Government isn't the solution, it's the problem. Our government is creating problems everywhere it leaves its massive footprint. This week, the stories seem to be more outrageous than usual. Disarming commercial airline pilots, abandoning wounded soldiers, encouraging bad banking...it's all very ugly.
Chapter 1, Forgetting the lessons of 9/11 — Disarming commercial airline pilots!
Our first example of bewilderingly outrageous government incompetence comes from the Washington Times:
After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings. [snip]
Since Mr. Obama's election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers - the pilots who have been approved to carry guns - indicate that the approval process has stalled out. [snip]
Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology. [snip]
Frankly, as a matter of pure politics, we cannot understand what the administration is thinking. [snip]
Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots. So why is the Obama administration catering to this tiny lobby at the expense of public safety?
Maybe Obama thinks Americans have grown too complacent to care about the safety of commercial airlines.
This chapter of our sordid story comes to us from Fox News:
Obama's plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service has infuriated veterans groups who say the government is morally obligated to pay for service-related medical care. Obama's plan would increase premiums, make insurance unaffordable for veterans and impose a massive hardship on military families. It could also prevent small businesses from hiring veterans who have large health care needs.
Translation: Injured veterans will lose their health coverage.
Cmdr. David K. Rehbein of the American Legion, the nation's largest veterans group, called the president's plan to raise $540 million from private insurers unreasonable, unworkable and immoral.
"This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate 'to care for him who shall have borne the battle,' given that the United States government sent members of the Armed Forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies," Rehbein said late Monday after a meeting with the president and administration officials at the Veterans Affairs Department.
Roberts said that 11 veterans service organizations were told to come up with another plan if they didn't like this one. The groups met on Monday with Obama [snip].
"What we've been tasked with now is to raise this money through alternative means and we're supposed to have a conference call in two or three days ... with Rahm Emanuel. So the implication was ... you guys come up with a better idea or this is what's going to happen," Roberts said.
And what about future warriors? Who will volunteer to defend this nation if one of the requirements is to pay for your own treatment if you are injured? A draft may have to be an option if the volunteer rate drops. Just imagine the government forcing men to enlist in the military and then making it their personal responsibility to pay for their treatment if they suffer any injuries.
Chapter 3, Keeping the Housing Crisis Alive (or, If It Ain't Broke, Break It!)
Government officials love to pretend that greedy capitalists are the singularly responsible for the housing crisis that caused the implosion of our economy. This story from Boston Business Journal shows us that the government is actively sowing the "ACORNs" that will grow into the disasters of tomorrow:
Joseph A. Petrucelli is one of the most cautious bankers in America. In fact, Petrucelli is so cautious that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. recently criticized his bank for not lending enough.
The FDIC’s negative review of East Bridgewater Savings Bank’s loan volume is an anomaly in today’s current banking scene as lenders reel from their role in offering too many cruddy mortgage products to borrowers with weak credit. Still, the FDIC slapped East Bridgewater Savings with a rare “needs to improve” rating after evaluating the bank under the Community Reinvestment Act.
But Petrucelli and his bank occupy the other end of the spectrum in an industry that lost $26.2 billion in the fourth quarter. Even the FDIC’s own deposit insurance fund is in bad need of a boost after paying for an upswing in bank failures.
And then there’s East Bridgewater Savings.
Bad or delinquent loans? Zero.
Foreclosures? None.
The negative CRA rating caught [Petrucelli] by surprise. The bank received “satisfactory” CRA ratings from the FDIC in 2003 and from the Massachusetts Division of Banks in early 2006. East Bridgewater Savings ended 2008 with $135 million in assets and deposits of $84 million. The bank even squeaked out a profit of $87,000. And its Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio was 31.6 percent, or more than three times higher than many community banks in Massachusetts.
Think the government will save us? Think the government wants to save us?
More
Chris Dodd: For AIG bonuses before he was against them
