I am sure that I am not alone in my distress over the long string of bailouts on the way, in a free capitalist society companies need to be allowed to go bankrupt and or reorganize. This will ultimately make them leaner and more competitive for the future, thus allowing the jobs and the industry to survive. These necessary corrections will cause some union contracts and debtors to sacrifice along with the investors of those companies; still this cleansing or reality check is necessary and must be allowed to take place.

As the saying goes, no pain no gain, this idea of a nanny state that provides a safety net for even the most reckless segments of society is one that we must resist. If we want long lasting progress and employment we need to be willing to let the forces of the free market, hold accountable those businesses and individuals that have either overextended themselves, or have been engaging in bad business practices.

To continue to bailout companies, without addressing the fundamental issues that has put them in the predicament that they are in, is like “spitting” in the wind, is a way of prolonging the arrival of an ultimate day of reckoning, which when it comes will be much more harder to contend with, since our entire economic system will be under greater distress due to all the “spitting in the wind” that it would have done by then.

To me it is not about personalities or political affiliation, be it Obama, Bush or McCain, it is about the philosophical direction that they would want to take the country instead. The biggest disappointment of the last eight years has been the unfettered spending that the Bush administration has allowed under its watch, it would be totally inconsistent with my thinking to support someone who wants to do even more of that. President Bush receives my ardent criticism for the irresponsible way in which he has allowed spending to run amuck, but I am not getting any comfort on this matter, as far as his would be replacement is concern.

A lot of lip service is being given about the need to help the middle class, yet no other economic model in the history of mankind has done more for the middle class than capitalism, nor is the standard of living of the so called middle class as high anywhere in the world, than what it is in true capitalist societies. It is a fallacy to suggest that centralized planning and government control is a more viable solution to help the middle class or any other class for that matter, since the Bolshevik revolution of 1919 and during the entire 20th century, history has been littered with destroyed economies that sought to help the middle class with their protectionist ideas. I underscore middle class, because when it is the government who determines where the middle should be, there is no telling where that “middle” ends up at. Our own economy of the 1930s is a testament to that.

The new president elect openly proclaims the failure of trickledown economics, a premise that I must challenge as well, if trickledown benefits are not being experience with the same rigor as before, is not because this proven theory has somehow gone array, it is because of the imposition of ineffective and intrusive government regulations, together with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the entire free world, that has choked the trickledown effect by driving investor away from our economy and on to more business friendly environments springing all around the world, after their own failed experiments with extreme government intervention and central planning.

This year’s campaign saw both candidates talk about punishing the greedy, however if either one of them really meant it, why are Franklin Raines, Tim Howard, Jim Johnson and Jaime Gorelick not under indictment? Not only are they not indicted, Franklin Raines was being considered for HUD secretary by the Obama team, until it became way too scandalous during the campaign, Jim Johnson was chosen to head the VP exploratory committee for Obama, and Jaime Gorelick is still being considered for a post on the upcoming administration.

If there was truly any desire to punish the greedy, why are representatives Barney Franks and Christopher Dodd not under investigation for having benefitted with hundreds of thousands of dollars from the very entities that they were suppose to have overseen? Why is congress not calling for hearings to find out why Franks and Dodd ran constant interference against any attempt to investigate the fraudulent acts of Fannie and Freddie Mac?