"The Moral Crisis"

Anyone who's seriously interested in history might want to take a look at the "Making of America" library feature at Cornell University's website. They offer a collection of magazines published from the early 1800s through the end of the century, and possibly into the 20th century.

I read most of an article called "The Moral Crisis," detailing how a centralized, government-run banking system destroyed not only the economy, but the moral fiber of the nation by making all business dependent upon it, fostering greed, and over-extending credit. I wanted to quote it here, but you know how those Victorians are -- why say something in a dozen words when you can expand it to 10 or 16 paragraphs?

Anyway, the article was written in 1837. The more things change.... Or maybe that should be, "When will they ever learn?", in deference to the recent death of Mary, of the singing group, Peter, Paul & Mary.

History is extremely important. I find it keeps me from tearing out my hair because it provides a true and dependable perspective. The nation has been through all this before, you know. Capitalism operates on a boom-to-bust cycle. Need/demand promotes the boom; everyone rushes in and over-produces; you end up with lots of inventory on the shelves, employment lay-offs, and a contraction of credit and optimism. Then everyone runs out of what they've got, and the whole thing starts all over again.

People have always looked for a "cure" for the boom-bust cycles. Maybe putting some money in the bank and laying in canned goods. That's about the only thing that works. Various experiments in government control of the banks, credit, etc. etc., have never worked here or anywhere else. These schemes only make things worse, and they also tend to add exponentially to the moral corruption. Very few politicians can keep their hands off the money; neither can they resist doling it out to their friends and to potential voters. Like giving unemployed people mortgages that they have no hope of paying.

Which brings us to Acorn, a "social organizing" group. A couple young people went around to several Acorn offices on the east and west coasts. They identified themselves as a pimp and a hooker, and they were looking for advice on how to get money for a mortgage to set up a whorehouse. By the way, they were going to import a dozen or so girls, ages 13 through 15, from El Salvador to work at the house as prostitutes. And they taped all these meetings.

Acorn advised them about how to lie on the mortgage application and how to evade taxes. One Acorn person even offered to contact some friends of his in Mexico to help smuggle the girls across the border. Another Acorn worker admitted she'd been a "madame" at one time, and also that she killed her abusive husband, after going around the neighborhood advertising his abuse so she'd be able to make a reasonable case for self-defense later.

Nice people. Very accommodating. Extremely non-judgmental, if that's supposed to be a positive attribute. I guess they just love everybody.... In every possible way.

The Acorn organization has received something like $52 million from the federal government to fund these and other activities. The "Stimulus" bill is supposed to give them something like $8.5 billion more -- though I suspect that amount is supposed to be divided up between Acorn and other, similar organizations.

So both the House and Senate introduced legislation to "de-fund" Acorn. Interesting to note that both senators from my state, Dick(head) Durbin and Roland Burris, voted against these bills. That is, they apparently want the federal government to continue to fund Acorn for all the good work it does. I suppose Chicago could use a few more whorehouses. After all, it's all about creating jobs, isn't it?

Dear lord.

I guess now Acorn will have to fall back on its private donors of long standing, like George Soros, that champion of whatever bizarre concept he calls "democracy." It amazes me that someone who devises complicated schemes to amass a fortune could be so incredibly blind and stupid on social policy. Maybe it's time to retire, George, while any nation in the world has managed to escape the cold dead hand of your financial manipulation and insane notions of social justice.

And that goes for Washington, too. It's just better to not let politicians have access to large amounts of cash, except their own. They can toss around as much of their own money as they want, but they should be compelled to allow private citizens the same right.

Or better still, maybe your average congressman should be forced to live on $55,000 or $60,000 per year (not too stingy, above the national average), with the other $100,000+ of his salary held in escrow until the second session adjourns right before Christmas. Then his contituents can vote on whether or not he gets this as a bonus. They wouldn't get any insurance, no Gulf Streams, no fresh flowers everyday, free lunches or haircuts. They'd have to take the subway, mow their own lawns, and pay their own staffs. They'd probably be reading a lot more of the bills themselves, not a bad thing.

In terms of educating them about the concerns of voters, one year of this would probably be more effective than ten years of Town Hall meetings. They certainly wouldn't even be considering saddling the public with socialized medicine, crap-and-tax, and all their other silly little programs.

They'd probably just leave us alone. Salutary neglect, anyone?

Oh, by the way, something else you won't hear on NBC -- something like 45% of medical doctors promise to quit the profession if congress passes socialized medicine. And I don't blame them.