Given before the U.S. House of Representatives on August 2, 2007
Madame Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise, leaving many Americans unable to afford health insurance, while those with health care coverage, and their physicians, struggle under the control of managed-care "gatekeepers." Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress' top priorities.
Unfortunately, most health care "reform" proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
Furthermore, the predominance of third-party payers means there is effectively no market for individual health insurance polices, thus those whose employers cannot offer them health benefits must either pay exorbitant fees for health insurance or do without health insurance. Since most health care providers cater to those with health insurance, it is very difficult for the uninsured to find health care that meets their needs at an affordable price. The result is many of the uninsured turn to government-funded health care systems, or use their local emergency room as their primary care physician. The result of this is declining health for the uninsured and increased burden on taxpayer-financed health care system.
Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform.
The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, Health Care Savings Accounts (HSA), and Flexible Savings Accounts. By giving individuals tax incentives to purchase their own health care, the Comprehensive Health Care Act will help more Americans obtain quality health insurance and health care. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Act:
A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes.
B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA).
C. Makes every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), removes the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy to open an HSA; allows individuals to use their HSA to make premiums payments for high-deductible policy; and allows senior citizens to use their HSA to purchase Medigap policies.
D. Repeals the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.
By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. For example, a poll by the respected Zogby firm showed that over 80% of Americans support providing all Americans with access to a Health Savings Account. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.
Wednesday
Saturday
AGING INFRASTRUCTURE
The recent and tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota raises many questions in Americans' minds about our aging infrastructure, and what is being done to maintain it. Questions such as: "Was I-35 an isolated accident or are we approaching days when crumbling bridges and bursting pipes will be regular features on the evening news?"
The poor ratings on the inspection report of that bridge, and similar deficiency findings on as many as 25% of our bridges suggests the latter. Estimates on what it will cost to bring deficiencies in our infrastructure back up to par range from massive to astronomical.
Billions of tax dollars at all levels of government are devoted to infrastructure, but one problem is that politicians love to cut ribbons. Political capital is gained not from maintaining or repairing our systems, but from building new bridges, new stadiums, and new roads, often of questionable real utility. Seldom is there a ceremony or photo opportunity for repairing or maintaining something already in place.
As the so-called Highway Trust Fund is set to go bankrupt as early as 2009, private investment firms are gearing up for partnerships, which could be a positive step, if handled sensibly. What we need to avoid are items such as the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC), which is phase 1 of the NAFTA Super Highway . The Spanish firm Cintra is set to take over toll collections after the TTC’s completion, however it is unclear that they’ll have any obligations for maintenance. The cost is being socialized, while the profit is privatized, effectively making the American people pay for it twice.
Infrastructure, in a capitalist model, is an asset worthy of maintaining to ensure continuity of revenue. In a government controlled model infrastructure is nothing but a cumbersome liability. This should be taken into consideration when developing plans to keep our current infrastructure safe. Privatization should be used to encourage maintenance and safety, and where private companies truly invest and bear the upfront costs in return for ability to collect tolls or usage fees in some form. But public/private partnerships that look more like corporate welfare must be avoided.
We should re-examine how we handle the taxes we collect for infrastructure and how we allocate that money. At the very least reins need to be put on the Highway Trust Fund. Funds collected from the gas tax should go into the Trust Fund-- period.
Even the most ardent liberal and passionate conservative can agree that when they pay gasoline taxes, the least they expect is a road and bridge system that won't crumble beneath their feet. Before any subsidies or welfare payments are paid out, before social security is handed out to illegal immigrants, or health care is given to everyone, before bridges to nowhere are built at home, or entire countries bombed and rebuilt abroad, before any other myriad of exotic government projects are even considered, infrastructure should be attended to and taken seriously.
The poor ratings on the inspection report of that bridge, and similar deficiency findings on as many as 25% of our bridges suggests the latter. Estimates on what it will cost to bring deficiencies in our infrastructure back up to par range from massive to astronomical.
Billions of tax dollars at all levels of government are devoted to infrastructure, but one problem is that politicians love to cut ribbons. Political capital is gained not from maintaining or repairing our systems, but from building new bridges, new stadiums, and new roads, often of questionable real utility. Seldom is there a ceremony or photo opportunity for repairing or maintaining something already in place.
As the so-called Highway Trust Fund is set to go bankrupt as early as 2009, private investment firms are gearing up for partnerships, which could be a positive step, if handled sensibly. What we need to avoid are items such as the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC), which is phase 1 of the NAFTA Super Highway . The Spanish firm Cintra is set to take over toll collections after the TTC’s completion, however it is unclear that they’ll have any obligations for maintenance. The cost is being socialized, while the profit is privatized, effectively making the American people pay for it twice.
Infrastructure, in a capitalist model, is an asset worthy of maintaining to ensure continuity of revenue. In a government controlled model infrastructure is nothing but a cumbersome liability. This should be taken into consideration when developing plans to keep our current infrastructure safe. Privatization should be used to encourage maintenance and safety, and where private companies truly invest and bear the upfront costs in return for ability to collect tolls or usage fees in some form. But public/private partnerships that look more like corporate welfare must be avoided.
We should re-examine how we handle the taxes we collect for infrastructure and how we allocate that money. At the very least reins need to be put on the Highway Trust Fund. Funds collected from the gas tax should go into the Trust Fund-- period.
Even the most ardent liberal and passionate conservative can agree that when they pay gasoline taxes, the least they expect is a road and bridge system that won't crumble beneath their feet. Before any subsidies or welfare payments are paid out, before social security is handed out to illegal immigrants, or health care is given to everyone, before bridges to nowhere are built at home, or entire countries bombed and rebuilt abroad, before any other myriad of exotic government projects are even considered, infrastructure should be attended to and taken seriously.
Wednesday
Tuesday
YOU GOTTA LOVE THIS RON PAUL
10%
I love this Ron Paul. The national media, who is against him, claimed that at the Iowa Straw Vote he got less than two percent. Oh, but were they being honest? No, no way. They based his totals on a vote of 25,000 people, but because of some malfunctions only 14,400 voted. So, his actual percentage was ten percent.
81%
In the recent Alabama Straw Vote he collected 83 percent. Oh, you say, that is because it was in the south and he his from Texas. Maybe....
73%
So he backed that up with 73 percent in the New Hampshire Straw Vote. New Hampshire is about as far from the south as you can get.
I love this Ron Paul. The national media, who is against him, claimed that at the Iowa Straw Vote he got less than two percent. Oh, but were they being honest? No, no way. They based his totals on a vote of 25,000 people, but because of some malfunctions only 14,400 voted. So, his actual percentage was ten percent.
81%
In the recent Alabama Straw Vote he collected 83 percent. Oh, you say, that is because it was in the south and he his from Texas. Maybe....
73%
So he backed that up with 73 percent in the New Hampshire Straw Vote. New Hampshire is about as far from the south as you can get.
HIGH RISK CREDIT
As markets went on a rollercoaster ride last week, our economy is coming close to a day of reckoning for loose credit policies being followed by the Federal Reserve Bank. Simply, foreign banks we have been relying on to buy our debt are waking up to the reality of much higher default rates than predicted, and many mortgage backed securities have been reduced to “junk” ratings. Wall Street fears the possibility of tightening credit and the tightening of America’s belts. Why, they say, “if Americans spend only what they can afford, think of the ripple effects throughout the economy!” This is the cry, as the call comes for the fed to cut rates and bail out companies in trouble.
More inflation is, however, never the answer to inflation.
The truth is that business involves risk, and businesses that miscalculate risk should be liquidated, so their assets can be reallocated to businesses that correctly judge risk and make profits. Instead, the Fed has injected $64 billion into the jittery markets, effectively amounting to a bailout that keeps these malinvestments afloat, but eventually they will become the undoing of our economy.
In addition to the negative reactions in financial markets, many Americans have taken on too much personal debt owing to exotic mortgage products and artificially low interest rates. Unfortunately, these families are now in the position of losing their homes in unprecedented numbers as the teaser rates expire and the real bills are coming due.
The real answers are, and always have been, found in the principles of the free market. Let the market set the interest rates. If we had been functioning under a true and transparent free market system, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Government, like the American household, needs to live within its means to get back on stable fiscal ground.
We’ve been headed in the wrong direction since 1971. This week marks the 36th anniversary of Nixon’s decision to close the gold window, which convinced me to seek public office to call attention to the runaway money train that would come in the aftermath of that decision. The temptation to print and spend money with impunity, like the temptation to max out lines of credit, is too strong to for government to resist. While Nixon brokered exclusivity deals with OPEC to prop up demand for the tidal wave of green pieces of paper the Fed pumped into the markets, the world is tiring of marching to the beat of our drum in order to secure their energy needs. The house of cards Nixon built is now on the verge of collapsing on our heads, and on our children’s heads.
As the dollar weakens, it becomes ever clearer that we need a return to sound, commodity-based money for a secure future. Money based on real value, not empty promises and secretive backroom machinations, is the way to get out of the current calamity without causing even bigger problems.
More inflation is, however, never the answer to inflation.
The truth is that business involves risk, and businesses that miscalculate risk should be liquidated, so their assets can be reallocated to businesses that correctly judge risk and make profits. Instead, the Fed has injected $64 billion into the jittery markets, effectively amounting to a bailout that keeps these malinvestments afloat, but eventually they will become the undoing of our economy.
In addition to the negative reactions in financial markets, many Americans have taken on too much personal debt owing to exotic mortgage products and artificially low interest rates. Unfortunately, these families are now in the position of losing their homes in unprecedented numbers as the teaser rates expire and the real bills are coming due.
The real answers are, and always have been, found in the principles of the free market. Let the market set the interest rates. If we had been functioning under a true and transparent free market system, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Government, like the American household, needs to live within its means to get back on stable fiscal ground.
We’ve been headed in the wrong direction since 1971. This week marks the 36th anniversary of Nixon’s decision to close the gold window, which convinced me to seek public office to call attention to the runaway money train that would come in the aftermath of that decision. The temptation to print and spend money with impunity, like the temptation to max out lines of credit, is too strong to for government to resist. While Nixon brokered exclusivity deals with OPEC to prop up demand for the tidal wave of green pieces of paper the Fed pumped into the markets, the world is tiring of marching to the beat of our drum in order to secure their energy needs. The house of cards Nixon built is now on the verge of collapsing on our heads, and on our children’s heads.
As the dollar weakens, it becomes ever clearer that we need a return to sound, commodity-based money for a secure future. Money based on real value, not empty promises and secretive backroom machinations, is the way to get out of the current calamity without causing even bigger problems.
WHAT I THINK....THOMAS EDDLEM
It always perturbed me that the wide variety of neocon commentators on television regularly pronounce with such fury and unison that Ron Paul "can’t win" but never give any reasons why he couldn’t win the presidential race.
At first, I assumed that these guys would be denying he had a chance up until and including Ron Paul’s inauguration day. And why shouldn’t I assume that? The pundits probably don’t give any reasons he can’t win, I thought, because there aren’t any.
Then I thought more deeply, and found that there are plenty of reasons why Ron Paul can’t be elected. Here are the ten top reasons why Ron Paul can’t win, in the format of David Letterman’s Top Ten List. My logic is flawless. As Bill O’Reilly would say, "you can’t even argue it."
10. Ron Paul is too popular among people who know where he stands. Instant polling numbers among focus groups watching the debates have his popularity at about 75 percent. But Americans don’t vote for people who are that popular. It’s true that George W. Bush got a little more than 50 percent of the vote in 2004 – just barely – but that was a fluke. Bush’s popularity numbers have since sunk back to the traditional 25–35 percent range. Before 2004, not one of the winners in the last three Presidential campaigns even got 50 percent of the vote. Dubya didn’t even win a plurality of the popular vote in 2000. So it’s a clear modern precedent that in order to become President, you need to be unpopular rather than widely popular. Ron Paul simply can’t win if he remains that popular, and there’s no reason to believe people will begin to hate him.
9. He’s got too much money, and nowhere to spend it. It’s great that Ron Paul’s official campaign is raising nearly as much money as the frontrunners. But it won’t do him any good. What would he spend it on? He doesn’t need to spend it on local campaigning, because he’s already got more than 700 Meetups across the country. (More on that in reason #8). Many of these Meetups are printing bumper stickers, fliers, and yard signs without money from the campaign. They are creating phone banks on their own. A few are even making their own media advertising buys. Therefore, the campaign doesn’t need money for any of these things. So the massive Ron Paul campaign fundraising, while impressive, is superfluous at best. Money simply won’t help.
8. Ron Paul is cheating by harnessing the fervor of an army of volunteers, rather than the method pursued by the other candidates – who must pay a huge campaign staff to get their message out. It’s not fair that Ron Paul has excited volunteers who will spend their own money to get him elected, while the other candidates have to pay lots of people salaries to work for their campaigns. So don’t think that the other candidates won’t cry "foul" when they notice that most of Ron Paul’s campaign contributions are "off the books" in these Meetups.
Collectively, the Meetups may be spending more money than the frontrunner campaigns. I noticed this myself recently when I attended a Ron Paul Meetup in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. I got handed a wad of Ron Paul bumper stickers from a guy who printed them up himself. Others passed me self-printed fliers and lapel stickers while the whole group passed the hat to print road signs on their own. Do you really think these expenditures were sent in to the Federal Election Commission as a campaign contribution? I doubt it. "We need a campaign ‘fairness doctrine’ to level the playing field," the other candidates will argue, quite possibly to great effect.
7. Ron Paul tells the truth. Ron Paul has a 20-year career in Congress of always voting the way he’s promised, even sometimes on positions that could hurt him politically (See reason #5 for more on this). He’s honest even when it hurts him, and that’s great. But let’s face it, Americans long ago tired of electing honest presidents. They very much prefer presidents who will lie to us "for your own good." This explains why they elected George "Read my lips, no new taxes" Bush, Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton, and most recently, George "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone" Bush. Need I elaborate more? The American people long ago tired of honesty! Honesty just doesn’t sell.
6. He’s for lower spending AND lower taxes. Most Americans want lower taxes, so Ron Paul’s halfway there, but they don’t want to cut spending. Americans want a candidate who talks about lower spending but actually increases spending. This explains the Bill "the era of big government is over" Clinton and George "compassionate conservative" Bush presidencies. Of course, Americans also want balanced budgets … and Ron Paul’s philosophy would give them both lower taxes and a balanced budget. But I still think the American people would settle for another candidate who promises to enact a balanced budget precisely four years after the end of his last term – four years after any influence he has over spending ends.
5. Ron Paul is a man of principle. Ron Paul is known for voting against pork even for his own congressional district. He voted against the Iraq war even when the American people were backing it in polling by three-to-one margins. He’s the "1" in more 434-1 votes than all of the rest of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives put together. He doesn’t take congressional pay raises or participate in the generous congressional pension system. While that might lead some people to think it would attract voters to his candidacy, it actually hurts him. Despite the fact that his campaign rallies regularly draw more supporters than any other candidate, these huge crowds have made him a very, very lonely man. Crowds are isolating psychological phenomena. Getting the biggest crowds at rallies only exaggerates the loneliness that people always have in crowds. Psychologically speaking, he can’t take any more of the loneliness of those crowds. No one could. That’s why the other candidates have limited themselves to smaller crowds of mostly salaried campaign officials and government employees.
4. Ron Paul has peaked. He wins first or second place in all of the online polls, so his expectations have been raised too high for him to win a primary. Ron Paul has already lost the expectations game, unless he can somehow pull out 274.8 percent or more of the total vote in the Iowa primary. I’m no mathematical expert, but my accountant tells me it’s mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to pull in that kind of a vote.
3. He’s been against the Iraq war from the start. You might think that taking a position against the Iraq war from the start would help a candidate in a campaign where the American people oppose the war by a two-to-one margin or more. But the truth is, the American people don’t want a know-it-all candidate who has demonstrated foresight. They want a dumb bumbler that they can make fun of; it’s the same social phenomena that caused people to watch the old Jerry Springer show. They want a president who can’t pronounce "nuclear," preferably one who physically resembles a simian.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, the troops are about to pull out a dramatic victory from Iraq. Not with the current surge, but with the post-surge surge. The fact that Ron Paul is raking in more campaign contributions from veterans than any other candidate should not be taken as a sign that the troops want out of there. The troops aren’t voting with their wallets, they’re just getting tanned, rested and ready for the final surge. The campaign contributions are a diversional maneuver designed to draw out al Qaeda fighters, and those weapons of mass destruction Sean Hannity says were secretly stored in Syria. The post-surge surge will also expose the mystery behind Area 51, end world hunger and cure male-pattern baldness. This issue will be a loser for any anti-war candidate in short order. Just wait and see.
2. Ron Paul’s a medical doctor, OB/GYN, and a graduate of Duke Medical School, but not a government health care management professional. Therefore, no American could possibly take him seriously when he gives his opinion on medicine. It’s a good thing that Dr. Paul has not been given an opportunity to comment on any question about health care in any of the Presidential debates, because the other candidates’ expertise on medicine would blow him away. It’s only a matter of time before they embarrass him.
Other candidates like Mitt Romney have experience as part of a "management team" capable of delivering a "wide range of services." Ron Paul has only ensured proper health care for a few thousand individual people. The other candidates know that government policy can deliver much better health care for less cost than country doctors. Take, for example, Boston’s "Big Dig." The Big Dig, the depression of Boston’s central artery, is the largest public works project in history at $15 billion and counting. This could never have been accomplished by the private sector, and the Big Dig construction is almost finished after 10 years and going only 800 percent over budget. It’s true the Big Dig has already killed a motorist who was crushed by the falling three-ton concrete blocks used as ceiling tiles. (How could anyone possibly have foreseen such an outcome from an innovative design of precariously fastening concrete ceiling tiles?) But the truth is that we need government to bring the same cost controls and safety controls of the Big Dig to health care. Ron Paul just doesn’t understand this vital macroeconomic point.
1. George Stephanopoulos says Ron Paul can’t win. George Stephanopoulos may only stand nine inches tall without television camera tricks, but that’s because he’s the only documented Greek Leprechaun in modern history. He therefore wields powerful clairvoyance powers that can shape the future. That explains Bill Clinton’s election and reelection over the seemingly unstoppable Bob Dole. If you don’t have George Stephanopoulos on your side, your cause is hopeless. Fortunately for Boston Red Sox fans, Stephanopoulos withdrew his longstanding "The Red Sox can never win the World Series" edict in October 2004.
At first, I assumed that these guys would be denying he had a chance up until and including Ron Paul’s inauguration day. And why shouldn’t I assume that? The pundits probably don’t give any reasons he can’t win, I thought, because there aren’t any.
Then I thought more deeply, and found that there are plenty of reasons why Ron Paul can’t be elected. Here are the ten top reasons why Ron Paul can’t win, in the format of David Letterman’s Top Ten List. My logic is flawless. As Bill O’Reilly would say, "you can’t even argue it."
10. Ron Paul is too popular among people who know where he stands. Instant polling numbers among focus groups watching the debates have his popularity at about 75 percent. But Americans don’t vote for people who are that popular. It’s true that George W. Bush got a little more than 50 percent of the vote in 2004 – just barely – but that was a fluke. Bush’s popularity numbers have since sunk back to the traditional 25–35 percent range. Before 2004, not one of the winners in the last three Presidential campaigns even got 50 percent of the vote. Dubya didn’t even win a plurality of the popular vote in 2000. So it’s a clear modern precedent that in order to become President, you need to be unpopular rather than widely popular. Ron Paul simply can’t win if he remains that popular, and there’s no reason to believe people will begin to hate him.
9. He’s got too much money, and nowhere to spend it. It’s great that Ron Paul’s official campaign is raising nearly as much money as the frontrunners. But it won’t do him any good. What would he spend it on? He doesn’t need to spend it on local campaigning, because he’s already got more than 700 Meetups across the country. (More on that in reason #8). Many of these Meetups are printing bumper stickers, fliers, and yard signs without money from the campaign. They are creating phone banks on their own. A few are even making their own media advertising buys. Therefore, the campaign doesn’t need money for any of these things. So the massive Ron Paul campaign fundraising, while impressive, is superfluous at best. Money simply won’t help.
8. Ron Paul is cheating by harnessing the fervor of an army of volunteers, rather than the method pursued by the other candidates – who must pay a huge campaign staff to get their message out. It’s not fair that Ron Paul has excited volunteers who will spend their own money to get him elected, while the other candidates have to pay lots of people salaries to work for their campaigns. So don’t think that the other candidates won’t cry "foul" when they notice that most of Ron Paul’s campaign contributions are "off the books" in these Meetups.
Collectively, the Meetups may be spending more money than the frontrunner campaigns. I noticed this myself recently when I attended a Ron Paul Meetup in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. I got handed a wad of Ron Paul bumper stickers from a guy who printed them up himself. Others passed me self-printed fliers and lapel stickers while the whole group passed the hat to print road signs on their own. Do you really think these expenditures were sent in to the Federal Election Commission as a campaign contribution? I doubt it. "We need a campaign ‘fairness doctrine’ to level the playing field," the other candidates will argue, quite possibly to great effect.
7. Ron Paul tells the truth. Ron Paul has a 20-year career in Congress of always voting the way he’s promised, even sometimes on positions that could hurt him politically (See reason #5 for more on this). He’s honest even when it hurts him, and that’s great. But let’s face it, Americans long ago tired of electing honest presidents. They very much prefer presidents who will lie to us "for your own good." This explains why they elected George "Read my lips, no new taxes" Bush, Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton, and most recently, George "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone" Bush. Need I elaborate more? The American people long ago tired of honesty! Honesty just doesn’t sell.
6. He’s for lower spending AND lower taxes. Most Americans want lower taxes, so Ron Paul’s halfway there, but they don’t want to cut spending. Americans want a candidate who talks about lower spending but actually increases spending. This explains the Bill "the era of big government is over" Clinton and George "compassionate conservative" Bush presidencies. Of course, Americans also want balanced budgets … and Ron Paul’s philosophy would give them both lower taxes and a balanced budget. But I still think the American people would settle for another candidate who promises to enact a balanced budget precisely four years after the end of his last term – four years after any influence he has over spending ends.
5. Ron Paul is a man of principle. Ron Paul is known for voting against pork even for his own congressional district. He voted against the Iraq war even when the American people were backing it in polling by three-to-one margins. He’s the "1" in more 434-1 votes than all of the rest of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives put together. He doesn’t take congressional pay raises or participate in the generous congressional pension system. While that might lead some people to think it would attract voters to his candidacy, it actually hurts him. Despite the fact that his campaign rallies regularly draw more supporters than any other candidate, these huge crowds have made him a very, very lonely man. Crowds are isolating psychological phenomena. Getting the biggest crowds at rallies only exaggerates the loneliness that people always have in crowds. Psychologically speaking, he can’t take any more of the loneliness of those crowds. No one could. That’s why the other candidates have limited themselves to smaller crowds of mostly salaried campaign officials and government employees.
4. Ron Paul has peaked. He wins first or second place in all of the online polls, so his expectations have been raised too high for him to win a primary. Ron Paul has already lost the expectations game, unless he can somehow pull out 274.8 percent or more of the total vote in the Iowa primary. I’m no mathematical expert, but my accountant tells me it’s mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to pull in that kind of a vote.
3. He’s been against the Iraq war from the start. You might think that taking a position against the Iraq war from the start would help a candidate in a campaign where the American people oppose the war by a two-to-one margin or more. But the truth is, the American people don’t want a know-it-all candidate who has demonstrated foresight. They want a dumb bumbler that they can make fun of; it’s the same social phenomena that caused people to watch the old Jerry Springer show. They want a president who can’t pronounce "nuclear," preferably one who physically resembles a simian.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, the troops are about to pull out a dramatic victory from Iraq. Not with the current surge, but with the post-surge surge. The fact that Ron Paul is raking in more campaign contributions from veterans than any other candidate should not be taken as a sign that the troops want out of there. The troops aren’t voting with their wallets, they’re just getting tanned, rested and ready for the final surge. The campaign contributions are a diversional maneuver designed to draw out al Qaeda fighters, and those weapons of mass destruction Sean Hannity says were secretly stored in Syria. The post-surge surge will also expose the mystery behind Area 51, end world hunger and cure male-pattern baldness. This issue will be a loser for any anti-war candidate in short order. Just wait and see.
2. Ron Paul’s a medical doctor, OB/GYN, and a graduate of Duke Medical School, but not a government health care management professional. Therefore, no American could possibly take him seriously when he gives his opinion on medicine. It’s a good thing that Dr. Paul has not been given an opportunity to comment on any question about health care in any of the Presidential debates, because the other candidates’ expertise on medicine would blow him away. It’s only a matter of time before they embarrass him.
Other candidates like Mitt Romney have experience as part of a "management team" capable of delivering a "wide range of services." Ron Paul has only ensured proper health care for a few thousand individual people. The other candidates know that government policy can deliver much better health care for less cost than country doctors. Take, for example, Boston’s "Big Dig." The Big Dig, the depression of Boston’s central artery, is the largest public works project in history at $15 billion and counting. This could never have been accomplished by the private sector, and the Big Dig construction is almost finished after 10 years and going only 800 percent over budget. It’s true the Big Dig has already killed a motorist who was crushed by the falling three-ton concrete blocks used as ceiling tiles. (How could anyone possibly have foreseen such an outcome from an innovative design of precariously fastening concrete ceiling tiles?) But the truth is that we need government to bring the same cost controls and safety controls of the Big Dig to health care. Ron Paul just doesn’t understand this vital macroeconomic point.
1. George Stephanopoulos says Ron Paul can’t win. George Stephanopoulos may only stand nine inches tall without television camera tricks, but that’s because he’s the only documented Greek Leprechaun in modern history. He therefore wields powerful clairvoyance powers that can shape the future. That explains Bill Clinton’s election and reelection over the seemingly unstoppable Bob Dole. If you don’t have George Stephanopoulos on your side, your cause is hopeless. Fortunately for Boston Red Sox fans, Stephanopoulos withdrew his longstanding "The Red Sox can never win the World Series" edict in October 2004.
Thursday
Tuesday
HIGH RISK SPENDING
Last week this column addressed the train wreck that federal spending has become. To score political points politicians will make loud noise about fairly small matters such as earmarks, even while refusing to address the real problem. Namely, that our federal government is too big and does too much. Politicians prefer to pass a bill or create a program every time somebody points to a new social problem, this way they can tell their constituents how much they are doing to help. Instead of rationally explaining the proper role of government, politicians have attempted to play the role of friend, preacher, parent, social worker, etcetera-- in essence, whatever any organized special interest can demand.
Waste, fraud and abuse are often easy targets. Everybody knows a story of the government doing something absolutely ridiculous and wasteful. Plus, recent headlines have been packed with stories of corruption in Washington.
One thing that has not drawn enough attention is the link between the size of government and the mismanagement that leads to wasted money. If the government was restrained within its proper constitutional functions, it would be far better managed and much more readily would proper oversight occur.
You see, while waste, fraud and abuse are very easy to attack, it seems they are much more difficult to actually address within the current federal behemoth. For example, the General Accounting Office puts out a “high risk list” and describes this list as programs with “vulnerabilities to fraud, waste and abuse and mismanagement.”
There are currently 27 programs and operations on this list, up from 26 last year. But here are the more surprising facts, the list was originated with 14 programs in 1990. Of those original 14 programs, from 17 years ago, only 8 have been removed. How can it be that 6 programs remain on such a list nearly two decades later? While government is supposed to move slowly, this is ridiculous.
What GAO is saying is that a problem exists, we have been aware of it for 17 years, and it is still not corrected. Of course, with the size and scope of federal activity, including attempting to rebuild societies in the middle east, and massively expanding federal involvement in education (along with thousands of other “programs”), it is small wonder that this list doesn’t really get addressed.
Yet it does seem reasonable to ask “If you can’t stop waste in 6 federal programs after 17 years, how exactly will you improve local schools or foreign nations?”
In the time that the GAO list has existed, there have been 33 additions and a mere 18 removals, including two this year. Only when the people demand the federal government stop trying to meet any and all demands, and instead return to a constitutionally limited republic, will the list of programs subject to waste, fraud and abuse be dramatically reduced. While government will never be perfect, a limited government is far more able to not only identify problems, but to actually correct them.
Waste, fraud and abuse are often easy targets. Everybody knows a story of the government doing something absolutely ridiculous and wasteful. Plus, recent headlines have been packed with stories of corruption in Washington.
One thing that has not drawn enough attention is the link between the size of government and the mismanagement that leads to wasted money. If the government was restrained within its proper constitutional functions, it would be far better managed and much more readily would proper oversight occur.
You see, while waste, fraud and abuse are very easy to attack, it seems they are much more difficult to actually address within the current federal behemoth. For example, the General Accounting Office puts out a “high risk list” and describes this list as programs with “vulnerabilities to fraud, waste and abuse and mismanagement.”
There are currently 27 programs and operations on this list, up from 26 last year. But here are the more surprising facts, the list was originated with 14 programs in 1990. Of those original 14 programs, from 17 years ago, only 8 have been removed. How can it be that 6 programs remain on such a list nearly two decades later? While government is supposed to move slowly, this is ridiculous.
What GAO is saying is that a problem exists, we have been aware of it for 17 years, and it is still not corrected. Of course, with the size and scope of federal activity, including attempting to rebuild societies in the middle east, and massively expanding federal involvement in education (along with thousands of other “programs”), it is small wonder that this list doesn’t really get addressed.
Yet it does seem reasonable to ask “If you can’t stop waste in 6 federal programs after 17 years, how exactly will you improve local schools or foreign nations?”
In the time that the GAO list has existed, there have been 33 additions and a mere 18 removals, including two this year. Only when the people demand the federal government stop trying to meet any and all demands, and instead return to a constitutionally limited republic, will the list of programs subject to waste, fraud and abuse be dramatically reduced. While government will never be perfect, a limited government is far more able to not only identify problems, but to actually correct them.
Wednesday
SPENDING SPREE CONTINUES
These last few weeks the House has been in a rush to pass spending bills before August recess. In fact, visitors walking the hallways of Congress become immediately struck by the apparent spending battle between the “conservative Democrats” of the so-called “Blue Dog Coalition,” and the Republican Study Committee, or RSC, generally representing the more conservative bloc of Republican House members. Members of each of these groups place large posters on easels outside their offices. The purpose behind this seems clear, to point the finger at the opposite party for the current budget mess that continues to threaten America’s future.
When Republicans had control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, very little was done to stem the tide of federal spending. In fact, spending increased every year over the past decade. New programs such as “No Child Left Behind,” and entitlements like the Prescription Drug Benefit, were added at great cost to federal taxpayers.
During this period, the Blue Dogs continued to make the rhetorical point of government financial misdeeds. Now that Democrats control the House, the RSC is highlighting the increases in spending and debt that will occur based on bills passed this year by the new majority.
While both sides continue attempting to score political points, the country goes further and further into debt, because neither side is really willing to make the tough decisions necessary to halt the run away train of federal spending. Several Republicans go to the House floor with amendments to stop spending directed by Congress, often seeking to cut projects that total $100,000 or less. While it is true that hundreds of thousands can and do add up, the same people who argue for these spending cuts think nothing of spending billions more in Iraq. At the same time, basically every spending bill that comes to the House Floor would have the majority spend more, even over and above the increases requested by the Administration.
Current arguments over spending really have no connection to the idea of the overall reduction in the size and scope of government. The Democrats who argue that tax cuts are a form of spending are just as misleading as the Republicans who say they can make a serious dent by changing congressionally directed spending into administration directed spending.
The federal government has a spending problem. Each year our current accounts balance gets worse and worse, and the amount of foreign held government debt has skyrocketed. Both Republicans and Democrats; conservatives, liberals and moderates, indeed nearly every single-member of the Washington political establishment, is addicted to one form of federal spending or another.
Only when the American people absolutely demand that the spending spree be stopped, will their representatives in Washington stop using this issue as a political football to score public relations points, and finally face-up to the fact that we are a nation in a very precarious financial position, which demands real spending cuts in order to avoid bankrupting our next generation.
When Republicans had control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, very little was done to stem the tide of federal spending. In fact, spending increased every year over the past decade. New programs such as “No Child Left Behind,” and entitlements like the Prescription Drug Benefit, were added at great cost to federal taxpayers.
During this period, the Blue Dogs continued to make the rhetorical point of government financial misdeeds. Now that Democrats control the House, the RSC is highlighting the increases in spending and debt that will occur based on bills passed this year by the new majority.
While both sides continue attempting to score political points, the country goes further and further into debt, because neither side is really willing to make the tough decisions necessary to halt the run away train of federal spending. Several Republicans go to the House floor with amendments to stop spending directed by Congress, often seeking to cut projects that total $100,000 or less. While it is true that hundreds of thousands can and do add up, the same people who argue for these spending cuts think nothing of spending billions more in Iraq. At the same time, basically every spending bill that comes to the House Floor would have the majority spend more, even over and above the increases requested by the Administration.
Current arguments over spending really have no connection to the idea of the overall reduction in the size and scope of government. The Democrats who argue that tax cuts are a form of spending are just as misleading as the Republicans who say they can make a serious dent by changing congressionally directed spending into administration directed spending.
The federal government has a spending problem. Each year our current accounts balance gets worse and worse, and the amount of foreign held government debt has skyrocketed. Both Republicans and Democrats; conservatives, liberals and moderates, indeed nearly every single-member of the Washington political establishment, is addicted to one form of federal spending or another.
Only when the American people absolutely demand that the spending spree be stopped, will their representatives in Washington stop using this issue as a political football to score public relations points, and finally face-up to the fact that we are a nation in a very precarious financial position, which demands real spending cuts in order to avoid bankrupting our next generation.
Monday
Saturday
WHAT I THINK....JENNIFER HAMAN
While speaking to a woman the other day that had never heard of Ron Paul, she stated "My goodness, he is amazing. He is the best kept secret of this presidential campaign." She could not believe there was a contender who represented everything she wanted in a presidential candidate and more. (For those of you who have not yet heard, Ron Paul is running for President.) She talked about wanting to end the war in Iraq. Ron Paul has promised to do that immediately and not leave a soldier behind. She talked about wanting a more secure border. Ron Paul has stated that he wants very strong borders and he was appalled that our government had taken border guards off of our borders to send them to Iraq. She mentioned she is treading water financially and never seems to get ahead. Ron Paul has a solution for that too: end the fiat money system so Congress cannot create monetary inflation. Well, what about privacy she asked? She felt we have moved into an age of Big Brother. Ron Paul wants to protect our privacy by sticking to a strict Constitutionalist policy. He wants to end the Patriot Act that allows the government to enter your home without a warrant and without notifying you so you know they were there. Dr. Paul wants to end the destruction of habeas corpus, the only doctrine we have that lets you see a lawyer if you land in jail. Without it, all other rights are meaningless. Dr. Paul has voted against every attempt to regulate and control the Internet. He believes that the Constitution does not give Congress a right to decide who may or may not marry, or what drugs a physician may or may not prescribe. Ron Paul believes in limited Federal government and limited taxes: he even wants to end the Income tax. (Can you imagine taking home your whole paycheck?)
The conversation continued. She wanted to know why she should vote for a person who has no chance. The obvious answer was because Ron Paul offered her everything she wanted. The second not so obvious answer was that he is actually doing much better than anyone knows because the press hides all of his successes. What most people do not know, because the mainstream press is doing its best to manipulate support away from Dr. Paul, is that he won the first debate, he came in second in the second debate, and he came in first in the third debate. In the most recent straw polls Dr. Paul placed second in the Georgetown SC straw poll, he placed second in the Cob County straw poll and he won the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers straw poll at their annual picnic. As of this writing Ron Paul has placed number one in the PajamasMedia straw poll with 70.8% of the votes! Yet, over and over we are subjected to articles that say he has no chance. (This is an oft-used tactic to sway voters away from a candidate because people do not like to "waste" a vote. As if voting for what you want is a waste.)
The mainstream media call his supporters "spammers," attempting to claim that all his Internet support is really just a few folks pressing a lot of buttons. Nonetheless, his "non-existent" support is growing by leaps and bounds. Oh, the big guys may have the big money, but Ron Paul has the people. In one month alone, his Meetup supporters have grown from 16,184 to 25,101 with 4,192 more waiting to join in the fun. He has 643 separate groups. (These figures tend to rise daily; they were accurate at the time this article was written.) These are undeniable signs that the snowball is rolling. When people get through the gauntlet of media attempts to control their thoughts and votes and actually HEAR Ron Paul speak (see videos on YouTube like this one) or read what he has written they become ardent supporters. I dare you to click on that last link of articles he has written and start reading. I double dare you.
Ron Paul brings a sense of decency back into the political arena. He is not out to win the nomination so that he can run your life, he just wants to return this country to the basics of liberty and freedom we once enjoyed and used to fight for. The rest of the candidates, on both sides, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, are willing to use pre-emptive nuclear strikes against other countries. Has it been so long that people have forgotten the horrors of nuclear war? Tens of thousands of innocent civilians die. They get radiation sickness and die horrible deaths. Babies die screaming with burning flesh. Thousands are blinded and left helpless. It is a horrible inhumane thought, let alone action. Incredibly, when asked if they would take the option of a pre-emptive nuclear strike off the table, nearly all the other candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike said no. When Dr. Paul was asked during the last GOP debate on Fox, what he thought was the most pressing moral issue facing our country he stated that it was the idea that all those other candidates were willing to entertain even the thought of pre-emptive nuclear strikes.
Even the most optimistic predictions about the effects of a major nuclear exchange predict the death of millions of civilians within a very short amount of time; more pessimistic predictions argue that a full-scale nuclear war could bring about the extinction of the human race or its near extinction with a handful of survivors (mainly in remote areas) reduced to a pre-medieval quality of life and life expectancy for centuries after and cause permanent damage to most complex life on the planet, Earth's ecosystems, and the global climate.
Let's be clear here. Pre-emptive warfare means that one country will strike another before they have been attacked. Translated that means that if one of those other candidates becomes President they would consider dropping a nuclear weapon on another country on the thought that perhaps that country could be a threat to us. Where are the headlines? Where is the outrage? Where is the humanity? Well, I can answer that last one, it is with Dr. Paul.
It is difficult to get through the morass of disingenuous reporting that insists on calling Dr. Paul names rather than address his policies. But, if you can do it, and if you can find out information about him yourself, you will understand why those of us who support him are so emphatic in our love of this man. He represents all that is good, or was good, about this country. He lives a principled life and will not accept his own Congressional pension even though he has spent ten terms in Congress because he does not want to take one dime away from any American. He sent his children to college but would not let them take out student loans because the government has limited resources and he wanted to make sure that loan money went to small businesses that needed it more than his children. He has been married for 50 years. If that doesn't show commitment I don't know what does.
Dr. Paul is the most moral, upstanding, best hope this country has. Those who have read his writings and seen him speak have learned this. I invite all to do the same. Please click on this link to see his writings and things people have written about him. Find out WHY his campaign is growing so fast, so exponentially, and with so many individual supporters. Find out WHY most of his money comes from donations of less than $250 dollars each and almost none from the big players who want government favors. Find out WHY people become so passionate about a silly politician. Have you ever seen such a thing before?
Dr. Paul offers us all hope. Hope that things can actually change in this country and we will not get another 4 years of the same. Disenfranchised Democrats, who voted expecting their party to end the war only to see the money handed over to continue it, are supporting Dr. Paul. Why? Because Ron Paul voted against the war the first time it was brought up, he voted against it the second time it was brought up and he wants to end it completely now. You can always trust people: you can trust them to act the way they have in the past.
Dr. Paul offers businesses hope out of the morass of paperwork and costs they have had to endure since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. An Act so heinous, it threatens to destroy the very fabric of our capital markets in this country. He offers hope to the small business owner who just wants to try to make it on his own and not get buried in the costs of complying with section 404.
Ron Paul offers hope to the elderly who need to have their Social Security checks. Ron Paul wants to have a separate fund to make sure that Congress cannot raid the money and take it from those who need it most. He also introduced an act to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. He offers all hope that their savings will still have value in 20 years by taking us off a fiat money system and eliminating the possibility that Congress and the Fed can create monetary inflation. He offers hope to the young people by devising a plan whereby they will have the option to opt out of the Social Security system completely. He offers those same young people hope by promising to vote against a draft while the rest of Congress contemplates the idea.
Ron Paul offers hope to all. Hope that things will change. He is not the "usual" politician. He is known as Dr. No in Washington because he will not take money from one group of people just to give it to another. The lobbyists don't even bother knocking on his door. They know better. We need someone unusual. The usual has brought us, well, the usual.
Where else can you find supporters who give up their weekends to make phone calls, spend their Saturdays standing on street corners with signs just so people will hear about their candidate? Where else do find people willing to meet others and work for hours stuffing envelopes, making DVDs and doing it all on their own dime and their own time? All the other candidates keep asking how Ron Paul has garnered this much support on the Internet. He has done nothing. Dr. Paul is more surprised than anyone. The people are doing this all on their own. It is his message of freedom and liberty that is doing the selling. After all, that is the very foundation of our country: A thing the new breed of politician seems to have forgotten. Freedom has been replaced with cameras on every corner and expected groping at the airport. Liberty has been replaced by sneak-and-peek warrants, an end to habeas corpus, expectations to "show me your papers" and Executive decrees that place the President above the law. By the way, Ron Paul also voted against the National ID card.
Ron Paul stands for limited government. For many they think that means he is uncaring. To those who understand, nothing could be further from the truth. Our government does not make anything, create anything or have any means of creating wealth. It has what it has by taking from others by force. When Ron Paul seeks limited government, what he is really asking for is limited coercion over our lives. That is why so many support him. We don’t like being coerced. We like liberty and freedom. And we like Dr. Paul.
So, is Dr. Paul the best kept secret in this campaign? Perhaps he is. One can only hope that it will not be for long. The people need him and need to know he is out there. They need to know he is a choice. With any luck, and continued exponential growth, Ron Paul supporters will soon be strong enough to overtake the media manipulation machine that has done all it can to silence him. As so many have said, what this country needs is a doctor to fix it, not another politician. If his campaign continues to grow you can expect the negative, fact-voided, name-calling articles to continue and get nastier. They will attack him on his most positive stances. They will call him a nut for trying to stop the counterfeiting Federal Reserve so that Americans will have money that holds its value. They will call him insane for trying to end the war in Iraq when 70% of the people have that wish as well. So fight back. Don’t sit there and take it. Don’t let the mainstream steal the one hope of getting out of the mess we are in. Think for yourself and do the research. Don’t let Ron Paul stay secret any longer.
The conversation continued. She wanted to know why she should vote for a person who has no chance. The obvious answer was because Ron Paul offered her everything she wanted. The second not so obvious answer was that he is actually doing much better than anyone knows because the press hides all of his successes. What most people do not know, because the mainstream press is doing its best to manipulate support away from Dr. Paul, is that he won the first debate, he came in second in the second debate, and he came in first in the third debate. In the most recent straw polls Dr. Paul placed second in the Georgetown SC straw poll, he placed second in the Cob County straw poll and he won the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers straw poll at their annual picnic. As of this writing Ron Paul has placed number one in the PajamasMedia straw poll with 70.8% of the votes! Yet, over and over we are subjected to articles that say he has no chance. (This is an oft-used tactic to sway voters away from a candidate because people do not like to "waste" a vote. As if voting for what you want is a waste.)
The mainstream media call his supporters "spammers," attempting to claim that all his Internet support is really just a few folks pressing a lot of buttons. Nonetheless, his "non-existent" support is growing by leaps and bounds. Oh, the big guys may have the big money, but Ron Paul has the people. In one month alone, his Meetup supporters have grown from 16,184 to 25,101 with 4,192 more waiting to join in the fun. He has 643 separate groups. (These figures tend to rise daily; they were accurate at the time this article was written.) These are undeniable signs that the snowball is rolling. When people get through the gauntlet of media attempts to control their thoughts and votes and actually HEAR Ron Paul speak (see videos on YouTube like this one) or read what he has written they become ardent supporters. I dare you to click on that last link of articles he has written and start reading. I double dare you.
Ron Paul brings a sense of decency back into the political arena. He is not out to win the nomination so that he can run your life, he just wants to return this country to the basics of liberty and freedom we once enjoyed and used to fight for. The rest of the candidates, on both sides, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, are willing to use pre-emptive nuclear strikes against other countries. Has it been so long that people have forgotten the horrors of nuclear war? Tens of thousands of innocent civilians die. They get radiation sickness and die horrible deaths. Babies die screaming with burning flesh. Thousands are blinded and left helpless. It is a horrible inhumane thought, let alone action. Incredibly, when asked if they would take the option of a pre-emptive nuclear strike off the table, nearly all the other candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike said no. When Dr. Paul was asked during the last GOP debate on Fox, what he thought was the most pressing moral issue facing our country he stated that it was the idea that all those other candidates were willing to entertain even the thought of pre-emptive nuclear strikes.
Even the most optimistic predictions about the effects of a major nuclear exchange predict the death of millions of civilians within a very short amount of time; more pessimistic predictions argue that a full-scale nuclear war could bring about the extinction of the human race or its near extinction with a handful of survivors (mainly in remote areas) reduced to a pre-medieval quality of life and life expectancy for centuries after and cause permanent damage to most complex life on the planet, Earth's ecosystems, and the global climate.
Let's be clear here. Pre-emptive warfare means that one country will strike another before they have been attacked. Translated that means that if one of those other candidates becomes President they would consider dropping a nuclear weapon on another country on the thought that perhaps that country could be a threat to us. Where are the headlines? Where is the outrage? Where is the humanity? Well, I can answer that last one, it is with Dr. Paul.
It is difficult to get through the morass of disingenuous reporting that insists on calling Dr. Paul names rather than address his policies. But, if you can do it, and if you can find out information about him yourself, you will understand why those of us who support him are so emphatic in our love of this man. He represents all that is good, or was good, about this country. He lives a principled life and will not accept his own Congressional pension even though he has spent ten terms in Congress because he does not want to take one dime away from any American. He sent his children to college but would not let them take out student loans because the government has limited resources and he wanted to make sure that loan money went to small businesses that needed it more than his children. He has been married for 50 years. If that doesn't show commitment I don't know what does.
Dr. Paul is the most moral, upstanding, best hope this country has. Those who have read his writings and seen him speak have learned this. I invite all to do the same. Please click on this link to see his writings and things people have written about him. Find out WHY his campaign is growing so fast, so exponentially, and with so many individual supporters. Find out WHY most of his money comes from donations of less than $250 dollars each and almost none from the big players who want government favors. Find out WHY people become so passionate about a silly politician. Have you ever seen such a thing before?
Dr. Paul offers us all hope. Hope that things can actually change in this country and we will not get another 4 years of the same. Disenfranchised Democrats, who voted expecting their party to end the war only to see the money handed over to continue it, are supporting Dr. Paul. Why? Because Ron Paul voted against the war the first time it was brought up, he voted against it the second time it was brought up and he wants to end it completely now. You can always trust people: you can trust them to act the way they have in the past.
Dr. Paul offers businesses hope out of the morass of paperwork and costs they have had to endure since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. An Act so heinous, it threatens to destroy the very fabric of our capital markets in this country. He offers hope to the small business owner who just wants to try to make it on his own and not get buried in the costs of complying with section 404.
Ron Paul offers hope to the elderly who need to have their Social Security checks. Ron Paul wants to have a separate fund to make sure that Congress cannot raid the money and take it from those who need it most. He also introduced an act to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. He offers all hope that their savings will still have value in 20 years by taking us off a fiat money system and eliminating the possibility that Congress and the Fed can create monetary inflation. He offers hope to the young people by devising a plan whereby they will have the option to opt out of the Social Security system completely. He offers those same young people hope by promising to vote against a draft while the rest of Congress contemplates the idea.
Ron Paul offers hope to all. Hope that things will change. He is not the "usual" politician. He is known as Dr. No in Washington because he will not take money from one group of people just to give it to another. The lobbyists don't even bother knocking on his door. They know better. We need someone unusual. The usual has brought us, well, the usual.
Where else can you find supporters who give up their weekends to make phone calls, spend their Saturdays standing on street corners with signs just so people will hear about their candidate? Where else do find people willing to meet others and work for hours stuffing envelopes, making DVDs and doing it all on their own dime and their own time? All the other candidates keep asking how Ron Paul has garnered this much support on the Internet. He has done nothing. Dr. Paul is more surprised than anyone. The people are doing this all on their own. It is his message of freedom and liberty that is doing the selling. After all, that is the very foundation of our country: A thing the new breed of politician seems to have forgotten. Freedom has been replaced with cameras on every corner and expected groping at the airport. Liberty has been replaced by sneak-and-peek warrants, an end to habeas corpus, expectations to "show me your papers" and Executive decrees that place the President above the law. By the way, Ron Paul also voted against the National ID card.
Ron Paul stands for limited government. For many they think that means he is uncaring. To those who understand, nothing could be further from the truth. Our government does not make anything, create anything or have any means of creating wealth. It has what it has by taking from others by force. When Ron Paul seeks limited government, what he is really asking for is limited coercion over our lives. That is why so many support him. We don’t like being coerced. We like liberty and freedom. And we like Dr. Paul.
So, is Dr. Paul the best kept secret in this campaign? Perhaps he is. One can only hope that it will not be for long. The people need him and need to know he is out there. They need to know he is a choice. With any luck, and continued exponential growth, Ron Paul supporters will soon be strong enough to overtake the media manipulation machine that has done all it can to silence him. As so many have said, what this country needs is a doctor to fix it, not another politician. If his campaign continues to grow you can expect the negative, fact-voided, name-calling articles to continue and get nastier. They will attack him on his most positive stances. They will call him a nut for trying to stop the counterfeiting Federal Reserve so that Americans will have money that holds its value. They will call him insane for trying to end the war in Iraq when 70% of the people have that wish as well. So fight back. Don’t sit there and take it. Don’t let the mainstream steal the one hope of getting out of the mess we are in. Think for yourself and do the research. Don’t let Ron Paul stay secret any longer.
WHAT I THINK....WALTER BLOCK
Here are some reasons, to be refuted, on Ron Paul's chances.
I. Dr. Ron Paul can’t win
1. There's more to life than winning. Even if the Congressman from Texas doesn't win this time, still, he is spreading the libertarian message like pretty much NO ONE else before him. (Yes, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises popularized libertarianism, but none of them did so in the political sphere). Our refusal to support him can't help this campaign. I would think that as a libertarian, we would want to help this effort, whether Dr. Paul wins or not. We should all get behind him as strongly as we can. This is perhaps the best opportunity in a long while to introduce libertarianism to the wider public.
2. Barry Goldwater didn't "win," even though he got the Republican nomination. But, he set the groundwork for Ronald Reagan, who did win, later on. Even if Ron Paul doesn't win, if he does well he can set things up for the next libertarian candidate who can potentially attract masses of people to the libertarian message, and then perhaps even "win." We can all help with this initiative. (I'm not a fan of either Goldwater or Reagan, since I don't regard either as libertarians; I'm only using them as an example to illustrate the point.
3. Don't be sure Ron can't win. No one, right before the fall of the Berlin Wall, or of the USSR, thought that either of these things would happen, even the "experts." No one now thinks Ron can win....
4. Here's the case for Dr. Paul winning the Republican nomination. The Iraqi "police action" deteriorates even further. Ron is the ONLY Republican candidate who will be no Johnny come lately to the anti-war position. Mitt Romney changes his mind on this, but is dismissed as the waffler he is. The others split the pro–Iraqi war Republican vote. One by one they fall out. (Even at this early date, Ron Paul already has more money in the bank than John McCain. Strange, it turns out that the one Congressman who demands fiscal responsibility of this august body is also the only candidate who is responsible with his own money.) Ron sticks it out until the bitter end. He doesn't need as much money as the others, since his supporters are very committed to him. Let's say, finally, it is Ron vs. Jailiani (aka: Gulag Giuliani, Il Duce, Benito Giuliani, Ghouliani, Gestapo Giuliani.) Then, a new scandal erupts (Rudy did drugs, was divorced even more than we think he was, harassed even more innocent businessmen, whatever). Dr. Paul wins the Republican nomination.
In their defense, it cannot be denied, the other Republican candidates will say that the war was not a bad idea but it was badly executed, "and here's how things will be different when I am President." But the American people are not infinitely stupid (even Caplan does not go that far). They have already heard this sort of thing hundreds of times. By the time the primaries are over and the convention begins, they will have heard it even more. Eventually, enough of them will tire of it, particularly as the body bags mount up.
5. Here's the case for Dr. Ron Paul winning the overall election, against whoever the Democrats nominate. Now Ron faces, say, a Hillary–Obama ticket. He kicks their butt, again, over the deteriorating Iraqi war situation. There is no way these war-mongering chameleons will be able to attain the mantle of isolationist foreign policy. With a country heartily sick of U.S. Imperialism, the Republicans hold their noses and vote for Ron against the Hated Hillary. The Democrats desert in droves over the war. It is a super "keep clean for Gene" (McCarthy) scenario. Likely? No. Impossible? Not at all. Ron Paul will actually have a better chance in the general election than in the primaries, much like Rudy.
6. Can't happen? Give me some odds on a bet. (According to some polls, the odds against Ron winning are 200-1). I'm willing to put up $1 against the $200 of all suckers, sorry, I meant takers, that my favorite Texas Congressman will win.
II. Libertarians should be relatively happy with either Thompson or Giuliani, in comparison to any Democrat
Well, maybe this applies to some "libertarians" who believe in pre-emptive war as "defense" and who are weak, to boot, on economic and personal liberties issues. But for real libertarians, the non-aggression principle is and must ever be foremost. That means a strong defense, but not maintaining our stance as policemen of the world. The Thompsons and Giulianis of the world support our present system in which U.S. soldiers are posted in hundreds of other countries as trip wires. Whenever there is a local conflagration, we are involved. This is defense?
We might as well bomb all of Montana, since the monster responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, Timothy McVeigh, came from that state, as attack Afghanistan since there was support for the 9/11 monstrosity in that country. A majority of the slaughterers of the innocent on that day (fifteen out of the nineteen) were born in Saudi Arabia; should we unleash weapons of mass destruction on the entire citizenry of that country?
George Washington’s "Farewell Address" was very libertarian in terms of how we should relate to other nations. He said: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." Thomas Jefferson called for: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Said John Quincy Adams: "America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy… We favor the freedom of all nations, but will fight, only, to protect our own."
As to domestic policy, Dr. Ron Paul wants to wipe all victimless crimes off the books; can the same be said of Messrs. Thompson and Giuliani? To ask this is to answer it. And, as far as economic liberty is concerned, none of the other Republican candidates even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Ron.
III. Libertarians shouldn’t be voting for ANYONE, Ron Paul included, since this goes against their principles
Stuff and nonsense.
If a slave master allows his property to vote between a harsh and a more humane overseer, we are to blame to slaves for choosing the latter? This is a perversion of libertarianism.
Murray N. Rothbard was interviewed on this matter by the New Banner in 1972. Yet, apart from the date, and the mention of the presidential candidates of that day, so fresh is his voice he could well have been talking about Dr. Ron Paul, his good friend and confidant.
NEW BANNER: "Some libertarians have recommended anti-voting activities during the 1972 election. Do you agree with this tactic?"
ROTHBARD: "I'm interested to talk about that. This is the classical anarchist position, there is no doubt about that. The classical anarchist position is that nobody should vote, because if you vote you are participating in a state apparatus. Or if you do vote you should write in your own name, I don't think that there is anything wrong with this tactic in the sense that if there really were a nationwide movement – if five million people, let's say, pledged not to vote. I think it would be very useful. On the other hand, I don't think voting is a real problem. I don't think it's immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people.
"Lysander Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a very effective attack on this idea. The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist's position. You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections. In other words, you're really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy – that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing.
"I don't think this is true, because as Spooner said, people are being placed in a coercive position. They are surrounded by a coercive system; they are surrounded by the state. The state, however, allows you a limited choice – there's no question about the fact that the choice is limited. Since you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn't try to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions. So by voting you can't say that this is a moral choice, a fully voluntary choice, on the part of the public. It's not a fully voluntary situation. It's a situation where you are surrounded by the whole state which you can't vote out of existence. For example, we can't vote the Presidency out of existence – unfortunately, it would be great if we could, but since we can't why not make use of the vote if there is a difference at all between the two people. And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference, incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law sense, every two persons or every two groups of people will be slightly different, at least. So in that case why not make use of it. I don't see that it's immoral to participate in the election provided that you go into it with your eyes open – provided that you don't think that either Nixon or Muskie is the greatest libertarian since Richard Cobden! – which many people, of course, talk themselves into before they go out and vote.
"The second part of my answer is that I don't think that voting is really the question. I really don't care about whether people vote or not. To me the important thing is, who do you support. Who do you hope will win the election? You can be a non-voter and say "I don't want to sanction the state" and not vote, but on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope they'll elect. And it's important, because I think that there is a difference. The Presidency, unfortunately, is of extreme importance. It will be running or directing our lives greatly for four years. So, I see no reason why we shouldn't endorse, or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate. I really don't agree at all with the non-voting position in that sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn't vote: he is also saying that we shouldn't endorse anybody. Will Robert LeFevre, one of the spokesmen of the non-voting approach, will he deep in his heart on election night have any kind of preference at all as the votes come in. Will he cheer slightly or groan more as whoever wins? I don't see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us."
IV. If Ron Paul, somehow, wins, he should immediately abdicate, since it is inconsistent with libertarianism to act as President of the U.S.
First of all, there is such a thing as limited government libertarianism, or minarchism. Although I myself am a staunch anarcho-capitalist, I know and respect the other position. Indeed, it is my opinion that the overwhelming majority of people (properly) calling themselves libertarians (I am otherwise a big-tent libertarian, but I personally find no room in our movement for the so called pro-war "libertarians" in the present context) fall into the former, not the latter, category. In this view, there are legitimate functions of government, namely protection of person and property, and to this end there are three but only three legitimate institutions: armies, to keep foreign enemies at bay, not to initiate attacks on them on the grounds that one day they might attack us; police, to quell domestic rights violators, not to arrest people for engaging in victimless "crimes"; and courts, to distinguish between those who perpetrate aggression and those who are their targets. As long as Dr. Paul pared down the swollen U.S. bureaucracy to match these ends, he would be acting in a manner compatible with our libertarian philosophy.
But, second, I go further. I maintain that it would be licit even for an anarcho-capitalist to take on the role of President of a country, any country. I know full well that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that this office in the U.S. veers toward the latter. Nevertheless, it is not a logical necessity for this to occur. As long as the president limits himself to tearing down illegitimate power, he can be acting in accord not only with minarchism, but also with free market anarchism.
Yes, there are very few people I would trust with such awesome responsibilities. Ron Paul is one of them.
I. Dr. Ron Paul can’t win
1. There's more to life than winning. Even if the Congressman from Texas doesn't win this time, still, he is spreading the libertarian message like pretty much NO ONE else before him. (Yes, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises popularized libertarianism, but none of them did so in the political sphere). Our refusal to support him can't help this campaign. I would think that as a libertarian, we would want to help this effort, whether Dr. Paul wins or not. We should all get behind him as strongly as we can. This is perhaps the best opportunity in a long while to introduce libertarianism to the wider public.
2. Barry Goldwater didn't "win," even though he got the Republican nomination. But, he set the groundwork for Ronald Reagan, who did win, later on. Even if Ron Paul doesn't win, if he does well he can set things up for the next libertarian candidate who can potentially attract masses of people to the libertarian message, and then perhaps even "win." We can all help with this initiative. (I'm not a fan of either Goldwater or Reagan, since I don't regard either as libertarians; I'm only using them as an example to illustrate the point.
3. Don't be sure Ron can't win. No one, right before the fall of the Berlin Wall, or of the USSR, thought that either of these things would happen, even the "experts." No one now thinks Ron can win....
4. Here's the case for Dr. Paul winning the Republican nomination. The Iraqi "police action" deteriorates even further. Ron is the ONLY Republican candidate who will be no Johnny come lately to the anti-war position. Mitt Romney changes his mind on this, but is dismissed as the waffler he is. The others split the pro–Iraqi war Republican vote. One by one they fall out. (Even at this early date, Ron Paul already has more money in the bank than John McCain. Strange, it turns out that the one Congressman who demands fiscal responsibility of this august body is also the only candidate who is responsible with his own money.) Ron sticks it out until the bitter end. He doesn't need as much money as the others, since his supporters are very committed to him. Let's say, finally, it is Ron vs. Jailiani (aka: Gulag Giuliani, Il Duce, Benito Giuliani, Ghouliani, Gestapo Giuliani.) Then, a new scandal erupts (Rudy did drugs, was divorced even more than we think he was, harassed even more innocent businessmen, whatever). Dr. Paul wins the Republican nomination.
In their defense, it cannot be denied, the other Republican candidates will say that the war was not a bad idea but it was badly executed, "and here's how things will be different when I am President." But the American people are not infinitely stupid (even Caplan does not go that far). They have already heard this sort of thing hundreds of times. By the time the primaries are over and the convention begins, they will have heard it even more. Eventually, enough of them will tire of it, particularly as the body bags mount up.
5. Here's the case for Dr. Ron Paul winning the overall election, against whoever the Democrats nominate. Now Ron faces, say, a Hillary–Obama ticket. He kicks their butt, again, over the deteriorating Iraqi war situation. There is no way these war-mongering chameleons will be able to attain the mantle of isolationist foreign policy. With a country heartily sick of U.S. Imperialism, the Republicans hold their noses and vote for Ron against the Hated Hillary. The Democrats desert in droves over the war. It is a super "keep clean for Gene" (McCarthy) scenario. Likely? No. Impossible? Not at all. Ron Paul will actually have a better chance in the general election than in the primaries, much like Rudy.
6. Can't happen? Give me some odds on a bet. (According to some polls, the odds against Ron winning are 200-1). I'm willing to put up $1 against the $200 of all suckers, sorry, I meant takers, that my favorite Texas Congressman will win.
II. Libertarians should be relatively happy with either Thompson or Giuliani, in comparison to any Democrat
Well, maybe this applies to some "libertarians" who believe in pre-emptive war as "defense" and who are weak, to boot, on economic and personal liberties issues. But for real libertarians, the non-aggression principle is and must ever be foremost. That means a strong defense, but not maintaining our stance as policemen of the world. The Thompsons and Giulianis of the world support our present system in which U.S. soldiers are posted in hundreds of other countries as trip wires. Whenever there is a local conflagration, we are involved. This is defense?
We might as well bomb all of Montana, since the monster responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, Timothy McVeigh, came from that state, as attack Afghanistan since there was support for the 9/11 monstrosity in that country. A majority of the slaughterers of the innocent on that day (fifteen out of the nineteen) were born in Saudi Arabia; should we unleash weapons of mass destruction on the entire citizenry of that country?
George Washington’s "Farewell Address" was very libertarian in terms of how we should relate to other nations. He said: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." Thomas Jefferson called for: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Said John Quincy Adams: "America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy… We favor the freedom of all nations, but will fight, only, to protect our own."
As to domestic policy, Dr. Ron Paul wants to wipe all victimless crimes off the books; can the same be said of Messrs. Thompson and Giuliani? To ask this is to answer it. And, as far as economic liberty is concerned, none of the other Republican candidates even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Ron.
III. Libertarians shouldn’t be voting for ANYONE, Ron Paul included, since this goes against their principles
Stuff and nonsense.
If a slave master allows his property to vote between a harsh and a more humane overseer, we are to blame to slaves for choosing the latter? This is a perversion of libertarianism.
Murray N. Rothbard was interviewed on this matter by the New Banner in 1972. Yet, apart from the date, and the mention of the presidential candidates of that day, so fresh is his voice he could well have been talking about Dr. Ron Paul, his good friend and confidant.
NEW BANNER: "Some libertarians have recommended anti-voting activities during the 1972 election. Do you agree with this tactic?"
ROTHBARD: "I'm interested to talk about that. This is the classical anarchist position, there is no doubt about that. The classical anarchist position is that nobody should vote, because if you vote you are participating in a state apparatus. Or if you do vote you should write in your own name, I don't think that there is anything wrong with this tactic in the sense that if there really were a nationwide movement – if five million people, let's say, pledged not to vote. I think it would be very useful. On the other hand, I don't think voting is a real problem. I don't think it's immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people.
"Lysander Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a very effective attack on this idea. The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist's position. You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections. In other words, you're really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy – that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing.
"I don't think this is true, because as Spooner said, people are being placed in a coercive position. They are surrounded by a coercive system; they are surrounded by the state. The state, however, allows you a limited choice – there's no question about the fact that the choice is limited. Since you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn't try to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions. So by voting you can't say that this is a moral choice, a fully voluntary choice, on the part of the public. It's not a fully voluntary situation. It's a situation where you are surrounded by the whole state which you can't vote out of existence. For example, we can't vote the Presidency out of existence – unfortunately, it would be great if we could, but since we can't why not make use of the vote if there is a difference at all between the two people. And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference, incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law sense, every two persons or every two groups of people will be slightly different, at least. So in that case why not make use of it. I don't see that it's immoral to participate in the election provided that you go into it with your eyes open – provided that you don't think that either Nixon or Muskie is the greatest libertarian since Richard Cobden! – which many people, of course, talk themselves into before they go out and vote.
"The second part of my answer is that I don't think that voting is really the question. I really don't care about whether people vote or not. To me the important thing is, who do you support. Who do you hope will win the election? You can be a non-voter and say "I don't want to sanction the state" and not vote, but on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope they'll elect. And it's important, because I think that there is a difference. The Presidency, unfortunately, is of extreme importance. It will be running or directing our lives greatly for four years. So, I see no reason why we shouldn't endorse, or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate. I really don't agree at all with the non-voting position in that sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn't vote: he is also saying that we shouldn't endorse anybody. Will Robert LeFevre, one of the spokesmen of the non-voting approach, will he deep in his heart on election night have any kind of preference at all as the votes come in. Will he cheer slightly or groan more as whoever wins? I don't see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us."
IV. If Ron Paul, somehow, wins, he should immediately abdicate, since it is inconsistent with libertarianism to act as President of the U.S.
First of all, there is such a thing as limited government libertarianism, or minarchism. Although I myself am a staunch anarcho-capitalist, I know and respect the other position. Indeed, it is my opinion that the overwhelming majority of people (properly) calling themselves libertarians (I am otherwise a big-tent libertarian, but I personally find no room in our movement for the so called pro-war "libertarians" in the present context) fall into the former, not the latter, category. In this view, there are legitimate functions of government, namely protection of person and property, and to this end there are three but only three legitimate institutions: armies, to keep foreign enemies at bay, not to initiate attacks on them on the grounds that one day they might attack us; police, to quell domestic rights violators, not to arrest people for engaging in victimless "crimes"; and courts, to distinguish between those who perpetrate aggression and those who are their targets. As long as Dr. Paul pared down the swollen U.S. bureaucracy to match these ends, he would be acting in a manner compatible with our libertarian philosophy.
But, second, I go further. I maintain that it would be licit even for an anarcho-capitalist to take on the role of President of a country, any country. I know full well that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that this office in the U.S. veers toward the latter. Nevertheless, it is not a logical necessity for this to occur. As long as the president limits himself to tearing down illegitimate power, he can be acting in accord not only with minarchism, but also with free market anarchism.
Yes, there are very few people I would trust with such awesome responsibilities. Ron Paul is one of them.
Wednesday
THE FEAR FACTOR
While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.
Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.
The statement “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is clear, people seek out safety and security when they are in a state of fear, and it is the result of this psychological state that often leads to the surrender of liberty.
As Washington moves towards it summer legislative recess, indications of fear are apparent. Things seem similar to the days before the war in Iraq. Prior to the beginning of the war, several government officials began using phrases like “we don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and they spoke of drone airplanes being sent to our country to do us great harm.
It is hard to overstate the damage this approach does psychologically, especially to younger people. Of course, we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, let alone any capacity to put them to successful use.
To calm fears, Americans accepted the patriot act and the doctrine of pre-emptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports and even limited the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the twilight zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.
Paranoia can be treated, but the loss of liberty resulting from the social psychology to which we continue to subject ourselves is not easily reversed. People who would have previously battled against encroachments on civil liberties now explain the “necessity” of those “temporary security measures” Franklin is said to have railed against.
Americans must reflect on their irrational fears if we are to turn the tide against the steady erosion of our freedoms. Fear is the enemy. The logically confusing admonition to “fear only fear” does not help, instead we must battle against irrational fear and the fear-mongers who promote it.
It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant to real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.
Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.
The statement “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is clear, people seek out safety and security when they are in a state of fear, and it is the result of this psychological state that often leads to the surrender of liberty.
As Washington moves towards it summer legislative recess, indications of fear are apparent. Things seem similar to the days before the war in Iraq. Prior to the beginning of the war, several government officials began using phrases like “we don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and they spoke of drone airplanes being sent to our country to do us great harm.
It is hard to overstate the damage this approach does psychologically, especially to younger people. Of course, we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, let alone any capacity to put them to successful use.
To calm fears, Americans accepted the patriot act and the doctrine of pre-emptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports and even limited the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the twilight zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.
Paranoia can be treated, but the loss of liberty resulting from the social psychology to which we continue to subject ourselves is not easily reversed. People who would have previously battled against encroachments on civil liberties now explain the “necessity” of those “temporary security measures” Franklin is said to have railed against.
Americans must reflect on their irrational fears if we are to turn the tide against the steady erosion of our freedoms. Fear is the enemy. The logically confusing admonition to “fear only fear” does not help, instead we must battle against irrational fear and the fear-mongers who promote it.
It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant to real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
