themselves monstrous bonuses and sent their children on European vacations. They have renovated their villas and hired high-priced prostitutes for week-long champagne orgies at sultry Caribbean hideaways. They have purchased long yachts, "cigarette boats" and Bentley automobiles. They have gallivanted on million-dollar ski trips. All the while, they have refused to hire more workers or act in the public good. To the contrary, they have done little but enrich themselves. They are having the time of their lives--all thanks to government funds.

I share your disgust with these ungrateful outlaws. I am pleased to offer my assistance in "regulating" them. They are Enemies of the People.

We must increase our regulation efforts. Your country must cease relying on "laws" and "procedures" to tame wayward bankers. You will only stop naughty bankers by adopting Soviet-style banking regulations. Bankers are ruthless pirates by nature. Ruthless pirates only understand one language: Brutality. If America wishes to rein in these pirates, it must start regulating with pistols.

Let me explain what I mean by "pistol regulation." As Commissioner of the Secret State Police in the Soviet Union, I became an expert in the craft. Here’s how it works: Once I identify an enemy of the People, I quickly dispatch agents to his home at about 4:30 AM. Generally, most people are either asleep or just waking up at that time--even ambitious capitalist pigs like your wayward bankers. They are in no position to resist ten armed police agents. Most surrender without a fight. In fact, very few ever know we're coming. We investigate in secret.

Once taken into custody, my agents bring the enemy to a secret building with no windows. There, a State security agent informs the enemy why he is an enemy, then tells him to explain himself. This is just a formality: Nothing he says will save him. Basically, it just gives us an opportunity to have a good laugh while the man pisses himself, falls on his knees and begs for mercy. After we've laughed enough, we bring in an officer who says he has judicial power to pronounce sentence. He gravely tells the enemy that he has been found guilty of treason, at which time several armed guards take him into another dimly-lit room. They push the enemy face first against the wall, then shoot him in the back of the head with a pistol like this one:

After that, the guards clean the blood, skull fragments and brains off the floor, remove the body and send it off for cremation. Then I release a press statement describing the enemy's crimes against the people. I close the statement by noting that the "dangerous enemy" has "faced justice for high treason."

Now, once your naughty bankers know that they may face "pistol regulation" for squandering State funds, they will think twice about buying new homes and throwing lavish dinner parties. In fact, some might even invest their money in public projects or--God forbid--hire some people. As you can see, "pistol regulation" carries two benefits. First, it eliminates bad behavior, like embezzling public money. Second, it encourages good behavior, like reducing unemployment. After all, no one wants to get that knock on the door at 4:30 AM. Bankers start behaving much better once they notice that their greedy colleagues aren't in their offices anymore.

You have made a wise decision to enlist my help in regulating your financial industry. You understand that your traditional "American" methods will not impress these rapacious profit-hounds. To the contrary, your entire constitutional system--with its burdensome right to counsel, "independent judiciary" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" procedure--favors the accused. Worse, when the accused has money--as these bankers do--it is even more difficult to convict them. Even then, it takes years for appeals to pass. Plus there's a chance that banker-friendly judges will free their pals. Under your laws, you can't even execute these piratical bankers for their offenses.

This is simply unacceptable: You need Soviet "pistol regulation" or these dogs will walk all over you with "procedures."

Still, you can do it. You have already made an unprecedented step by allowing the government to intervene in the economy. Now, you must take the next step by holding bailed-out bankers to their bargains. If a banker takes government money, he must do as the government says. No more can you tolerate their ingratitude. It is not just embarrassing. It is bad for the country.

To that end, I will do my part to hunt down these criminals. Their lawyers and cash bribes will not stop my agents from putting bullets in their brains. I have wide experience sniffing out wrongdoing; nothing escapes my notice. We will work together to send a simple message: "If you take government money, you had better not use it to pay your own bonus."

I will find every banker who scoffs at government regulation. Believe me, they won't be scoffing after my agents show up at their swanky penthouses at 4:30 in the morning. In fact, they'll be crying, begging, moaning, wailing, pissing and shitting themselves. A few will get angry and shout. But my men will pistol-whip them until they behave.

Enough talking. Let's get to work. We have an industry to regulate. And we have Enemies of the People to eliminate.

PARSIMONIOUS PROTESTANT PENNY-PINCHERS FOR ANALLY-RETENTIVE TREASURY MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL DISCIPLINE IN ALL THINGS

POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD

By : Mrs. Georgette F. Dickerson, Esq., Chairperson; Attorney at Law, Standish Savings & Loan Co., Inc. (a leading bank specializing in stable investments), Des Moines, Iowa; University of Minnesota School of Law (J.D. 1982); Senior Actuary, Stickman, Schuhschnurr & Wedgeworth, P.C. (1983-1998); Adviser to the Board, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Missouri (1998-2002); Author, Be Brave--Save, a Best-Selling Financial Management Guide; Lead Consultant, Parents United to Curtail Juvenile Enjoyment (2004-present); Mother of Five.

Our country confronts financial crisis on an unprecedented scale. Both the Federal government and State governments struggle to balance their budgets. Some States--including New York and California--are bankrupt. Unemployment arcs ever higher. Tax revenues are down. Inflation is up. Christmas shopping is off. The dollar's buying power steadily diminishes as foreign currency floods American markets. There appears to be no end in sight, despite President Obama's promise to rescue the economy with "stimulus packages."

We face hard times. We all need to tighten our belts. But there is a reason why our Nation continues to slip into financial ruin: We are spending too much money.

There are two things you can do with money: You can spend it or save it. If you spend money, you ostensibly get something in return. But in almost every case, you wind up suffering a loss. After all, it is simply smarter to hold onto $1,400 than to buy a comfortable new Ottoman for your living room. Additionally, if you buy an Ottoman, you might have a nice piece of new furniture. But you no longer have $1,400 to pay bills and live responsibly. That is why spending money is rarely a smart alternative.

Saving, however, is always a good idea. Rather than indulging on comfortable furniture, you could put that $1,400 in a low-interest-bearing money market account. You could open a trust with diversified, guaranteed holdings. You could put your money to work rather than fritter it away on transient pleasures. That is the smart thing to do. Sure, you might have to continue sitting on a moth-eaten couch rather than a brand new Ottoman. But wouldn’t you rather get some interest back on your $1,400 than merely toss it away for red plush and velvet?

Yet Americans have committed financial sin. For decades, they elected to spend rather than save. For decades, they poured their money into movie houses, car dealerships, grocery stores, jewelry boutiques, home improvement depots and other frivolous retail outlets. They even mortgaged their property in order to get their hands on more cash to spend. In short, Americans engaged in an unbridled spending orgy. They saved nothing. True, they might have enjoyed themselves at the time. But look where they've landed us now--in a depression.

Still, it is no answer to say that Americans like spending money. It is more complicated than that. Spending is a disease. It gives the spender a high. People who spend money lust for the moment they hand over a credit card to some petty sales associate. They want a full shopping bag. They want more and more "stuff." They don't care about the money; they want to feel good about buying things they want. In short, spending is a drug worse than any street narcotic. People squander their whole lives seeking their next spending fix. In the process, they ruin themselves and their families.

We, the Parsimonious Protestant Penny-Pinchers for Anally-Retentive Treasury Management and Financial Discipline in All Things, offer a solution to America's spending addiction: We must stop all spending at once. We will not save this country from financial crisis with "stimulus packages" and "health care bills." Those are just spending orgies on a governmental scale. President Obama gravely erred when he thought he could save America by spending money. Spending money does not solve problems; it just creates more.

We need financial discipline in America. Financial discipline begins with waging war on enjoyment. For far too long, Americans have equated money with pleasure and fun. That is the psychological impetus for dangerous spending. We must begin inculcating financial virtue in every American. We can no longer tolerate unnecessary grocery shopping or gift binging. We must learn to say "No" to the shopping urge. It is time to put away the credit card. It is time to put that money in a bank and scrimp. It is time to forestall enjoyment. It is time to stop having fun. Fun got us in this mess. And as Protestant Penny-Pinchers, we say: "NO MORE."

We would rather have money saved tomorrow than a good time tonight. Our current financial crisis is more than a debate about money. It is also a debate about morality. After all, unchecked spending leads to enjoyment. Unchecked enjoyment leads to gluttony. Gluttony leads to social decay. And social decay destroys empires.

We refuse to allow fun-loving spenders to destroy the country we love. We demand a return our ancestors' financial virtues. Our wise Protestant ancestors did not build the greatest country on earth by buying plasma screen TVs and 24-inch rotating rims for their SUVs. Rather, they wore staid black shawls, scowled all day, worked hard in sparse shops, sang hymns, saved their nickels and had approximately two orgasms per calendar year. Those virtues reflected a commitment to both financial management and healthy living. When our ancestors died, they left behind huge sums in banks, credit bureaus, negotiable instruments and other financial protection devices. Those sums allowed their descendants to capitalize on their hard work, leading the country ever higher. In short, by suppressing enjoyment and saving money, our Protestant forebears built a mighty Nation. They did not enjoy themselves; in fact, they were mean, cold, domineering, loveless tyrants who would have rather died than spend $5.00 extra for anything.

But somehow we lost our way. Now, we want to enjoy our money as soon as we make it. We want video game consoles, huge homes, boats and designer bathrooms. We want Gucci bags, Rolex® watches and useless gold baubles. We even want Dom Peringnon champagne and $500 steak dinners. In short, we want to have a great time before we die.

We have no right to a good time before death. Our insistence on fun has wrecked this country. We have a responsibility to be disciplined. That means we must stop all spending NOW. We must tell our children: "No, you may not have another piece of cake." We must tell ourselves: "No, you may not buy that car." Put simply, we must learn to curtail our corrosive spending urges. Only then will we save this Nation from certain financial doom.

Financial virtue begins at the top. Our government must stop acting like the individual spendthrifts who created the problem in the first place. We will get nowhere by spending money on health care, welfare, the military, green energy, salaries, the postal service and various bureaus. We must halt our dependence on spending. Our Nation has become addicted to spending. We must break the addiction by simply going cold turkey on spending. From now on, our government must hold on to its money. We must learn a new paradigm: "Income good. Spending bad. Saving good." In a word, it's time to start saving, scowling and living totally unfulfilling--but financially disciplined--lives.

If you're disgusted with inefficiency in Washington, put a party in power that will return this country to solvency. If you're sick and tired of runaway spending and decadence, put a party in power that promises saving, not enjoyment. If you care about discipline, virtue and our children, you will vote for Protestant Penny Pinchers. Let us join together to teach our children that spending is evil. Let us learn together that there is joy in saving money and earning interest. We can defeat this economic slump if we commit to reforming ourselves. We can break our addiction to spending if we step back and recognize what is at stake.

We are Americans. We can do without. When we earn a dollar, we can put it straight into a piggy bank, not into a cash register at Best Buy. We can make do with less. If we care about our Nation and our children, we will do the right thing. We will stop enjoying ourselves today. We will stop spending. We can do it. As soon as we become heartless, unhappy, unrequited, coldblooded skinflints, we will know the country is safe from financial catastrophe.

President Obama, not one penny more! We are Protestant Penny-Pinchers. From today on, we refuse to spend a single cent. Saving is better than spending. Because when we save, we win.

Burn your credit card. Stay away from that mall. Ignore your children's pleas for toys. Cook your own meals. Sew your own clothing.

Get disciplined. Stop enjoying yourself. It is the only way to defeat this Depression.

MAKING STIMULUS WORK : AMERICANS WOULD RATHER HAVE JOBS THAN ART

ECONOMIC POLICY CONTRIBUTION

By : Mr. Cornelius D. Zimmerman, Ph. D., Senior Fellow, The Employers' Coalition for Effective Stimulus Through Greater Executive Compensation; Former Director, Gerstein Industrial Paint Co., Inc.; Author, "Money Talks : Paying for Loyalty is OK" (Bantam Business Publications 1997); University of Pennsylvania Business School (M.B.A. 1969).

For over a year now, our government has assumed an unprecedented role in our economy. Following the disaster that befell Wall Street last autumn, Washington has literally foot the bill for private investment losses. If employers need extra cash for operations, they just need to ask the government for it. If a corporation is running low on money for executive bonuses, it just needs to fill out some forms claiming "economic difficulty" and it gets a fat federal check. Washington calls these measures "economic stimulus." Still, many companies feel embarrassed about taking government handouts. But as business owners and employers, we say this: Do not be ashamed to take free money.

As a general rule, we believe in hard work and earning your keep. When we raise our children, for instance, we teach them that nothing is free. We teach them that traditional, daily employment is the only way to respectably earn money. We even teach them to feel ashamed for accepting too much help from other people. After all, a good, zealous worker needs no extra help. If he does, that means he has failed somewhere. Put simply, we do not appreciate government efforts to help people who are too lazy to work, or people who fail. When you fail, that's your problem.

Still, we relax our stance when we benefit from government spending. Workers should feel ashamed to receive government help, but we do not feel ashamed when the government bails out our companies. After all, our companies are necessary to the economy. Employees are less necessary. Anyone can type data into a spreadsheet. But not everyone can sit at a Directors' meeting and ask blustering questions about finance. We are different. Without us, employees would not have a place to work and earn. In that sense, it is perfectly acceptable for major companies to receive government aid without any shame at all. In fact, we deserve it. When government gives major corporations money, it acknowledges our vital role in the national economy. We salute the Federal government for its recognition that private corporations must remain profitably funded in order to maintain our free market system.

Yet government's willingness to spend money to support private employers introduces new issues. How can businesses benefit most from government's new largesse? We founded The Employers' Coalition for Effective Stimulus to answer exactly that question. If government wants to spend money to help pay our bills and our executive salaries, we think it is important that government spend effectively. Effective spending means cutting away needless expenses and putting money in the right places. That means guaranteeing two basic things: (1) That executives continue to receive their pre-2008 salary levels; and (2) That companies can employ more people at livable wages. Executives must receive their old pay because no business professional will take risks without it, and companies must hire more people because more employees mean more profits for executives, particularly when government pays for them. Without profits for executives, the whole system collapses. Who would want to run a business without profit? Thus, when government spends money on private companies, it must bear these two goals in mind.

Stimulus is still a relatively new concept in Washington. We believe that Washington can benefit from executive consultation on stimulus programs. First, we insist that Washington increase stimulus for our companies. Americans want jobs. We can give them jobs if Washington gives us money to pay them (less a service fee payable as executive compensation). Washington knows that Americans want jobs. Yet it sabotages its own stimulus efforts by wasting money on things Americans don't want, like art. At present, Washington spends billions on extraneous initiatives like the "Federal Writers' Program," the "National Endowment for the Humanities," the "Federal Performing Arts Fund" and many other "artistic" endeavors. This is pure waste. Americans could care less about art. However much they cared about art in rosier times, they don't want it now. No one wants to look at paintings when they are unemployed; they want a job. In a word, jobs are more important than art.

By targeting useless spending such as the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Federal Sculpture Society, we free up cash for job creation. By streamlining Federal aid, we ensure that money goes where it is needed most: To private employers. When more government aid fills corporate accounts, that means more jobs. Yet when government wastes money on photography, essays and art history lectures, that means less money for private employers. And when that happens, Americans lose jobs. It is no answer to say that private employers can pay their own employees. That is not the point: The point is that more money for companies means even more jobs for Americans. Neither we nor the American people will further tolerate government spending that prevents Americans from getting jobs. Put simply, every time the government spends money on art, it costs thousands of American jobs. This must stop.

Art does not pay medical bills. It does not send children to private colleges, nor does it pay mortgages. Art does not buy furniture, groceries or electronics. In a word, it is useless. In difficult economic times like this, Americans do not need useless things. They need jobs. They need things that will save them from bankruptcy and ruin, not pornographic sculptures and left-wing theater pieces. The Coalition understands the American people: The American people want jobs, not art. We know that Americans would much rather have a job at the local insurance company than free admission to an exhibit on splatter painting. Stimulus will not reach its full potential until government halts competing support for art.

America does not need art. America needs stimulus that works, not decadent luxuries like painting and novel-writing. Cutting arts funding will help us on the path to universal private employment. But there are other ways to create jobs beyond effective stimulus for private employers. For example, the Federal government can provide funding to private entrepreneurs to round up and burn existing art. Just as government created ready jobs for unemployed workers in the 1930s, so too can it create ready work for the unemployed in 2009. There are millions of artworks in the United States. Unemployed people can immediately get back to work looking for them, seizing them and destroying them. Even more Americans can stack up paintings, while still others can feed them into fires--all for decent pay. Skilled contractors can build furnaces for artworks, keep them fueled, clean them and maintain them. Thousands more can drive trucks transporting artworks between furnaces. Unemployed accountants can count how many artworks are burned each day at each furnace, then draw up ledgers detailing trends and productivity. These measures will provide immediate relief to millions and pay them a dignified wage. Furthermore, they will give unemployed people hope and a new sense of national pride.

We can do this. We must simply start rounding up and burning art. This is stimulus that works.

Americans can do anything they put their minds to. When Americans have a purpose, they are stronger than anyone else on earth. We can survive this recession by reevaluating what it means to live in America. There is nothing wrong with accepting government assistance. When stimulus stimulates private spending on employment and executive compensation, everyone wins. Additionally, when government shows the people that it cares about their jobs and even creates work for them, they feel proud to live in a country that cares for them. We can accomplish all these goals by cutting arts funding and destroying existing art. Thousands of Americans need work. Millions more need hope. Effective government spending will ensure that they all get well-paying, private sector jobs within the next twelve months. Anyone who wants a job will have one. After all, anyone can burn art. Even disabled people can play a part by telling able-bodied workers where to find hidden art.

For over two hundred years, artwork has accumulated in the United States. Destroying it will take years. During that time, millions of Americans will receive excellent wages. They will be able to afford their own health insurance, feed their children and even buy homes. Destroying art will provide all these benefits. And what will we really lose? Americans would rather work than look at sculptures or drawings. Employers would rather make suitable profits than cut jobs. Yet this is precisely what they will have to do if government does not streamline its stimulus efforts. In today's economy, government cannot afford to waste money. It must ensure that every dollar results in job creation.

Let us move forward. We can overcome this depression without socialism. We must merely spend money where it counts: On private employers, not art. Spending money on art led this country into despair and depression. Let us take our prosperity back. It is time to spend money on things that Americans want: Jobs. By paying executive compensation and destroying art, Americans will get all the jobs they want.

Let us get back to work. If you are out of work, tell your Congressman to abolish arts funding. And mention that you are ready to help look for paintings, sculptures, sketches and picture books. We have a new mission as a people: To work, not to hoard wasteful art. Burning art will unite us all.

Better days are coming. That means more jobs and less art.

I DISAPPROVE OF OBAMA BECAUSE HE HASN'T MADE ME A MILLIONAIRE YET

By : Franklin B. “Frankie Pepsi Cola” Carboni, Senior Parking Attendant, Frankie’s Hot Used Car Lot, Newark, N.J.; High School Graduate, Fresh Kills Academy; Special Certificate, Joy-Z Parking Systems 12-Hour Parking Technology Program, Paramus, N.J.; Democrat.

Like most Americans last year, I voted for Barack Obama. I wanted change. I wanted to make more money for my wife and two kids. I wanted affordable health insurance and lower taxes. I wanted smarter foreign policy. I wanted to see our boys home from Iraq. Basically, our country was in a tough spot in 2008. I voted for Obama because I trusted him to fix the economy and make America strong again. During his first days in office, I was among the millions who gave Obama strong approval ratings. After all, it looked like he could really get the job done.

But it’s been seven months now and the economy is still awful. Unemployment has never been higher. Obama has had plenty of time to overhaul health care, withdraw our troops from Iraq and save the economy. He hasn’t gotten anything done. No, he just barnstorms around the country mouthing slogans and asking for more time. Well guess what? This is America, buddy. You’ve got to put up results fast or shut up. We voted for you because we wanted results fast. You haven’t delivered. That’s why I join the millions of disappointed voters who now disapprove of Barack Obama. In my business, I park cars fast. Obama should be just as fast in his business.

I disapprove of Obama for a simple reason: He hasn’t made me a millionaire yet. He promised to restore strength to the economy. He promised that we would all be rich and prosperous if we voted for him. Last November, I happily went to the polls because I thought Obama would make my life better. Back then, I was making $26,000 a year as a Senior Parker at Tommy “Tommy Corned Beef” Fagiole’s Hot Used Car Lot in Newark. I lost that job in February because no one needed their car parked in this economy. Today, I am making only $24,000 at Frankie’s Hot Used Car Lot. I’m lucky to have a car parking job at all. My question to Obama is this: “Where’s my fuckin’ money?”

I expected Obama to make me a millionaire within six weeks. Every American expected the same thing. I wanted to go from parking Bentleys to owning them. I wanted to go from renting a smelly flat in Paramus to owning three condos in Short Hills. I wanted to buy my wife a Cartier and send my kids to that really nice private school in West New York. But it hasn’t happened. I’m still making a lousy $24,000 and my wife still serves coffee at a New Jersey Turnpike rest stop out in Elizabeth. Obama has had seven months to make me a millionaire. Yet here I am parallel parking 1996 Chevies for bum tips in Newark. I disapprove. Obama lied. He’s just another Washington politician who wrote a check he couldn’t cash.

Obama promised to fix health care, too. He hasn’t. Seven months into his term, I pay more for health insurance than I did under Bush. Seven months after promising “change we can believe in,” he can’t even push healthcare reform through a Democratic Congress. So I’m still paying 25% of my income to an insurance company that doesn’t cover cancer treatment, heart ailments, health problems involving the human body or medications beginning with a vowel.

This is bullshit. Obama promised results. He hasn’t delivered on health care. He told us he would change everything. But from my stoop, it all looks the same, if not worse. Last I checked, I still can’t get free health care in this country. What is the freakin’ holdup? Maybe Obama should spend some more time on health care rather than flying off to Egypt to apologize for stuff he never did. We want results, not talk. Hey, I’m just being fair. At my job, if I didn’t park a sedan that rolled into the car lot in January until August, I would have been fired a long time ago. Well Obama hasn’t parked the sedan yet. He hasn’t even shown up for work. And I’m still not a millionaire.

I’m not going to say Obama is doing a good job until my annual income surpasses $1,000,000. I don’t want excuses. I don’t want one of these Harvard stooges getting on TV telling me “I need to be patient” because this is the “worst economic downturn since 1930.” What do I care? I voted for Obama because he promised quick results. From where I’m standing, things have actually gotten worse. He has had more than enough time to give me a job that pays over a million a year. I should have been buying my wife diamonds by now. Instead, I take shit from my boss at Frankie’s Hot Car Lot for a lousy $400 a week. This ain’t change I can believe in. Where’s the GDP growth? Where’s the stock market money? Where’s the bailout cash? How come I don’t have $1,000,000 yet? Come on, I don’t have all day. I need to feed my kids, buy a new house and buy gas.

What about the boys in Iraq? Obama promised to end our involvement over there immediately. But we’re still there. It’s been seven months. It looks like Obama bullshitted me on that one, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah, he puts up some State Department clod to explain that “reducing military operations in foreign countries takes time” and that I can’t “expect results overnight.” Fuck that; yes I can. You told us: “Yes we can” when you said we could get our troops out of there. Well, where are they? When you say you’re going to end a war, get it done. Shit, when I say I can park a car in five minutes, it’s done in three. You said you could end a war in January. It’s August now and you still haven’t done it. I don’t buy excuses because excuses don’t fly in the parking business. And they shouldn’t fly for Presidents, either.

President Obama needs to work harder if he wants to get his approval back from me. I am not the only American who has lost confidence in his ability. We all thought we’d be rich by now, but lo and behold, we’re all still making shitty wages. Many Americans have even lost their jobs since he took office. We wouldn’t have voted for Obama if we didn’t think we’d get something from the deal. We wanted to get rich quick. Obama promised he would bring prosperity to America. He promised that we’d all have high-paying jobs. He told us that America would be a better place once he took office. But it’s all the same so far. In fact, the economy is way worse than it was on January 20. I don’t give my approval to Presidents who don’t make me rich.

This is about accountability. This is about trust. This is about promises. This is about results we can believe in. Obama has done nothing he promised. That makes him dishonest. Not only has he not made me a millionaire yet; he lied to me, too. I mean, where are the goddamned electric cars? Obama promised that he would replace gas-powered cars with “green” cars to reduce reliance on foreign oil. Last time I looked out my window, though, everyone is still driving 5-mile-per-gallon Excursions and Expeditions. Electric cars, my ass. Obama said he would completely reconfigure the auto industry for electric cars. Well, it’s been seven months and no change. We still rely on foreign oil. Just another promise Obama hasn’t kept.

Obama promised that we would have a moon colony, too. Guess what? It’s been seven months and no moon colony. How can I trust a guy who promises to make me a millionaire and found a moon colony, yet can’t get either one done in seven whole months? Do you know how many cars I can park in seven months? Obama is just flat-out lazy. It doesn’t take seven months to set up a moon colony. I should be kicking back gravity-free with a lunar margarita by now, for Christ’s sakes.

I had simple expectations when I voted for President Obama. I expected him to make me and my children millionaires by February 1, 2009, I expected him to have top-quality universal health care in place by March 1, 2009, I expected him to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by January 21, 2009, I expected him to eliminate racism by February 2, 2009, I expected him to establish a moon colony by March 15, 2009 and I expected him to cure cancer and AIDS by April 1, 2009. It is now August 3, 2009. He has accomplished none of these things. If he were in the private sector, he would have lost his job months ago. I mean, how difficult is it to cure AIDS? He said “Yes we can.” Well, I guess he can’t. If I were evaluating President Obama’s job performance today, I would say: “Piss poor.” With results like these, I wouldn’t even hire him as a Junior Parking Attendant at Frankie’s.

I will continue to disapprove President Obama’s job performance until he starts delivering results. And I will never approve his job performance until I have $1,000,000 in my bank account. Mr. President, you promised me a better economy and a better future. Well, it’s been seven months, and my future looks pretty grim. I speak for the millions of Americans to whom you promised a better life. We want to be millionaires. Make us millionaires. Otherwise, you can forget about being re-elected in 2012. Look, we’re not saying you’re a bad guy. You’re just not getting the job done. We have simple expectations. We just want to be millionaires. We have a right to expect quick results, just as our bosses do at our jobs.

We are the American people. We put you in the White House. We are your employers. You haven’t delivered. You had better put up fast or we will send you packing. We want million-dollar salaries, not excuses. Quite frankly, it is shocking that you haven’t saved the economy, rescued health care, eliminated racism, established a moon colony, reconfigured the auto industry, brought peace to the Middle East, cured Parkinson’s Disease or made me a millionaire after seven whole months. You are just incompetent, plain and simple.

You are not doing a good job. You get a solid F from me.

Until I’m a millionaire, I have only one thing to say: I disapprove.

PEOPLE WHO LOVE TO GO SHOPPING PARTY

POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD

By : Mr. H. Langdell Kauffing, Party Vice President and Former Chairman, American Retailers for Maximum Credit Renewal Notwithstanding Minimal Income, Inc., a For-Profit Lobbying Group, Washington, D.C.

America knows how to bounce back. When tough economic times knock us down, we get back up like a scrappy underdog. The Depression knocked us down in the 1930s. We got up with a vengeance in the 1940s. Since then, Americans have navigated several major recessions. Through them all, they stayed strong. Even when life looks hopeless, Americans stay on top.

Today, we face yet another financial crisis. This time, they say it’s for real. The talking heads all squawk about “imminent collapse,” “unemployment,” “bread lines,” “bankruptcy” and “looming economic disaster.” They say Americans are paying the price for free money and bad decisions. They say Americans can’t even buy homes or get loans anymore. They say that unless the government steps in to rescue American businesses and insurance companies, the whole country will descend into anarchy.

Why did this happen? The talking heads say that Americans “spent irresponsibly,” “borrowed irresponsibly” and “lived irresponsibly.” In a word, they blame credit cards, banks and undisciplined consumers for casting the economy into peril. America, they say, brought this misery upon itself. They say Americans should have saved instead of shopped. They call on government to help save America from spendthrifts. Now, they say Americans must hoard their cash and stay away from shopping centers.

We cannot do this. Americans love to shop, and we stand for them. We are the People Who Love to Go Shopping Party. We speak for millions of Americans from coast to coast. We believe that we can beat the financial crisis in the same way Americans have beaten every recession that has come down the pike since 1932: By shopping, spending and consuming. Our economy gets nowhere when people bury their cash and hide jewels under the mattress. Rather, our economy will only recover when people dare again to spend. Spending is patriotic, not saving. We have a short answer to the talking heads: Sure, we’ll stop shopping—in hell.

We agree that our economy needs a boost. The housing collapse should not have happened. Shoppers need homes. Shoppers could not shop if they did not first have comfortable homes in which to place all the merchandise they buy. Shoppers also need a place to sleep in between shopping sessions. To that end, we agree that the government must bail out shoppers so they can pay their mortgages. After all, a homeless shopper is no shopper at all. We also promise to lobby for additional bailout money for more shopping. What good is bailout money if shoppers are afraid to spend it? We need to send a clear message to Americans in these dark times: “Life is back to normal. Start spending like it.” We want people to go out and buy new cars, tires, stereo systems and power lawnmowers. We want them to buy gifts for Mom and new furniture for sonny before he goes off to college. In short, we believe the naysayers border on treason when they suggest that Americans should sit on their money. No. Patriots spend. Traitors save.

There is only one way out of this hole. We need to spend our way out. And the clock is ticking.

Spending is not easy when you have no money. It is impossible to purchase a $7,500 kiddy Go-Kart® when you only have $1,323 in your bank account. Yet without immediate consumer spending, our country will slide further into the financial abyss. To that extent, we promise to reinvigorate consumer credit opportunities. For the last few years, evil legislators have launched a concerted propaganda campaign “warning Americans” about “credit dangers.” They say that credit companies prey on weak consumers and tyrannize hard-working Americans with interest charges. They say that runaway credit leads to poverty, homelessness and bankruptcy.

We must stop these lies. Consumer credit is the only way most Americans can buy things they can’t afford. When Americans buy things they can’t afford, the economy improves. Bearing that in mind, we must encourage Americans to spend money they don’t have. To do that, credit must be available to all, not just those with jobs, income and real estate. In America, all men are created equal. We believe it is only patriotic to demand that all Americans have equal opportunities to obtain credit. We see no reason why a rich man should be able to buy a power scooter on credit, but a welder cannot. Our economy suffers when only rich men buy power scooters. If we want to escape recession, both welders and doctors must buy power scooters—no matter how much each man has in the bank.

We have faith in American consumers. We do not treat them like children. We do not scold them for shopping. We trust them to do what’s best. Put simply, we believe that American consumers like to shop. History shows that when Americans shop, the country prospers. Additionally, Americans are happy when they shop. We do not believe the fearmongers who claim that runaway shopping caused the financial crisis. We refuse to allow the fearmongers to stop Americans from doing what they love. We refuse to allow them to blockade our shopping strips, malls and boutiques. We demand access to shopping centers. We want to shop. We can take care of ourselves. As the People Who Love to Go Shopping Party, we are united in our belief that shopping is a right. And it is a good, public right, because when we shop, the economy improves.

Can anyone really claim that saving money will rescue our economy? What good will saving do for Motel 6®? What good will saving do for Toys-R-Us®? What good will saving do for General Motors? Our economy will continue to wither if important companies sell nothing. They will not sell anything if officious government policies frighten people from spending money. Saving keeps money out of the economy; spending pours it in. A river cannot run without water. Spending provides healthy flow to the economic river. By contrast, saving causes economic drought. Without new money flow, the river dries up and parches. Is this what the government suggests? Saving and so-called “responsibility” will lead to further drought. And when the economic river dries up, everybody loses. We all drink from the river. If it runs dry, we will all die on the dusty riverbank.

We must pour our money into the river, not hoard money away from it. When we shop, we pour money into the companies that make the river flow. When the river flows, the company passes money along to employees. When the river flows, Americans get jobs. When Americans have jobs, they have more money to add to the river. And when the river flows, the company can pay taxes and make charitable donations. But none of these things will happen if Americans do not shop. Shopping is like the spring rain that cleanses the earth and strengthens the stream. Shopping is the lifeblood in economic life, just as the river provides lifeblood to all the plants and animals around it. In America, our economy is our habitat. We can only maintain our habitat if we give it water. Thus, it is only natural to spend. We must protect our economic river. We can only do that by shopping.

We promise to defend American shoppers against all encroachments. Put a party in power that will protect your right to go shopping. Do not let naysayers stamp out your rights with admonitions to “save your pennies.” We did not overcome the Depression by scrimping and hoarding. We overcame the Depression by pouring our money back into the economic river, even if we had to take out loans to do it. We can defeat this crisis by shopping, just as our great-grandparents did. Unlike the fearmongers, we have faith in our shoppers. We believe that government should encourage shopping, not frustrate it. To that end, we promise to make both money and credit available to all Americans.

Shopping is not a crime. In fact, it is the best thing an American can do to save the country from economic disaster. At the same time, shopping makes the individual consumer feel good. It is not a one-way street. The retailer gets the consumer’s money, but the consumer gets a video game cartridge, a refrigerator or a desk. These things make consumers happy. In this sense, shopping is both an individually joyful and patriotic activity. Shoppers sacrifice their money. But they get a welcome reward for it. Most patriotic sacrifices are not so pleasant. Shopping is unique in the sense that it saves the country at the same time it pleases the consumer. In that regard, it is hard to understand how anyone could think that shopping is bad, let alone irresponsible.

We believe that it is more responsible to be patriotic than parsimonious. Only shopping will save this country. Saving the country is patriotic, not saving money. Saving money will not save the country. It will cause the money river to run dry. If that happens, the United States will fall further into economic turmoil. How is that patriotic or responsible? The fearmongers say that “saving money” is “responsible.” Yet saving money will lead to national collapse. Again, we ask: How is it “responsible” to drive America to destruction? Put bluntly, the fearmongers are wrong. Saving money is not responsible because it is not patriotic. Patriotism means protecting and rescuing the United States from economic disaster. Only shopping can do that. In that sense, shopping is patriotic—and patriotism is responsible. We therefore assure all Americans: It is not “irresponsible” to shop, nor should you castigate yourselves for spending your savings at a car dealership. When you spend money, you are protecting this country. You are not betraying it.

We are confident that Americans will see that saving is not the answer to the financial crisis. Rather, we are confident that Americans will come to their senses and start shopping again. We, the People Who Love to Go Shopping Party, are dedicated to ending the lies about spending money. We promise to doggedly protect Americans’ right to shop, and that means confronting all the gloomy rhetoric about “saving,” “responsibility” and “ prudence.” In our view, Americans have a responsibility to be patriotic. To be patriotic, Americans must fight to rescue the United States from economic turmoil. That is true responsibility. And that means spending money—today.

Americans will overcome this menace by buying expensive merchandise every day without fear. Saving money got us into this predicament in the first place. It is time to fight back and buy what we want. It is time to end the fear. Let us join hands and tell the world: “We are not afraid to go shopping, even if we have no money in the bank, no job and no income.” We are the People Who Love to Go Shopping Party. We will fight for your right to shop--always and every day.

Be patriotic. Get out there and buy something.

BREAKING CONTRACTS : IT'S ALL ABOUT POWER

AN ESSAY

After the AIG scandal broke last week, I wrote an essay explaining that there is no legal barrier to breaking contracts. Recently, Americans have been horrified to see federal bailout money paying AIG executives whose conduct helped create the economic crisis. This popular outrage, in turn, sparked a debate as to whether the government can abrogate private contracts. Most Americans seem to think that private contracts are inviolable. They seem to think that contracts have a mystical power that makes them immune from State interference. President Obama’s economic adviser, Larry Summers, went so far as to say: “This is a country of laws. The government cannot just abrogate private contracts.”

Yes it can. Government enforces contracts by sovereign grace. If the sovereign decides that a particular contract will be enforced, there is nothing the aggrieved party can do about it within the law. Of course, this would not set a good precedent. After all, people only do business with each other if they know that the law will force the other guy to honor his promise. But this is a policy concern, not a legal one. In essence, the power to enforce contracts stems from pure political might. It has nothing to do with abstractions, principles or sacred vows. And it certainly has nothing to do with whether the United States is a “country of laws.”

In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote: “The principal foundations of all states, whether new, old, or mixed, are good laws and good arms… [and]… there cannot be good laws where there are not good arms…[and] where there are good arms, there are bound to be good laws.” The Prince, Chapter 12 at p. 52. Machiavelli’s clear prose reminds us that a “nation of laws” cannot exist without “good arms,” namely, powerful executive authority. Law cannot exist without force, nor can it even come into being without an original coup. In the United States, there would be no Constitution or laws had the colonists not risen up and defeated the British army through “good arms.” Through “good arms,” the United States maintained the essential stability it required to establish “good laws.” Thanks to protection under “good arms,” commercial men could depend on stable laws. They could count on courts to enforce contracts against those who broke their promises. Americans grew accustomed to a “legal State” in which they could dependably rely on courts to enforce private bargains with neutral, reasonable laws.

That remains the case today. Larry Summers did not voice an insane sentiment when he said: “This is a Nation of laws.” Most Americans agree with him. They take pride in the fact that they live in a society in which courts neutrally apply legal principles that technically treat everyone equally. After all, a “Nation of laws” differs from a “Nation of men,” in which a legal rules flow from the wanton caprice of a single individual. In America, we have laws. In theory, the laws apply equally to everyone, and—as the logic goes—that is a good thing.

But these “defenders of the law” forget that their laws would mean nothing without executive power. Courts enjoy power because they can count on the executive to enforce their “principled” decrees. In contract law, they ruminate about abstract ideas like bargain, consideration, benefit, detriment, equality of exchange, restitution, rescission, reformation, mistake, parol evidence and reliance. They even attempt to allot money damages to aggrieved parties according to fixed, “neutral” rules. They then scribble out judgments and force the offending party to pay. If he does not, the court has no institutional power to do anything but write strongly-worded opinions. To enforce its decrees, it must turn to its institutional partner: The Executive. Only the executive has the billy clubs, guns, prisons and handcuffs to browbeat the offending party into paying up. If he does not obey the court, the executive takes away his property or his liberty. To avoid that fate, the offending party does what the court tells him. That is true power: The power to compel. Cf. Kant (“Law is linked to the authority to compel”). Introduction to Legal Doctrine, The Metaphysics of Morals (Einleitung in die Rechtslehre § D, Die Metaphysik der Moral). The executive is powerful because it can directly inflict pain on bodies and take away property. And as Machiavelli knew, nothing compels men more than threatening their property: “[B]ut above all, [a Prince] must abstain from taking the property of others, for men sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.” The Prince, Chapter 17, p. 72.

What good is it to be a “nation of laws” if the laws themselves are stupid or degrading? That was the question Americans asked when they found out that federal bailout money paid multimillion-dollar bonuses to scallywag AIG executives last week. In my view, waving your hands in the air and pontificating about “our Nation of laws” is absurd. Quite simply, the whole rhetoric about the United States as a “nation of laws” is a vacuous talisman. If it is necessary to allow brigands to take money that would not have been available without their skullduggery because that is what “the law dictates,” then I say the “rule of law” is just as stupid as the law itself. During his confirmation hearings in the United States Senate, Chief Justice John G. Roberts repeatedly pledged that he would issue opinions: “Consistent with the Constitution and the rule of law in the United States,” as if the “rule of law” were synonymous with goodness. What is all this nonsense about the “rule of law?” Laws come from men. Men can be stupid. So can their laws. Therefore, to use a lawyer’s logic, the “rule of law” can be stupid, too. I reserve no exalted place in my heart for the “rule of law.” There once were laws that permitted slavery. Under the “rule of law,” men could own other men in this country. If a law is bad, so is “rule under the law.” For that reason, I reject this hypnotic, reflexive insistence on the “rule of law” in every single situation in which legal rules come into question. For me, it is no answer to mouth the words “rule of law” when defending legal principles that lead to intuitive mischief.

Yet there is no need to even reach the question. We need only worry about the “rule of law” if we assume that the executive will enforce legal decrees. In essence, law is about power. Our constitutional system arose from power and does its best to diffuse power across several institutions. In theory, our legislative, executive and judicial branches are supposed to be “equal” in power. In practice, however, we see how artificial and wooden this distinction truly is. After all, who really has power? Only the branch with the power to compel men’s bodies and take their property has real power. Courts have the power to write erudite opinions on archaic constitutional provisions. Legislatures have the power to draft voluminous bills that attempt to better society with new rules and regulations. But only the executive has the power to shoot, kill, take, invade, imprison, threaten and enforce. Without the executive, neither legislative nor judicial “power” would mean anything. Courts and legislatures are like powerless children who depend on their father to do the muscle work. Only the executive has real power, because it is the branch with the “good arms.” And, in Machiavelli’s parlance: “There are no good laws without good arms.” The Prince, Chapter 12, p. 52. Only real power assures that the law has any force at all. On this point, Machiavelli again puts it best: “For, between an armed man and an unarmed one there is no comparison whatsoever, and it is not reasonable that one who is armed should willingly obey one who is unarmed.” The Prince, Chapter 14, p. 63. In this light, should the executive in this country really listen to carping about the “rule of law” in enforcing abhorrent private contracts for AIG executives? No. In Machiavelli’s terms, it would not even be “reasonable” for the “armed” executive to obey an “unarmed” court.

My sentiments here will undoubtedly cause discomfort among legal “process lovers.” Indeed, my article last week prompted a response that: “This is no way to run a government.” On this point I agree. Laws should be followed. Laws provide stability and comfort to commerce, and that inures to everyone’s benefit. When men know that they can obtain a peaceful remedy from a court, they will refrain from private retribution and “collection.” In almost every case, the executive should enforce legal decrees that compel private obligations. But that does not alter the fact that executive enforcement is essentially discretionary. Only the executive is armed; the court has no real power to compel anything. In rare cases—as here with the AIG bonus fiasco—the executive has the institutional discretion to refuse to honor legal decrees. After all, if private contract law leads to a result so repugnant that it reaffirms Charles Dickens’ famous dictum from Oliver Twist: “If this be the eye of the law, sir, then the law is an ass,” then the executive can step in to reverse the outcry. True, some may say that such “indulgences” to popular sentiment are the first step on the road to dictatorship and capricious government. But I say that it is worse to allow perverse “legal” results than to suspend the law in an exceptional case to avoid public indignation.

I have little patience for those who fanatically put their faith in law. Positive law—meaning written laws passed by popular majorities for majority purposes, ostensibly according to logic and human reason—does not invariably lead to good results or justice. In Hitler’s Germany, for instance, positive law—passed by democratic majorities—forbade marriages between Jews and Gentiles. Later German laws made it “legal” to exterminate Jews at concentration camps. This is an extreme example, but it shows that positive law should not be a talisman. Positive law can be bad. For that reason, trust in the “rule of law” can also be misplaced.

We all want our bargains protected. But that does not mean we should allow AIG Executives to scream “rule of law” to create a result at fundamental odds with our common sensibilities. Our common sensibilities may not be written down in a statute or casebook, but they still matter. On this point, we can turn to the executive to exercise its inherent power to deny enforcement.

YOU CAN'T BREAK A CONTRACT? OH YES YOU CAN

AN ESSAY

Yesterday I satirized AIG’s Financial Products Executives for receiving colossal bonuses from government bailout money despite their active roles in ruining the economy last year. Two days ago, the New York Times revealed that AIG executives received over $165 million in manager bonuses. Although that amount pales in comparison to the $150 billion allotted to rescue AIG, it is the insolence that offends. At a time when most Americans struggle to find work in a toxic economy, these rapacious executives award themselves huge bonuses with government money intended to help the weak. It is something akin to stealing welfare money to buy a yacht. Yet here we see the institutional problems associated with the government bailout plan. We have given out so much money to so many private companies. Obviously we cannot account for all of it. And private companies are private companies; we cannot rightly be shocked that some executives will “take a little extra for themselves.” For wealthy corporate leaders, money is the ultimate temptation. Put them in a room with money and they will not keep their hands off.

But I do not write today simply to criticize rich corporate people. I enjoy doing that, but I recognize that it can easily descend into shrillness. Rather, I want to address a more troubling legal aspect to this bonus boondoggle: The contract issue.

Who allowed AIG executives to receive their bonuses at a time like this? Did anyone consider how bad it looks to hand government bailout money to wealthy executives, especially the ones who created the problem in the first place? Why is government allowing this? Yesterday, President Obama reacted to the outrage over the bonuses by swearing to stop the payments. But a different administration spokesman said he could do nothing to stop the payments, because AIG was “contractually obligated” to pay them. Lawrence Summers, Obama’s Director of the National Economic Council, said: “We are a country of law. There are contracts. The government cannot just abrogate contracts. Every legal step possible to limit those bonuses is being taken by Secretary Geithner and by the Federal Reserve system.” In other words, as wretched and tasteless as the bonuses may be, the government could do nothing, because these executives signed contracts with AIG last year, and now AIG must pay the bonuses. After all, according to Mr. Summers, we are a “country of law,” and a “country of law” does not intervene to break promises made between two private parties.

I beg to differ. Our “country of law” enforces contracts between private individuals by sovereign grace. Courts may weigh legal fineries in order to determine who owes whom what. Indeed, scholars and jurists have penned endless tomes concerning the ornate technicalities of individual contractual obligation. But in the final analysis, a judge’s words mean nothing without the sovereign’s sword to enforce them. For example, a company may promise to deliver 40,000 tons of steel in return for another company’s promise to pay $40,000,000. If the selling company fails to deliver, the aggrieved buyer can go to court and sue for contract breach. He may obtain a judgment entitling him to money damages or specific performance. In other words, the law fully supports the buyer’s position. But once the judgment issues, it falls to the sovereign to force the seller to pay money or deliver the goods. If the sovereign says: “I will not enforce this judgment,” the buyer has no remedy. In this example, we see that contract law means absolutely nothing without brute executive force. In reality, the executive overwhelmingly enforces legal decrees involving contracts because it wants people to feel assured in their bargains. Yet that does not change the fact that the executive retains the final discretion whether to enforce a contractual obligation. After all, the law deals with compulsion. No one feels compelled to do anything unless a stronger party puts a gun in his face or twists his arm with sufficient strength. The executive has the guns and the arm-twisters. Without it, courts mean nothing.

Mr. Summers said: “There are contracts. The government cannot just abrogate contracts.” Yes it can. If President Obama really wanted to, he could stop the payments to AIG’s executives. True, he would face enormous opposition from lawyers and jurists, but as a practical matter, he has the power to interfere with private contracts. Courts would rule in the executives’ favor. If AIG refused to pay the bonuses, the executives could sue AIG for breach; and they would win. After all, the law favors vested contract rights; and vested contract rights favor those with superior bargaining power. But after the executives win, they would have to turn to the executive to force AIG to pay. Here, President Obama (or his State law counterpart: The Governor of New York) could intervene. He could order the Sheriff to stand down and refuse to enforce the Court’s judgment against AIG. At that point, the executives would probably try to sue the executive on constitutional grounds. They would argue that the President’s action deprived them of “property” without Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment, or that the State Governor’s action “impaired the Obligation of Contracts” under Article I § 10. The Supreme Court would probably agree with the AIG executives, since Chief Justice Roberts and his Republican majority invariably support business and contract rights. Again, however, the Court would have to turn to the executive to enforce its long-winded legal reasoning. Do you think the executive would take action against itself? Of course not.

This is not as radical a position as it sounds. There is precedent to support a President’s refusal to heed the Supreme Court’s conclusions. In 1832, the United States Supreme Court held unanimously that President Andrew Jackson could not relocate the Cherokee Nation to Oklahoma from its ancestral home in Georgia and Tennessee. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832). The Court reasoned that the United States entered into a treaty with the Cherokee, and the treaty forbade such territorial incursions. The President said: “John Marshall made his decision; now let him enforce it!” Jackson sent an army into the Cherokee Nation and evicted the natives from their homes. The Supreme Court’s judgment had no practical effect, even though the law favored the Cherokee. This example shows how a determined executive can utterly ignore judicial pronouncements, even if he acts contrary to law. Again, we see that law depends on force, and only the executive controls State-sanctioned force. If the executive wants to ignore the law, there is little the other branches can do. Congress could try to impeach the President. But impeachment has less to do with the law or the Constitution than with political favoritism. If the President has enough allies in Congress, he will not face impeachment. Andrew Johnson faced impeachment in 1867 because a Republican majority in Congress detested his Reconstruction Policy. Bill Clinton faced impeachment in 1998 because a Republican majority in Congress did not like him as a person and because he was a Democrat. Neither President committed a gross infraction against the Constitution; politicians in Congress simply did not like them.

President Obama enjoys immense support in Congress. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats would never take action against him if he intervened to stop bonus payments to AIG’s executives. In fact, such a move would be entirely consistent with the President’s mission to “clean up Wall Street.” The AIG executives would whine and moan and wave the Constitution in the air. But Presidents must think beyond the law. President Obama is trying to rebuild trust in an economy that nearly destroyed itself through avarice. Men like the AIG executives are prime suspects in this meltdown. While those executives technically hold enforceable rights to bonuses under established contract law, this is a case in which the law stands at odds with historical circumstances. If contract law simply functions “according to plan” in these circumstances, the men responsible for destroying the economy—and triggering the bailout—will actually receive a windfall at taxpayer expense. In other words, these men would not have gotten any bonuses if AIG collapsed last year, but because they acted wrongly, they prompted a government bailout. And now the bailout lets them get their bonuses. This is a perverse result; but it is also the legal result. I argue that the President has discretion to set aside “normal legal procedure” when “normal legal procedure” would fatally undermine public confidence in the entire system. This is precisely such a case.

Process-minded legal theorists will undoubtedly disagree with this approach. They will argue that legal rules—especially contract rules—can never be relaxed, no matter how ridiculous (or even ironic) their consequences. Contract rules are intended to provide predictability and reliability in commerce, and if the government denies their effect in one case, then commercial men will never again take chances because they will never know whether the State will uphold their bargains. In this case, they would say that AIG must pay the executives’ bonuses because “bargains are bargains,” and our economy depends on confidence that the law will honor every private bargain. Process theorists would likely agree that it looks terrible to pay bonuses to men whose conduct caused the economic crisis, but they would say that maintaining faith in legal process is more important than averting a perverse result.

I do not eschew legal process. It plays an essential role in our constitutional order. But I venture that blindly following legal rules in every circumstance is more dangerous than making prudent exceptions when real crisis beckons. Today, we find ourselves in a unique moment. Never before has government so massively intervened to prop up private enterprise. This is a new adventure for government, and it will not succeed unless the People have faith in its purposes. If the economy collapses, neat contract rules will mean nothing. To that extent, maintaining public trust in government action should be the President’s foremost concern. The public rightly loses trust when it sees scoundrel executives taking government money to pay for their bloated bonuses. Although the executives may have contractual rights to their money, honoring those rights may do more harm than good to the overall recovery effort. I argue that maintaining public trust in the recovery effort takes precedence over private contract rights in these limited circumstances. If the recovery effort fails, everyone loses. But if the government stops AIG executives from receiving their bonuses in this unique case, only those few men lose money they do not even need. Balancing those harms against each other, I conclude that the President should refuse to enforce the executives’ contractual claims for bonuses. I am strengthened in my conclusion that the executive has even greater discretion because the AIG managers would not even have been in the position to receive bonuses if the government had not supplied the bailout money to pay them. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and in this case, that means the government can impose some restrictions on pre-existing contract rights.

There is nothing sacred about contract rights. Government compels private parties to adhere to their contractual obligations because that is the most efficient policy for society, not because some magical force animates private promises. Commerce functions best when people do what they promise. But there is nothing intrinsically good or noble about contracts. They function by sovereign grace, not a priori principle. Thus, there is no fundamental truth to the assertion that “contracts are contracts.” Contracts are valid only to the extent that the executive is willing to enforce legal decrees. And the executive has many duties beyond enforcing private contract judgments. Today, the executive confronts a massive financial crisis that threatens countless Americans. It is attempting to redress that crisis through bold, general action. That general action will inevitably impact some specific rights.

President Obama should not miss the forest for the trees in this situation. He can deny effect to these executives’ contracts without undermining faith in contract law as a whole. I think most Americans would understand his reasons if he did exactly that. Permitting the executives to benefit from government bailout money in this case sends a far worse social message than interfering with a particularly unjustifiable private bargain. After all, these bargains would have meant nothing if the government had not supplied the money to honor them. In that light, can the executives really complain that the government modifies those bargains?

These scoundrels are still getting their massive salaries. They still have homes, high-paying jobs and nice things. That is a whole lot more than most people have as they struggle to cope with this crisis. Frankly, their whining about “contract rights” falls especially flat when I consider just how many other advantages they enjoy. In a crisis like this, government must make exceptions that will anger a few private interests. That does not mean the government does not care about the law. In fact, sometimes a government best preserves faith in the law by refusing to apply it in cases in which it arouses public disgust. This is exactly such a case.

THANK YOU LETTER FROM AIG EXECUTIVES TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama,

My name is Mr. Herbert F. Lessmann. I am a Senior Fund President in American International Group’s (AIG) financial products department. Although AIG is primarily an insurance company, in recent years we built a solid reputation consolidating loans and other financial products for industries worldwide. Unfortunately, last year we discovered that our collateral was not as robust as we would have liked and our entire business almost collapsed. Thankfully, the Federal government intervened to keep our company afloat. With the Federal money, we once again have resumed issuing credit-default swaps and other financial products intended to stimulate capital growth in a new economy.

Federal money also helped award me a $9,500,000 bonus for 2008. True, my fund caused millions of private owners to lose their homes in the subprime mortgage debacle, but I am a skilled financial manager. AIG’s Board of Directors knows top performers when they see them, and I am no exception. Under company contracts I signed in early 2008, the Board promised to pay me a bonus if my fund sold at least 120,000 financial products in Fiscal 2008. My fund sold 121,107 financial products in Fiscal 2008. For that reason, the Board was obligated to pay my bonus. At one point late last year, it appeared that the company would fold and I would not get my bonus. But then the Federal money came in, and now I will get the bonus I deserve. I worked hard for that bonus. Mr. President, thank you so much for allocating the funds needed to reward me for my hard work on behalf of American families.

I am so glad that I received my bonus. For a while, I was genuinely nervous that I would only receive my annual salary of $4,000,000 in 2008. My wife was especially concerned because she is redecorating our kitchen, and she was counting on my bonus to bring in the best marble cutters from Italy to get the job done. Additionally, my son has been bothering me about buying him a new Lamborghini. His friends at Whipporwhill Academy have been teasing him about it, and it’s only fair that he gets what he wants. After all, he got a C+ in biology, and I promised I would buy him any car he wanted if he got at least a C in that class. Promises are promises, and contracts are contracts. How could I go back on my word? How could I not honor my obligation to my son? Mr. President, thank you very much for allowing AIG to honor its obligation to me, and for allowing me to honor my obligations to my son and wife. We will put that money to good use.

Your administration is doing a great job. You understand that America’s companies need great managers, and great managers do not stay at their jobs without great bonuses. Although I disagree in principle with government bailouts, I have no objections when government bailouts are necessary to pay my bonus. I voted against you in the November election, Mr. President. But since then I have come to see my error. You said that you wanted to treat “Main Street” as well as “Wall Street.” However, I know now that you are not some closet communist. You knew that taking care of Wall Street actually takes care of Main Street, too. When you took care of me, you ensured that I would keep doing my job for American homeowners everywhere. I need a $9,500,000 bonus because I am worth it. I sell mortgage-backed securities and credit-default swaps to banks all over the world. I enable people to get rich and live in dream homes. True, the economy collapsed last year, but that was not my fault. I am no Bernie Madoff. I never stole from anyone. I just tried to help people make more money than they already had.

My bonus money will go to good use. Because you helped me get my bonus, I think it’s only fair that I tell you what I plan to do with it. First, I will put about $2,000,000 in my personal medium-yield money market. Then I will put another $1,500,000 in my kids’ special trust fund so they can buy things they want while I am at work. Third, I will take $1,000,000 and go on a nice month-long vacation with my wife in Maui. That will be very nice; I need to relax after all the anxiety about my bonus. Not only that, vacations help me stay focused. American homeowners need me to be productive in order to help them make money. Next, I will take $2,000,000 as a down payment for my daughter’s new home in Manhattan. She can’t live just anywhere; I need to find her a place on Park Avenue on the Upper East Side. I can’t worry about my daughter. With the remaining $3,000,000, I will buy my son’s Lamborghini and pay for my wife’s kitchen renovation. That will leave some cash for jewelry, new suits, antiques, maybe an armchair and a sofa. It all depends on what my wife wants to do.

You know what you’re doing, Mr. President. Money spent on executive bonuses is always money well spent. After all, our economy depends on men like me. We know the ups and downs. We don’t get frazzled every time the DJI drops a few hundred points. We stay in there and sell our products, come hell or high water. We are financial experts and we have hard lives. It is not easy to manage the fortunes of millions of Americans. We are more important to the average American than religion or mental health. We make money for people, and money creates jobs. To that extent, we deserve every penny we make. If we do not receive bonuses, we will not be able to rescue our economy. In these dark times, our economy needs bold business leaders, not defeatists. And bold business leaders do not work for small-time pay. It would be unfair to us and to the American people if we do not receive the bonuses we deserve. Well-paid executives do what is right for America. By paying us well, you guarantee a better future for America. That is what the President is supposed to do, isn’t it?

In sum, I was wrong about you, Mr. President. You are not some bleeding heart socialist who wants to provide top-notch medical care to beggars and criminals. No, you spend money where it should be spent: On executive compensation. Against all opposition, you earmarked funds intended to save AIG from destruction. In the process, you paid the executives who make this country run. That is a bailout in the word’s truest sense, because when we get our bonuses, everyone survives. I can promise you that our economy will recover. I can also promise you that I will really enjoy the money you gave me. Have you ever received a $9,500,000 check for talking on the phone, sitting in conference rooms and looking at computer screens for a year straight? Let me tell you, it feels good. Really good. I know you probably like your job, but you don’t get $9,500,000 every year in addition to a $4,000,000 salary. Well, to each his own.

I know that people will give you a hard time when they hear that I received my bonus. Don’t listen to them. You know that fixing the economy begins with paying the important guys. People will say that it’s wrong to reward men who got us into this pickle in the first place. All lies. We did no such thing; there is no way we could have predicted that the economy would fall apart last year. Risk comes with our trade. The market rises and falls. Does that mean we should not get paid for putting our necks on the block every day? Of course not. We drive the economy because we take risks. If we did not take risks, no one would succeed. No one wins when everyone plays it safe. People want winners, not wet noodles. Sure, we invested in some risky mortgages, but our clients wanted big returns. And you can’t get big returns without taking some chances. We get paid because we take the risks that everyone wants us to take. You understand that. You understand that we need bonuses to feel good about our work, whether we win or lose. We are risk-takers. We deserve high pay for that. Consider it hazard pay. Put simply, Americans don’t want wimps controlling their financial lives. They want brazen, sword-swinging, throat-cutting financial swashbucklers who go for the treasure chest, not the penny pouch.

That is what we do. We go for the treasure chest. When we get the booty, everybody gets some. And no one complains when the market is good. When we receive bonuses, we stay hungry. When we’re hungry, we swashbuckle for America. You know that, Mr. President. That is why you guaranteed that we received our bonuses this year. Swashbucklers don’t swashbuckle for free. America needs us. You need us.

Thank you very much for paying our bonuses. Good luck during the rest of your term.

Sincerely,


Herbert F. Lessmann

Senior Fund President, American International Group
Financial Products Department
The Billion Bunch® Honorary Key Holder 2007

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE UNITED FOR A MILITARY RESPONSE TO OBAMA-ERA REGULATIONS

By : Mr. D. Albert Ludlow, M.B.A, M.S.; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Wellman Pharmaceutical Solutions Co., Inc., a Fortune 500 Company

Private enterprise means prosperity for all. Our free market system rewards the strong and passes their hard work on to everyone else. Although we believe in democratic ideals and equality, we do not believe that everyone should possess equal advantages in this country. There are owners and there are renters. There are debtors and there are creditors. There are payors and there are payees. The playing field is not exactly equal. And there is nothing wrong with that. After all, no one would work hard if the goal were merely to be “equal” to everyone else. In the free market, men work in order to become unequal. Why toil harder if you reap no special reward for your efforts?

For over two centuries, the United States has thrived as a free market economy. True, our economy has endured difficult times. But we have always prevailed because we retained our essential free market identity. Even after the government began regulating private markets in the 1930s, our free enterprise system has remained largely intact. Individuals and private corporations still own the essential means of production and distribution in our economy. Individuals and private corporations still provide most professional services. And individuals and private corporations still compete with one another to guarantee the best quality and lowest prices for the buying public. All the while, individuals retain their incentive to work hard and advance, because they know that our system will reward them for beneficial activity.

Things changed in 2008. During a seasonal economic downturn, Americans lost their nerve. Due to failures in the banking, securities and housing markets, Americans began clamoring for increased government regulation. In a dramatic move, they elected Barack Hussein Obama, a radical black man determined to bring “change we can believe in.” Now, he threatens to undermine our free market system with crippling government intervention. He threatens to buy out struggling banks and impose oversight on all the others. In essence, he intends to reduce our economy to State control. The American people blindly play along. Obama says he means no harm to the free market. We are not fooled; we see the danger. We will not let Obama succeed.

Our free market system follows a cyclical pattern. There are good times and bad times. Private enterprise responds to supply, demand and world market pressures. Inevitably, these variables at times combine to depress economic activity. If there is not as much oil one month, oil prices will increase. If there are too many lawyers, lawyers will have a hard time finding work. If companies do not have enough money to maintain healthy returns for their investors, they will not hire more employees. Private enterprise answers immediate needs; and needs are not always immediate. To that extent, our system necessarily ebbs and flows. We have always weathered the hard times. In 2008, we encountered another hard time. Yet unlike past recessions, this time Americans lost their nerve. Rather than trust private enterprise to bring America through the storm, they elected a President who wishes to scrap the entire system. Americans said they do not want the recession/boom cycle any longer. This was a grave error. And President Obama has no idea what he is doing—or whom he is crossing.

President Obama believes he can just waltz into Congress and pass massive initiatives that take power away from private enterprise. He thinks he can subject major companies to oversight and control their day-to-day affairs. He thinks he can cap salaries and seize our property at will. He thinks he can redistribute our products to people who cannot pay for them. He thinks he can entice us with government funds. He is wrong on all counts. President Obama will not regulate us. He will not force us to comply with horrific paperwork requirements. He will not force us to pay more taxes or cede our products without compensation. He will not force us to pay our workers more or provide them with costly health insurance. And he will never seize our facilities. We know what’s coming: Interventionist Socialism. We will never cooperate. We will never surrender.

President Obama, we are Private Enterprise United for a Military Response to Obama Era Regulations. United we stand. We say this: “You can regulate us—but you’ll have to kill us first.”

For too long, government has enjoyed a monopoly on military power. Yet private enterprise provides the wealth that sustains government. Without private enterprise, there would be no factories to build bombers, tanks or rifles. Without private enterprise, there would be no nifty body armor, helmets or even uniforms for the troops. The government buys all these things from private businesses. Every piece of every Abrams tank comes from a private contractor. Do you think private contractors are going to sit down and be regulated? Certainly not. Private enterprise will unite to stop Obama’s tyranny. We have the wealth. We have the money. To build an effective army, all you need is money. And with an effective army, no one can tell you to do anything. They can try, but they won’t get away with it without a fight.

We intend to establish private armies to resist Obama’s tyranny. For example, the pharmaceutical industry will pool its resources to purchase attack helicopters, anti-tank rockets and Bradley fighting vehicles to protect its operations. We have enough money to buy military equipment at market prices. And we have enough money to lure trained military men away from the United States Armed Forces. If a Master Sergeant earns $1,000 weekly in the Army, we will offer $4,000. If a Captain earns $1,100 weekly in the Army, we will offer $6,500. This is legitimate business competition. We are confident that Army personnel will make reasonable economic judgments and fight for us. Once we raise our private armies, we will welcome President Obama’s efforts to inspect our premises and take our land. We will welcome the President’s efforts to tax us. Go ahead and raise taxes. We will not pay. Come and collect: And you had better bring a few regiments of infantry with you, because we are not budging. This is war.

Industry should be allowed to purchase anything it wishes. If a business can afford an F-16 fighter, it should be allowed to buy it. If a business can afford a squadron, it should be allowed to buy it. We refuse to submit to governmental regulations concerning what we can and cannot buy. This is pure meddling. If a person can afford something, he should be allowed to pay market price for it. In the free market, reasonable men should be allowed to bargain for whatever they wish. Yet Obama presumes to interfere with our judgment and steal our property. He presumes to prevent willing buyers from bargaining with willing sellers. He presumes to modify our contracts and tax our sales. Worse, he spends the money he steals from us to pay for free health care and food stamps. We could have used that money for capital investment, job creation and year-end bonuses. But Obama snatched it and used it for Medicaid. That is not free market sense. That is socialist lunacy.

We have a simple message for the President: If you want to reform the free market, you will have to fight us for it. In the past, we grudgingly acceded to new government regulations in particular markets. But this is getting out of hand. Government-owned banks? Burdensome filing requirements? Oversight and accountability requirements for hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, car manufacturers and utilities? Whatever happened to private autonomy? Obama seems to think that we cannot be trusted to protect the people. He can think what he wants; now let’s see him try to impose his new regulations. When the IRS man comes calling, our private army will block the doors. If the IRS man tries to arrest a company officer for tax evasion, we will order our troops to open fire. We are confident that the U.S. Army will not follow the President’s orders. After all, virtually every trained soldier will have found better employment opportunities in our private armies. Private enterprise always finds a way. And it will not accept commercial indignities any longer.

Some say that the U.S. Armed Forces will not respond to our employment offers. They say that some soldiers love their country and would prefer to fight for honor than higher pay. True, there are probably soldiers and officers in our Armed Forces who genuinely love the idea of national service. But we believe there are more soldiers and officers who love money. In that light, if the Armed Forces ever came into conflict with our private armies, we are confident that our armies would win, because people who love money outnumber those who love their country. Furthermore, arms contractors will more willingly do business with us, because we will pay more competitively than government buyers. With time, we will own all the military hardware; the government will be stuck driving yesterday’s models. To that extent, let Obama think that he can outgun us. He is wrong: We will outgun him.

This may all sound belligerent. Although we are determined to resist Obama’s regulations by military means, private enterprise does not want war. We want peace. Peace guarantees orderly commerce and healthy profits for all. Peace guarantees safe transit for goods and a safe environment for professional services. Consumers need peace in order to shop; no one can purchase beachfront property or a new television when bullets fly and bombs fall. As private businesses, we just want to do business as usual. We want a stable environment in which to develop and market our products. We want the opportunity to provide consumers with the best possible value for their money. And we want to be able to live the American dream. We want our hard work to matter again. We want to enjoy our money, go on vacation and buy condominiums for our children. We are sick and tired of government’s greedy hands rifling through our just rewards. To achieve these goals, we must resist force with force. While we shrink from military action, we believe it is the only way to stop Obama’s socialist regulations.

You should care about this issue because it affects you. You don’t want government bureaucrats telling you how much money you can earn, do you? You don’t want government bureaucrats deciding which doctor you can see, do you? You don’t want to pay higher prices for prescription medications, do you? Well, this is what will happen if you allow Obama to regulate us. The free market needs you. Think about the free market; it gives you everything you want. It lets you be the person you want to be. It treats you fair. It lets you keep your money and buy what you want. Yet if you allow the government to tie our hands and raise our costs through meddlesome oversight, taxes and regulations, you will make it impossible for us to sell you all the things you need.

Support us. Support private armies. It is the only way to equip private enterprise against marauding socialist incursions. Government will be hesitant to interfere with us if they know we can effectively resist their efforts. Government only wins when it feels confident that it can force its will upon us through arms. But we can undermine that confidence by taking up arms ourselves. This is not a revolt; this is self-defense. We are defending our way of life. In fact, we are resisting a revolution in government. We do not tolerate free lunches in this country, nor do we tolerate efforts to poison the spirit of work. It is time to end the madness. We will take up arms to protect our right to bargain without fear or paperwork requirements. We will take up arms to protect our right to sell stock without telling the government about it. We will take up arms to hire and fire as we please. And we will take up arms to save our money from Obama’s rapacious redistributionists. Believe us: You will thank us for it. After all, we have your best interests at heart.

If you are an able-bodied man or woman and you need a job, join up. We need troops in our private armies. Fight for something higher than national pride. Fight for free enterprise; and make more money in the process. Even buck privates in Wellman Pharmaceuticals’ Army make $50,000 a year with no college degree. We supply training, equipment, good clothing, outstanding benefits and a purpose. Forget about patriotism; think about yourself for once.