Well it would appear that way at least according to this profile of the guy tapped to distribute the $700 billion:
Kashkari, it turns out, was one of the original authors of the bailout plan. In a secretive effort over “many, many months,” he was a part of a small team at Treasury working on the plan, said David H. McCormick, under secretary for international affairs.
Why is this fact not a big story? Hank Paulson tells us two weeks ago that we had to pass the bailout immediately because things are so bad. If they have been working on contingencies for “many, many months,” Why wasn’t something other than the bailout proposed months ago? Clearly the folks at Treasury saw this problem coming down the line. Why was this worked on so secretly? Please don’t tell me it was kept secret to avoid panic in the financial markets.
What’s absolutely mind-boggling is to read some so-called conservatives making the case for socialism, or trying to spin the bailout in way to make it seem less socialistic. Take this post over at RedState titled “The conservative case for socialism.” Now that title is a bit misleading because the author isn’t claiming the bailout is a form of socialism, he’s instead trying to make the pill easier to swallow by arguing the bailout isn’t socialism:
However I think the word ‘socialist’ is being used too broadly now, without much thought, and as the hammer to drive a reflex rejection of government action. I believe that while this reflex just happens to be useful most of the time, due to the massive expansion of the government in the period 1933-1980, but to be always opposed to government is a liberal (read libertarian in modern language) reflex, not a conservative one.
I assert that the financial recovery bill, and other interventions being made by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve are precisely that. We are not taking a planning role in the economy, outside of the bounds of the Constitution; we are taking control of our money supply, which is one of the duties of the government. We are not confiscating property; we are buying property at prices that are too high if anything.
What we are doing now is a supply-side intervention. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve trying to preserve the ability of the producers in this economy to get the credit they need to produce, to hire, and to grow this economy.
Let’s take the following point first:
We are not confiscating property; we are buying property at prices that are too high if anything.
While it’s true that the government isn’t confiscating property, it is buying property. Last time I checked, when someone buys something they typically own it. Therefore the government now owns a good portion of the housing and financial industries.
We are not taking a planning role in the economy
Well I would argue that the financial industry sufficiently flows into the supply chain of most producers and manufacturers, giving the government–at the very least-indirect control over some planning aspects.
It is truly amazing and frightening to see some conservatives trying to explain this step towards socialism away, and tomorrow they will be telling us that they are free-market capitalists.
You think full-blown socialism can’t make it here to America? Think again. Why couldn’t it when you have supposed conservatives telling us this bailout that we know is socialist simply because it doesn’t perfectly fit the technical definition of socialism?
When the so-called anti-socialists are defending quasi-socialism we have a lot to be concerned about.