PORT WASHINGTON, N.Y. (Dow Jones) -- Never has one word been used so many times by so many people who think they know what's best for our sluggish economy than the word "taxpayers."

Take the New York Times, for example.

On Sunday, an editorial discussing the steps that the Federal Reserve recently took to prevent Bear Stearns Companies Inc. (BSC) from going bankrupt mentioned the word "taxpayers" no less than nine times.

One sentence actually used the word three of those nine times (once in the singular form, twice in the plural.

Now, I did not count each and every word in the piece, but my best guess is that this editorial was about 430 words long. This means that one out of every 48 words the Times believed was fit to print on this subject was either taxpayer or taxpayers.

Like many others, the Times is worried that taxpayers will bear some or all of the cost of rescuing Bear Stearns, and thus averting a possible crisis to our financial system. I'm not so sure this is the case, but even if it is, so what?

Let me point out that whatever you call the Fed's actions dealing with Bear Stearns, J.P. Morgan Chase Co. (JPM) and the financial markets and whoever may appear to benefit directly from these steps, the fact remains that everyone ( taxpayers and non-taxpayers alike) has a stake in keeping the markets running smoothly.

That said, in my view, it is wrong for the Times (or anyone else) to insinuate that using funds obtained from the general public via tax revenues to help prevent such an important sector of the economy as our financial system from seizing up benefits only a few: it actually helps everyone.

If you don't believe me, just consider what might have happened had Bear been allowed to go under. Although a relatively small player on Wall Street, Bear was heavily involved in the financial markets; its demise might well have brought other firms down as well.

As we have seen on numerous occasions in the past (Long Term Capital Management, the Savings & Loan crisis, the Great Depression and the Panic of 1907, to name just a few), everyone is affected when the financial markets seize up - not just the so-called fat cats. Thus it is clearly in everyone's best interest to either prevent, or at least ameliorate, their effects - even if it involves the use of what the Times calls taxpayers' money.

The same holds true for the ongoing decline in housing prices. Falling home values affect not just those who owe more than their home is worth or are being forced to sell at a loss, but everyone who owns a home.

For example, all homeowners in a neighborhood are hurt when many become vacant due to foreclosures. Falling property values will depress occupied and empty homes alike, so all homeowners have a stake in the government trying to avert this.

Now, don't get me wrong; I am no more in favor of the government rescuing people from unwise (or speculative) decisions than the next person. But I do believe that we should try to take care of our neighbors, for, in doing so, we will take care of ourselves.

  (END) Dow Jones Newswires
  03-31-08 0046ET
  Copyright (c) 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.