Note: believe it or not I had a much longer post planned for this with all sorts or ranting.  But I’m getting sick and need to get to bed so this will have to do.

It doesn’t have the same ring as “The Night of January Sixteenth,” but the recent event of the $700 billion “bailout” (or “investment”) honestly feel like we are stuck in the tragic portion of an Ayn Rand Novel.  Rand’s best talent was her portrayal of lame bureasaurian suits as the villlains of her tales.  With Paulson getting on his knee to Pelosi, it makes even her melodrama credible.

When the bill was defeated in accordance with the overwhelming majority of Congress’ constituents, Peggy Noonan called it “a repudiation of the political class.” True, and the subsequent war on the few Congressmen who actually voted according to the will of the nation was the political class’ repudiation of the people.  Ultimately, it is not the voters who matter, but the people who pay the government to do what they want.  “When it is a question of money, everyone is of the same religion,” said Voltaire, and that is all the more true with politics: When it is a question of money, everyone is of the same Party. (And while I’m mentioning Voltaire, he also said, “In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one part of the citizens to give to the other.”)

In this case (as in almost all instances of political takings, the ones getting to loot their fellow citizens are those who have always been wealthier and feel entitled to stay that way at the expense of others.  All party brand dropped away and we were left  with the Reactionary Elite v. Everyone Else.  As one blogger summed up:

although those who support the bailout may call themselves Republicans or Democrats, they are reactionaries—reactionaries in the sense that they long for a world where entrenched wealth gets to keep it forever. After they destroy America, those who now are poor or middle class need but stand by and hope for a few handouts. They want a world of old Europe that our Founding Fathers fled and overthrew. Thanks to our Founding Fathers, there is no nobility in America, or permanent titles of privilege, or permanent grants of wealth. In America, many families have made great fortunes; and then their children and grandchildren have squandered their fortune. Contrary to popular belief, if you look back 100 years, there are great turnovers among those who constitute the wealthiest in America.

The bill passed we are told, because it contained “sweeteners.”  Yeah.  Like this one:

The bailout bill also gives the Internal Revenue Service new authority to conduct undercover operations. It would immunize the IRS from a passel of federal laws, including permitting IRS agents to run businesses for an extended sting operation, to open their own personal bank accounts with U.S. tax dollars, and so on. (Think IRS agents posing as accountants or tax preparers and saying, “I’m not sure if that deduction is entirely legal, but it’ll save you $1,000. Want to take it?”) That section had expired as of January 1, 2008, and would now be renewed.

Starting with the so-called Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1988, the IRS has possessed this authority temporarily, with occasional multiple-year lapses. A 1999 internal report said the IRS had 126 “trained undercover agents” working in field offices at the time. This is the first time that such undercover authority would be made permanent.

Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Chuck Grassley (R) have been pushing to make it permanent for a while, claiming (PDF) in April that: “Undercover operations are an integral part of IRS efforts to detect and prove noncompliance. The temporary status of this provision creates uncertainty, as the IRS plans its undercover efforts from year to year.”

There’s another section of the bailout bill worth noting. It lets the IRS give information from individual tax returns to any federal law enforcement agency investigating suspected “terrorist” activity, which can, in turn, share it with local and state police. Intelligence agencies such as the CIA and the National Security Agency can also receive that information.

The information that can be shared includes “a taxpayer’s identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer’s return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return.”

That provision had already existed in federal law and automatically expired on January 1, 2008.

What’s a little odd is that there’s been little to no discussion of the IRS sections of the bailout bill, even though they raise privacy concerns. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said this week: “I will continue to work with congressional leaders to find a way forward to pass a comprehensive plan to stabilize our financial system and protect the American people by limiting the prospects of further deterioration in our economy.” He never mentioned the necessity of additional IRS undercover operations.

So what grave necessity was addressed by the Bill?  The need for the Bush Administration to have complete power over who wins and who loses on Wall Street.  In the aftermath of the Bill, the economy continues to unravel, and we suddenly hear that of this $700 billion, all sorts of agencies will be hired to help in spending it.  Indeed, a whole new lobbying industry is developing around the office of the treasury; power attracts them like flies.

None of this had to happen.  But given our fraud-as-policy financial system, it was a matter of when, not if.  As one “fringe” economist wrote years ago:

At some point in the possibly near future, perhaps in the next recession and the next spate of bad bank loans, it might dawn upon the public that 1.5 percent is not very safe either, and that no such level can guard against the irresistible holocaust of the bank run. At that point, ignoring the usual mendacious assurances and soothing-syrup of the Establishment, the commercial banks might be plunged into their ultimate crisis. The United States authorities would then be faced with two stark choices. One would be to allow the entire banking system to collapse, along with virtually all the deposits and depositors in that system. Since, given the mind-set of American politicians, and their evident philosophy of “too big to fail,” it is certain that they would be forced to embrace the second alternative: massive, hyper-inflationary printing of enough cash to pay off all the bank liabilities. The redeposit of such cash in the banking system would bring about an immediate runaway inflation and a massive flight from the dollar.

That is exactly where we are headed.  This bailout will only take this crisis and turn it into a real apocalypse.  The only practical lesson I can see is that democratic cronyism creates a situation in which it becomes rational to bring about economic suicide.  One can’t even accuse the looters of being selfish since they are so obviously arranging their own destruction.

A couple of points about GOP stuff: On the negative side, it becomes quite clear that war and international bloodshed have become the only real feature of Republican identity.  One can demand all sorts of government intervention in the economy as was done in the Weekly Standard and by many at the National Review, and everything is just fine–just so long as you support the fruitless wars and troops abroad.  Nevertheless, on the positive side, it was great to read Michelle Malkin, and to hear Rush Limbaugh, fight this thing.  They have both annoyed me on occasion, but on this issue they were stellar and steadfast.