While ‘everyone’ seems to be on board with the $700 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I found it interesting that both parties have spoken clearly on the issue.  Unfortunately, they have each spoken out of both sides of their mouths.

We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all. We encourage potential buyers to work in concert with the lending community to educate themselves about the responsibilities of purchasing a home, condo, or land.

Was this the Republican party of the 1800s, or some other distant past?  No, this is a statement in the Republican Party Platform of 2008!  Now, while the ink is still wet, there is a bipartisan bailout on the table.  One would also expect the Dems to oppose this massive  case of ‘welfare for the rich.’  Or at least they should be true to their party platform which states:

In this time of economic transformation and crisis, we must be stewards of this economy more than ever before. We will maintain fiscal responsibility, so that we do not mortgage our children’s future on a mountain of debt.

Maybe I’m out of touch, but I’d call $700 Billion a good sized mountain.  Furthermore, not a single homeowner who has experienced foreclosure will get his house back in this massive bailout.  As a father, it pains me to think about the message (and the debt) we are sending to our children.  “Don’t worry son, if things get too bad and you make some unsound and/or immoral investment decisions that come back to bite you, there will always be somebody from the government there to bail you out.” 

Ron Paul has offered a bit of his classic constitutional sanity to the situation.  He wrote:

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish.  It is downright sinister.  It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect.  It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder.

This is a moral issue.  This is also a worldview issue.  That is precisely why it is important for believers to be equipped to think biblically about all spheres of life.  As R. Albert Mohler has noted:

Christians should think seriously about this economic crisis and ponder what it would mean to come to a Christian understanding of what it means to be participants in this economy.  As Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) recognized, the economy is a moral reality.  Human beings actualize their moral selves in making economic choices and through participation in the economic system -- and we are all participants.

This is why we cannot be more Republican (or Democrat) than Christian.  This is also one of those times when our worldview comes into sharp relief.  Is this issue an opportunity to leverage a crisis to garner votes?  Or is this a time for sound, biblical, and constitutional thinking?  Again, Dr. Paul offers wise, courageous words:

[D]o we care about freedom?  Do we care about responsibility and accountability?  Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for?  Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government?  Do we care?  When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

I don’t care to se anyone crushed by this current crisis.  However, there will be a price to pay.  We will either pay now, or our grandchildren will pay later.  The only question is, on what basis will we decide when and how to face the music?  Will it be economic expediency and immediate gratification?  Will pragmatic utilitarianism rule the day?  Or are there timeless principles that we must employ regardless of the immediate fallout?  Ironically, when people were having to pack their bags and walk away from their homes with a foreclosure sign in the yard, they were experiencing an economic collapse as a result of bad decisions.  Now, when the same thing is about to happen to the lender that happened to the borrower, the long arm of the government says, “We can’t let them fail.”  Why was foreclosure an acceptable outcome for the average Joe, but not for Fannie and Freddie?

VB