As many of my regular readers know, I am opposed to any form of government meddling in the economy.  The bailout mania that has swept our nation for the last several months has resulted in the de facto nationalization of large chunks of the U.S. economy and set the precedent for an excessive future expansion of the power and scope government in our lives.  The "money" that is being spread around does not exist in the real world and will ultimately result in serious inflation (as the printing presses run), long term declines in growth potential (as real capital dries up for investment) and eventual default by the U.S. government (as the ability to service the debt becomes untenable).

Bush's latest foray into BAILOUT LAND is the result of a blatant disregard for the legislative process.  A bailout bill was blocked in the legislature, fair and square.  Now this morning Bush announced that he will override the Legislative Branch and re-appropriate TARP funds, originally designated to purchase "troubled assets", to provide Detroit's automakers a $17.4 loan.

FUN WITH MATH

$17,400,000,000 / 300,000,000 = $58.00 for every man woman and child (documented and undocumented) in the USA.

$17,400,000,000 / 120,000,000 = $145.00 for every tax filer in the USA

So what would make President Bush, who is supposed to be some kind of a  conservative, follow this red bricked road to ruin?  Has Bush harbored some secret envy of the French for years?  Is he a closet Socialist?  I wish I really knew. But, I do have a theory.

Bush's approval ratings are hovering at some of the lowest of any President in modern times, running in the mid-twenties as I write. By comparison Jimmy Carter bottomed out at 28% in 1979 and Nixon at 24% at the height of Watergate.  President Bush has both the highest ever Presidential Approval Rating (92%) and the lowest ever Presidential Approval Rating (19%) of any president since Gallop began tracking these stats in 1937. 

I am starting to believe that GWB is, in effect, purchasing a historical legacy, and has become convinced that the War on Terror and the fact that under his watch there have been no more terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 are not going to be enough to rescue him from the scorn of modern historians.  He has taken some dubious advice and believes that, like the little dutch boy sticking his finger in the dikes, he can thwart the inevitable economic correction that years of deficit spending will eventually demand.

I welcome dissenting or differing opions on this one.  So, gentle reader, what do you think?