Let me clearly state that I don’t like or approve of the recent federal intervention in the United States economy. Government policy over the past three decades, pushed to extremes by left-leaning and radical groups like ACORN and using the Community Reinvestment Act, created the corrupt lending environment that was exploited by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to produce the toxic mortgage situation in which we find ourselves. So, since government is primarily responsible for this crisis, why should we then trust government to fix the problem they created?

This unfavorable economic environment is not a shortcoming of capitalism. It is a direct result of government manipulation within our economy for the benefit of a few people. Sometimes manipulation gives an unfair advantage to the rich and sometimes the poor. In this current environment, those who should not get a loan it were encouraged to borrow beyond their means.  While historically no bank would loan money under such terms, Fannie and Freddie created an unnatural market for banks to offload risky mortgages. The result was the poisoning of our entire financial system.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, the federal government stepped in and removed even more of our individual freedoms and made our economic system less of a capitalistic one and more like a planned economy under socialism. To give you an idea of the extent of the change, we’re now talking about the government owning or nationalizing large portions of our banking system. We’re also talking about government confiscating taxpayer money to buy up and refinance failing mortgages. We’re also talking about government, not shareholders, owners or investors, telling companies how much they can pay their employees and how to run their businesses. Sounds more like the old Soviet Union than what the Founding Fathers set up, doesn’t it?

This is an extremely dangerous precedent that will severely damage our economy in the long run. It makes the American taxpayer the ultimate holder of risks that the market should allocate to willing investors. It also gives government enormous control over our economy, our money and our everyday lives. In effect, a government bureaucrat will soon be deciding who can borrow, how much they can borrow and under what terms. In the name of fairness and environmentalism, other factors will probably be imposed later like how large our house can be and whether we really need what we can afford.

Instead of the massive bailout that was adopted, I wish government had essentially stepped out of the picture and removed as many of the artificial market distortions imposed on our economy as possible. True, those who foolishly risked assets would go bankrupt but those assets would not disappear (yes, all those over-mortgaged houses would not evaporate into thin air and people would still have places to live). Instead, those assets and failing institutions would be transferred to their creditors who would carry on the business of finding renters and owners for them. The system would have adjusted and done so relatively quickly compared to this permanent fix imposed by the government.

Furthermore, such a capitalist move would have injected more fairness and rational decision-making into our economic system instead of advancing our nation down the slippery slope of socialism. Power corrupts. Whether power is concentrated in the hands of government or unfair markets, it still corrupts. The best fix would have been for government to ensure that free markets existed and then to step back and let the incredibly creative innovations of the American people solve the crisis.

In conclusion, the current economic crisis was caused by government intervention in the first place and will not be fixed by yet another bigger government intervention. It is utter foolishness to grant government more power to tinker with our economy. It is especially dangerous to further empower those same forces who pushed the radical agenda that first took our government down the destructive path of socialism decades ago. Furthermore, I’m also very troubled by the lack of real resistance to this massive erosion of our precious American freedoms.

We’ve been told for months now by politicians, especially Democrats, that the U.S. economy is in shambles.  Over the past few days we’ve been told that government must act now in a huge way to bail it out before the woes of Wall Street hit Main Street. We’re told that this is the worst economy since (insert year of choice here). There is so much doom and gloom.

But let’s step back and think for a minute. Yesterday we saw a huge drop in the stock market. Today we saw it recover about half that drop. While wild swings are not ideal, the fact that things calmed down and recovered so much today after the hailed bailout plan was voted down yesterday speaks volumes about consumer confidence (which today was reported for September to be up from August’s numbers and higher than analysts expected).

Also, the value of the U.S. Dollar surged in relation to many foreign currencies today, especially major tracking ones like the Euro, Yen and the British Pound. How could that be if our economy is on the verge of collapse and a second Great Depression? Would foreigners want to hold dollars if they were soon to be devalued or made worthless? I think not.

A couple weeks ago John McCain was ridiculed for expressing that while there are problems in our economy it is fundamentally strong. I agree with McCain and applaud him for speaking the truth and not trying to “talk down” the economy for political gain. Think about it: The American worker remains the most productive in the world. We have an incredible infrastructure to facilitate business transactions, labor exchanges and economic development. We have a strong legal foundation that protects innovation, entrepreneurship, private property — including intellectual property — and individual freedom. Where else in the world can you find all these components required for a strong economy?

Yes, there are problems in our economy today (largely the result of bad government policy) but the American economy remains fundamentally strong because Americans are fundamentally strong and innovative. The sooner government realizes that it needs to get out of the way of free and private markets the better it will be for everyone — from Wall Street to Main Street. I think the positive economic response we say today to yesterday’s no vote on the bailout bill should serve as a lesson that government intervention in the economy ought to be limited and restrained.

Jeffrey A. Miron is a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. He is a Libertarian and was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan. His commentary, entitled Bankruptcy, Not Bailout, is the Right Answer, was published today at CNN.com and the American Future Fund, an organization that advocates conservative, free market ideals.

The latest bailout plan that was voted down yesterday would have authorized $700 billion for the U.S. Treasury to purchase “troubled assets” from Wall Street financial institutions. Miron argues that this bailout proposal was a “terrible idea” and explains why. First, however, he explains how we got ourselves into this mess.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

After pinning the blame squarely on failed government policy, Miron correctly reasons that it is unwise to let government do more of the same in the name of recovery.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

Miron then builds a case for allowing financial institutions to declare bankruptcy which would mean their creditors would own the remaining assets.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

He argues that bankrupcy is superior to a government bailout because it punishes foolishness and protects taxpayers.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This “moral hazard” generates enormous distortions in an economy’s allocation of its financial resources.

Miron admits that this process would be ugly and could make the credit situation worse before we would see improvement. However, he argues that “talk of Armageddon” is “ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.”

Miron also suggests that the current credit freeze conditions we’re seeing is “likely due to Wall Street’s hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.” I agree that good market-based alternatives are probably being overlooked in the hopes of a more favorable (in the short run, at least) government rescue.

So that’s the problem. Now for the solution. What should government do? Miron writes:

Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

Miron concludes that someone will have to pay for these mistakes but it does not have to be the U.S. taxpayer. I couldn’t agree more.

I don’t trust the government to fix this mess when their non-market-based policies were what created the problem. Undoubtedly any bailout plan would be filled with unnecessary spending and loaded with benefits for special interests. No big government, no bailout!

Think about this with me for a minute if you would. The government is asking us taxpayers to hand over $700 billion more dollars on top of the $2+ trillion we already give them (or they obligate us with in the form of debt). That’s an enormous amount of money.

Today there is an Associated Press article that looks at what just how big $700 billion is compared to other spending. I quote some of the article below:

You could buy yourself a war with that kind of money – the U.S. has spent $648 billion on Iraq war operations so far.

You could match Franklin Roosevelt on his New Deal and raise him billions more.

Even in a town where billions come and go without anyone blinking, the money that could go into the Wall Street rescue is eye-popping. The House on Monday voted down a proposed $700 billion bailout package, but congressional leaders said they were committed to trying again.

What else could the government do with a $700 billion blank check? There are, well, billions of possibilities.

It could ensure universal health care coverage for six years, for example, or upgrade the country’s most deficient bridges four times over. All the work to upgrade coastal levees that’s been done since Hurricane Katrina? It’s a mere drop in the proverbial $700 billion bucket – $7 billion, or just 1 percent. You could build 1,750 bridges to nowhere.

Or run an entire country. Seven hundred billion dollars is more than twice the size of the economy of Denmark, which had a gross domestic product of $312 billion in 2007.

Seven hundred billion dollars would buy 70 Hubble-type space telescopes. Or about seven international space stations. It would finance the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s premier medical research institute, for two decades. Or pay the U.S. national intelligence budget for 15 years.

According to the Wall Street Journal, half the money FDR spent on his New Deal program to lift the country out of the Depression and banking crisis was for public works projects. For $250 billion in today’s dollars, the nation got 8,000 parks, 40,000 public buildings and 72,000 schools.

The article provides even more examples but I think you get the picture. My question for the government is simple: You created this problem so why should I trust you to fix it with more government?

A few hours ago the U.S. House of Representatives defeated the $700 billion “emergency rescue” package designed to boost our nation’s financial systems and prevent an economic meltdown. More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40% of Democrats voted against this legislation.

AP Reporter Julie Hieschfeld Davis reported the following comments from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) after the measure’s failure to pass:

“The legislation may have failed; the crisis is still with us,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a news conference after the defeat.

“What happened today cannot stand,” Pelosi said. “We must move forward, and I hope that the markets will take that message.”

Sounds like she was disappointed that the vote was insufficient to move the package out of the House, doesn’t it? Likewise Democrats were quick to blame Republicans for defeating this bill. However, that’s only part of the story. Some Republicans are saying they feel that Pelosi poisoned the atmosphere of bipartisanship when right before the vote she asked chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-MA) to yield 1 minute for some comments. Her 1 minute allotment turned into more than 5 minutes and included plenty of divisive partisan attacks on the “right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation” Republicans. Some way to win friends when you need them, isn’t it?

Davis reported the following comment by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) following the vote:

“We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House,” Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi’s words, the Ohio Republican said, “poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south.”

Watch the video below for yourself and see if you think Pelosi’s comments may have been a deliberate attempt to poison the bailout vote before it occurred. Remember, she needed Republicans to vote for the measure because she couldn’t get enough Democrats behind it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

From my perspective it looks like she wanted the vote to fail so Democrats could go on television and blame Republicans as “bad for America” and other similar nonsense. And for the icing on the cake, she pulled this stunt off when there’s plenty of evidence that Democrats actually created the financial crisis we find ourselves in today.