Reader Bonnie asks, in the matter of Milton Friedman on free enterprise (state vs. individual), “i don’t think it’s too much to ask for the government to protect the public from sociopaths like madoff and all the other creeps who have been let loose to take advantage of people through the years…….”

I asked in response, “Quis custodiet custodes?” and refer her to this from Wikipedia:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a Latin phrase from the Roman poet Juvenal [worth perusing, by the way; his satires ring true for us, allowing for adjustments], which literally translates to “Who will guard the guards themselves,” and is variously translated . . . as “Who watches the watchmen?”, “Who watches the watchers?”, “Who will guard the guards?”, “Who shall watch the watchers?” or other similar translations.

That is to say, we do have a problem with governmental protectors, do we not?  Take  Congr. Barney Frank, in bed with the Fannie May boy friend and telling us not to worry, and Sen. Chris Dodd, apparently on the take (Chris won’t show the long-promised records) from Countrywide, over whom he was supposed to exercise oversight.

Plato had an ideal solution to the problem, one worthy of J. Swift if not intended that way.  This is also from Wikipedia, with apologies for not doing my own research into The Republic.

We must tell the guardians a “noble lie.” The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is therefore their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. We will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege; they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it.

That’s about right for and about statists — in this context read easily discovered members of the so-called Democratic party.

Meanwhile, the rest of us should doff our naive belief in government as problem-solver, rembering R. Reagan’ words, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

Want to see and hear the late Milton Friedman as he “takes Phil Donahue to school on the value of free markets”?  Here ‘tis.

New boss, new rules:

WASHINGTON — In announcing executive pay limits on Wednesday, President Obama is trying to hold the financial industry accountable to taxpayers while aiming to change an entrenched corporate culture that endorses outsize bonuses and perks that often bear little relationship to corporate performance.

Hey, he’s providing the capital, he calls the shots.

Rush Limbaugh’s “bipartisan stimulus”:

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%.

As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

It’s a way to find out what works:

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people’s wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

Time to stop being narrowly partisan.

We compare, you decide.  The month’s Wed. Journal column is about O. and FDR as peas in a pod.

It’s a shame our first black president is a liberal. He appoints a few center-leaners here and there but has very crazy people at EPA and Labor, to name two Cabinet posts. . . . .

The comparison:

In some respects, O. [O’ in the online version, unfortunately] is like Franklin D. Roosevelt. He arrives trailing clouds of glory — to adapt Wordsworth — at a time of crisis. He’s popular, has a way with words, and plays the electorate like a violin. . . . .

There’s more more more . . .

In Connecticut “shovel-ready” is drastically in need of clarification.

The stimulus package is intended to provide new money for projects, not replace existing funding. That creates another problem, local leaders said. Any project within 90 to 120 days of starting – the common definition of shovel-ready – would already be permitted and into the bid process.

”Most towns don’t do that until the funds are already in place,” Mark Oefinger, Groton Town Manager, said.

Or, as Richard Guggenheim, assistant director of the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments, said during an interview Thursday: “It’s the ultimate Catch-22 on steroids.”

Wait a minute.  That is not the spirit.  Any more remarks in that vein, and you don’t get anything.

And what about this guy?  Is he out of it, or what?

Oefinger, like others, expressed concern that the stimulus will not provide long-term benefits or jobs.

”I think it’s going to be dumping a lot of money down the rat hole and not have a lot to show for it,” he said.

Rat hole, eh?

Yes, rat hole.

Tom Roeser disagrees with Charles Krauthammer, whom he rates highly, in the matter of Obama’s being blamed if the economy continues bad.

I don’t believe [it] for a moment. Amity Shlaes shows how the FDR’s wild experimentation convinced the voters that at least he was trying. The compliant, supine media will be in Obama’s corner throughout and even if nothing is accomplished, his sunny visage of hope-hope-hope will be portrayed in Rooseveltian style.

They loved FDR too, of course, as John T. Flynn says in his 1948 Roosevelt Myth.  Reporters “played along with this maker of news” as he pulled rabbits from hat, ex-Rooseveltian Flynn wrote. 

Will the stimulus work?

New York University economics professor Thomas Sargent:

The calculations that I have seen supporting the stimulus package are back-of-the-envelope ones that ignore what we have learned in the last 60 years of macroeconomic research.

Back of the envelope worked for Lincoln on his way to Gettysburg (Bob Newhart told us so), but for us in this day? 

Consider David Axelrod’s reaction, per WSJ.com’s Political Diary, to being asked about whether it will work:

Mr. Axelrod told Fox News that he didn’t view the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] [pessimistic] findings as important. He said the government has no choice but to act quickly in the current “national emergency” and “that a lot of these investments are ones that are going to pay dividends in the short term and the long term.”

This way lies madness.  Act quickly doing what?  Does it matter?  Of course.  So where does A-rod come off dismissing these economist hotshots hired by Congress and led by a Dem appointee?  Hack.

A bad experience for Obama fans who waited for hours with their purple tickets, getting nowhere, until noon and the end of it.

And then, shear, crushing disappointment descends over the crowd. Unlike the smiles on all the faces you walked by on, say, election night, or in the metro last night, this crowd had to summon up all they had left after multiple hours in the cold to give a tepid ovation to the inauguration of a new president.

Symbolic of the presidency to come.