...Why should we think that more of the same medicine will get us out?

That's the fundamental question I've been asking about this proposed bailout. Sure, the bailout's effect on the credit crisis would help in the short term, but is it too much to ask that we make some governmental decisions with the long view in mind? (An outrageous expectation, I know.)

I'm convinced by Amity Shlaes' argument that the New Deal extended the Great Depression. If nothing else, no one has yet made a solid case for governmental anti-market action producing a healthier market economy. Yes, that sounds simple, and thus -- the progressives would have us believe -- it cannot possibly be true. Truth is never simple after all. Right?

Well, I'm afraid it often is -- yes, even in regards to the economy.

All of which is to say that:

1. I lack the in-depth knowledge on the technical minutae of credit markets and financial tools, and -- unlike a seemingly endless supply of news commentators -- I'm happy to admit it.
2. Instinctually, it seems that the solution to this credit mess -- which started with two fundamentally imprudent, nationalized (read: socialized), anti-market corporations -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- cannot possibly be MORE public ownership of market entities.
3. Dick Armey is a whole lot smarter than I am about this, and I find him utterly persuasive.

The bailout's death is welcome news -- the House has some guts after all -- but only insofar as it portends an ultimate free-market reform.