A Statement to the House Banking Committee, February 26, 2008
Mr. Chairman,
Price controls are almost universally reviled by economists. The negative economic consequences of price floors or price ceilings are numerous and well-documented. Our current series of hearings have been called to discuss the most important, but least understood, price manipulation in the world today: the manipulation of the interest rate.
By setting the federal funds rate, the rate at which banks in the Federal Reserve System loan funds to each other, the Federal Reserve inhibits the actions of market participants coming together to determine a market interest rate. The Federal Reserve and the federal government do not deign to interfere in setting the price of houses, the interest rate on mortgages, or the prices of wood and steel. The Fed’s actions in setting the federal funds rate however, because it reflects the price of money to a borrower and thus affects demand for money, affects prices throughout the economy in a manner less pervasive but just as damaging as direct price controls.
The example of the Soviet Union should have taught us that no one person, no group of people, no matter how scientifically trained, can arbitrarily set prices and not expect economic havoc. Only the spontaneous interaction of market participants can lead to the development of a functioning price system that allows the needs and wants of all participants to be met. The sense I get from reading much of the punditry is that the federal funds rate is set often by the whims of the Federal Reserve governors. Even mechanistic explanations such as the Taylor Rule rely on inputs that are often left up to the discretion of the Fed policymakers: what is the potential GDP, do we use CPI or PCE, overall CPI versus CPI less energy and food, etc.
The setting of the interest rate strikes me as quite similar to the way FDR used to set gold prices in the 1930’s, at his whim, resulting in economic havoc and uncertainty. When market actors have to devote much of their time to discerning the mindset of government price-setters, to parsing FOMC statements and minutes, they are necessarily diverted from productive economic activity. They cease to become purely economic actors and are forced to become political forecasters. This is not a problem isolated to this particular case, as businesses are forced to reckon with tax increases, expiring tax credits, import tariffs, subsidies to competitors, etc.
However, because the interest rate determines the cost of borrowing and therefore determines whether or not marginal long-term business investments are undertaken, this politicized interest rate manipulation has far more impact than other government policies.
This setting of the interest rate introduces the business cycle into the economy. Until we understand the results these Federal Reserve actions have, we will be doomed to repeat these periods of boom and bust. I urge my colleagues to study this matter, and to resist the urge for greater Federal Reserve intervention in the market.
Thursday
Monday
TAXES AND TOLLS ON THE TRANS TEXAS CORRIDOR
One major concern I discussed a few weeks ago regarding the Trans Texas Corridor is where the land will come from. Another concern is where the money will come from. Official government websites for the TTC assure that public-private partnerships will shield the taxpayer from bearing too much of the cost burden, but a careful reading shows the door is definitely open to public funding sources, while at the same time there is no doubt of the intention to charge tolls on the road.
Taxpayers already pay for their transportation system through hefty gasoline taxes, vehicle registration fees, and other fees. They have every right to expect the roads they have already paid for to be properly maintained and toll-free.
However, private foreign corporations have flocked to this country eager to participate in toll collection on our poorly managed toll roads, and they make a lot of money doing so. Taking over the management and maintenance of an existing toll road is one thing. Converting taxpayer built roads into cash cows for big corporations is quite another. Using eminent domain to take privately owned land, and taxpayer funding to build a highway that is designed to bring in private revenue is nothing short of highway robbery.
Cintra/Zachry, a private Spanish firm, is poised to make billions from TTC tolls. Yet my fear is that as planning progresses, more and more public burden will creep into the process, and more profit will be pledged to the private corporation. The costs will be socialized and the profits will be privatized.
And to add insult to injury – private lands will be taken for this road which will be, for all intents and purposes, a private business. The government should not use the power of eminent domain to seize and redistribute land for the benefit of a private company. This is wrong and unconstitutional. Cintra Zachry should negotiate with each individual land owner and go through the normal private land acquisition process to start its new business. If mutual agreements can be reached, fine. If not, government force is not appropriate. Our government should protect property rights, not facilitate theft.
Toll roads should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars, or even bond funding that pledge future tax dollars. Taxpayers should not have to pay additional fees for something they have already paid for. Eminent domain should absolutely not be used for private businesses. This public-private partnership has all the makings of the worst of both worlds. I am doing my part at the Federal level in Congress to limit the damage to the taxpayer. I introduced a bill in that prohibits the use of federal funding for any part of the TTC and I will continue to push for this bill, and other bills protecting property rights, taxpayers rights and our national sovereignty. The government should not fund and enforce private efforts like this and thumb their nose at land owners and taxpayers.
Taxpayers already pay for their transportation system through hefty gasoline taxes, vehicle registration fees, and other fees. They have every right to expect the roads they have already paid for to be properly maintained and toll-free.
However, private foreign corporations have flocked to this country eager to participate in toll collection on our poorly managed toll roads, and they make a lot of money doing so. Taking over the management and maintenance of an existing toll road is one thing. Converting taxpayer built roads into cash cows for big corporations is quite another. Using eminent domain to take privately owned land, and taxpayer funding to build a highway that is designed to bring in private revenue is nothing short of highway robbery.
Cintra/Zachry, a private Spanish firm, is poised to make billions from TTC tolls. Yet my fear is that as planning progresses, more and more public burden will creep into the process, and more profit will be pledged to the private corporation. The costs will be socialized and the profits will be privatized.
And to add insult to injury – private lands will be taken for this road which will be, for all intents and purposes, a private business. The government should not use the power of eminent domain to seize and redistribute land for the benefit of a private company. This is wrong and unconstitutional. Cintra Zachry should negotiate with each individual land owner and go through the normal private land acquisition process to start its new business. If mutual agreements can be reached, fine. If not, government force is not appropriate. Our government should protect property rights, not facilitate theft.
Toll roads should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars, or even bond funding that pledge future tax dollars. Taxpayers should not have to pay additional fees for something they have already paid for. Eminent domain should absolutely not be used for private businesses. This public-private partnership has all the makings of the worst of both worlds. I am doing my part at the Federal level in Congress to limit the damage to the taxpayer. I introduced a bill in that prohibits the use of federal funding for any part of the TTC and I will continue to push for this bill, and other bills protecting property rights, taxpayers rights and our national sovereignty. The government should not fund and enforce private efforts like this and thumb their nose at land owners and taxpayers.
Wednesday
IF WE SUBSIDIZE THEM...
For decades we have welcomed new immigrants to our American "melting pot". We respect those who come here peacefully to pursue their American Dream. But Americans have noticed lately that modern problems associated with illegal immigration are at a crisis point. Taxpayers are now suffering the consequences.
Costs of social services for the estimated 21 million illegal immigrants in this country are approaching $400 billion. We educate 4.2 million children of illegals at a cost of $13.8 billion. There have been almost 2 million anchor babies born in this country since 2002, with labor and delivery costs of between $3 and 6 billion. There are currently 360,000 illegals in our prisons and we have spent $1.4 billion to incarcerate them since 2001. In Prince William County near DC, ICE can't deport criminal illegals fast enough and has actually asked its local jails to slow down on referring them. Jurisdiction over illegal immigration lies at the federal level, yet many municipalities are struggling with the compounding problems of mandated costs and tied hands. My office has heard from at least one sheriff in my district considering seeking compensation from the Federal government for the cost of so many illegal immigrant inmates that wouldn't be here if the Federal government was doing its job and protecting our borders. The problems are widespread.
One thing is certain: If we subsidize them, they will come. We have rolled out the social services red carpet, so it is no surprise that many from other countries are eager to come take advantage of our very generous system.
We must return to the American principle of personal responsibility. We must expect those who come here to take care of themselves and respect our laws. Not only is this the right thing to do for our overtaxed citizens, but we simply have no choice. We can't afford these policies anymore. Since we are $60 trillion in debt, there should be no taxpayer-paid benefits for non-citizens. My bill, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act, stops non-citizens from collecting Social Security Benefits. This bill, by the way, picked up three new cosponsors this week and is gaining momentum. Also, we should not be awarding automatic citizenship to children born here minutes after their mothers illegally cross the border. It just doesn't make sense. The practice of birthright citizenship is an aberration of the original intent of the 14th amendment, the purpose of which was never to allow lawbreakers to bleed taxpayers of welfare benefits. I have introduced HJ Res 46 to address this loophole. Other Western countries such as Australia , France , and England have stopped birth-right citizenship. It is only reasonable that we do the same. We must also empower local and state officials to deal with problems the Federal government can't or won't address. Actions like this are a matter of national security at this point.
Illegal immigration is draining and frustrating the American taxpayer. I will continue to work for a solution that does not reward those who break our laws.
Costs of social services for the estimated 21 million illegal immigrants in this country are approaching $400 billion. We educate 4.2 million children of illegals at a cost of $13.8 billion. There have been almost 2 million anchor babies born in this country since 2002, with labor and delivery costs of between $3 and 6 billion. There are currently 360,000 illegals in our prisons and we have spent $1.4 billion to incarcerate them since 2001. In Prince William County near DC, ICE can't deport criminal illegals fast enough and has actually asked its local jails to slow down on referring them. Jurisdiction over illegal immigration lies at the federal level, yet many municipalities are struggling with the compounding problems of mandated costs and tied hands. My office has heard from at least one sheriff in my district considering seeking compensation from the Federal government for the cost of so many illegal immigrant inmates that wouldn't be here if the Federal government was doing its job and protecting our borders. The problems are widespread.
One thing is certain: If we subsidize them, they will come. We have rolled out the social services red carpet, so it is no surprise that many from other countries are eager to come take advantage of our very generous system.
We must return to the American principle of personal responsibility. We must expect those who come here to take care of themselves and respect our laws. Not only is this the right thing to do for our overtaxed citizens, but we simply have no choice. We can't afford these policies anymore. Since we are $60 trillion in debt, there should be no taxpayer-paid benefits for non-citizens. My bill, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act, stops non-citizens from collecting Social Security Benefits. This bill, by the way, picked up three new cosponsors this week and is gaining momentum. Also, we should not be awarding automatic citizenship to children born here minutes after their mothers illegally cross the border. It just doesn't make sense. The practice of birthright citizenship is an aberration of the original intent of the 14th amendment, the purpose of which was never to allow lawbreakers to bleed taxpayers of welfare benefits. I have introduced HJ Res 46 to address this loophole. Other Western countries such as Australia , France , and England have stopped birth-right citizenship. It is only reasonable that we do the same. We must also empower local and state officials to deal with problems the Federal government can't or won't address. Actions like this are a matter of national security at this point.
Illegal immigration is draining and frustrating the American taxpayer. I will continue to work for a solution that does not reward those who break our laws.
Friday
LET'S LEGALIZE COMPETING CURRENCIES
Speech before the US House of Representatives, February 13, 2008
I rise to speak on the concept of competing currencies. Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk. Money makes the transaction process far easier. Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes.
This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties: it should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for everyday transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange.
Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people. Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce. It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments. A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government. Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses.
At this country's founding, there was no government-controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established. In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint's operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades.
On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don't steal – the government hates competition.” Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. Just as we have gone from a constitutionally instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to introduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.
The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts. States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws. We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender. Yet, there is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender.
Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency. Gresham's Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase: bad money drives out good money. An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold. Each ounce of the king's gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much “money” to spend on building castles and raising armies. As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded. We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the US government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver. The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation.
These actions also give rise to the most pernicious effects of inflation. Most of the merchants and peasants who received this devalued currency felt the full effects of inflation, the rise in prices and the lowered standard of living, before they received any of the new currency. By the time they received the new currency, prices had long since doubled, and the new currency they received would give them no benefit.
In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham's Law no longer holds. If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society. Merchants would have been free to reject the king's coin and accept only coins containing full metal weight.
The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints. One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service this past November. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition.
The sections of US Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California. California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no US Mint to mint coinage. There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins. As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and in the interest of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency.
The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins. Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes. Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent. Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement. As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases. The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly. Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals.
Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the state level in many states. Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry. Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money, but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 4% per year. Sales taxes in many states can take away 8% or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies.
I rise to speak on the concept of competing currencies. Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk. Money makes the transaction process far easier. Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes.
This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties: it should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for everyday transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange.
Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people. Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce. It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments. A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government. Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses.
At this country's founding, there was no government-controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established. In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint's operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades.
On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don't steal – the government hates competition.” Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. Just as we have gone from a constitutionally instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to introduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.
The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts. States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws. We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender. Yet, there is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender.
Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency. Gresham's Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase: bad money drives out good money. An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold. Each ounce of the king's gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much “money” to spend on building castles and raising armies. As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded. We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the US government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver. The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation.
These actions also give rise to the most pernicious effects of inflation. Most of the merchants and peasants who received this devalued currency felt the full effects of inflation, the rise in prices and the lowered standard of living, before they received any of the new currency. By the time they received the new currency, prices had long since doubled, and the new currency they received would give them no benefit.
In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham's Law no longer holds. If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society. Merchants would have been free to reject the king's coin and accept only coins containing full metal weight.
The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints. One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service this past November. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition.
The sections of US Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California. California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no US Mint to mint coinage. There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins. As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and in the interest of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency.
The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins. Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes. Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent. Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement. As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases. The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly. Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals.
Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the state level in many states. Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry. Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money, but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 4% per year. Sales taxes in many states can take away 8% or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies.
Thursday
WHAT I THINK....BILL SARDI
You are a woman, maybe a feminist. This election a woman is running for President. You feel it’s your gender’s turn.
You are an ethnic or racial minority and a man with dark skin is running for President. You feel it’s about time.
You are a negative voter. You vote against candidates you abhor, like Hillary, more than you vote for a candidate’s platform. So you settle for the candidate of the opposing major party.
You are a patriotic American, you don’t want cutbacks in military spending, and you want a "kick ass" President who will show the world America is boss. You vote for the ex-military man, McCain.
You are, like most Americans, reading about the new billionaires who founded Google, or you read about the tax breaks the rich are getting. When Democratic Party candidates say they will tax the rich to fund universal health care, you buy into the idea. It’s only fair.
You are never informed the "rich," the top 25 or 30 percent of wage earners, already pay most of the government’s bills, about 70% of taxes. The recent tax rebate, to stimulate the economy, was a government giveaway to many people who paid little or no taxes. The people who paid most of the taxes got no rebate.
You are a Christian. You want a President that breathes the rhetoric of God. You want a President who will continue to pursue the Islamist fascists, spawned by "towel head" Muslims whose competing religion is spreading fast. Your vote goes to Huckabee.
You are among the one-third of American homeowners who refinanced their homes as values rose, pulling $1 trillion out of equity that temporarily catapulted the economy, but you now face a variable interest rate mortgage that is about to rise. Or you bought a home with no down payment and now you face foreclosure. You’re not sure which Presidential candidate addresses your plight. Nor are you assured it won’t happen again.
You receive a tax refund this year, and you’ve got a bit more money to pay off your credit cards, till 2009, when yet another slowdown in consumer spending will occur, predictably right after the November election. The loans most likely to go into foreclosure have been frozen so everything will appear normal for the election.
Suddenly you realize, the war in Iraq, which was so overwhelmingly opposed, has now, somehow, been relegated to a side issue in the Presidential election. Military deaths in Iraq have suddenly declined. There are fewer roadside bombings, as if orchestrated on cue. Only one remaining candidate claims he will withdraw troops and put a halt to the growing and perpetual war-based economy. This fact escapes your attention. Your attention has been drawn away from the war and towards issues like universal health care.
Whom will voters choose?
The politically correct voter will opt for Hillary or Obama.
The negative voter will vote against Hillary.
The lower income voters, the masses, will likely fall for the carrot at the end of the stick and vote to tax the rich in hopes for universal health care. (A mandated health care plan in Massachusetts is already in financial trouble and a California plan had to be tabled when it became clear it could not be launched at a time when the economy is souring.)
The ship of state is sinking
Are any of these candidates prepared to correct course and keep the ship of state from sinking? Sinking? Yes, the greatest success story in economic history is about to capsize and drag the rest of the world into a watery grave with it.
Most voters really haven’t a clue what is really happening to America. You are being swayed by an orchestrated campaign by the news media that you cannot fathom. The TV networks want to create an image that everything is OK, so consumers will keep buying goods and services from the sponsors of the TV programs. The national brain-washing machine, the TV set, is how this consumer propaganda is communicated. Living beyond one’s means has become the norm in America.
America can be likened to a cruise ship that is taking on water faster than it can be bailed out. If the issue in your mind is whether the ship’s captain is female, or black, or is willing to offer more free services while on your cruise, or wants to mount more machine guns on the deck to deter terrorists, you are completely distracted from the imminent crisis that confronts America.
The ship’s captain may continue to issue assurances from the helm, but not only is the boat taking on water, it is headed for an iceberg! The news media is akin to the public address system on the ship. Keep the people distracted from the real danger that lies ahead. No sense panicking the customers.
Certain sinking
The unseen danger that lies ahead is the $60 trillion of unfunded obligations for Medicare and Social Security, says economist John Williams. The unfunded obligations of the federal government have risen from $20 trillion in 2000, when George Bush took office, to these now unprecedented levels.
Bush now assures Americans his pick for a successor is John McCain, who best espouses conservative views. Do true conservatives spend money that can never possibly be repaid, or make promises that can never be delivered?
Survival of the republic is at stake
David Walker, comptroller general of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, says the survival of the republic is at stake.
Walker has given up pleading with politicians and is taking up his bullhorn to warn the public directly. But the public, like sheep, is relying on the direction of their shepherds.
Taxing the rich won’t pay for universal health care, nor for the shortfalls of Medicare and Social Security. Over a 10-year period, elimination of tax cuts would only bring in an additional $3 trillion.
The people on this ship of state don’t recognize the greatest expense that is being hidden from view.
A military state
The biggest line item in the U.S. budget is defense (war) spending. The U.S. government commonly publishes a pie chart showing defense spending is about 20% of the U.S. annual budget, when it is actually 54%. According to the War Resisters League, out of a 3-trillion annual budget, the U.S. spends a whopping $1.449 trillion on war and when combined with debt payments for prior wars, the total outlays for war represent $2.650 trillion. Imagine half the cost of your cruise ship ticket is for security guards. The U.S. has become a military state without full recognition by its populace.
Despite this, emails will circulate the internet claiming that Hillary Clinton will scale back defense spending, putting our troops at risk. Patriotic American believe this.
Printing play money
To return to the ship of state analogy, the captain of the ship recognizes you might run out of money before the ship returns to its home port and has come up with a stunning idea. Print certificates that will be honored as real money below decks and have the ship’s purser divvy it out as a loan to everyone on board. Brilliant!
Passengers can now keep purchasing trinkets, jewelry and clothes from the ship’s many onboard shops. This is akin to the economic stimulus plan just approved by Congress.
But this amounts to nothing more than play money. Worse yet, when the print shop on board prints the money, it hands it over to the ship’s purser for the cost of printing, and he marks it up and cuts himself in for a profit before he lends it out to the passengers. This is like a hidden charge on your credit card bill. The passengers (citizens) don’t fully realize as they spend the money it will be added to their collective credit card in the form of the national debt. The next generation will face this bill.
Hidden charges
This is analogous to the way the U.S. mint prints money, hands it to private bankers, called The Federal Reserve, which then takes a cut before loaning out money to banks so people can buy homes, cars, and re-finance their homes. Americans pay more for everything because of this.
John F. Kennedy recognized the folly of renting money from a private bank rather than distributing it out directly to the public from the U.S. Mint. Kennedy foresaw a day when the U.S. would be mired in hopeless debt.
In 1963 Kennedy went around the Federal Reserve Bank and printed $4 billion of U.S. Notes, subverting the Federal Reserve Notes then in circulation. Kennedy was shot in Dallas in 1963 and the $4 billion of U.S. Notes quietly withdrawn from circulation.
Only one candidate is prepared to take the helm.
The only Presidential candidate who has the resolve to pull America out of this mess, and to keep the ship of state afloat, is Congressman Ron Paul. The TV networks have shunned Congressman Paul because his economic reforms, elimination of the Federal Reserve, down-sizing of the Federal government, dissolution of the Internal Revenue Service, and withdrawal from a war-based economy, would lead to the very demise of the TV networks that rely upon this ongoing ruse to stay in business. So the deception continues. You are being conned, and a huge bill is being rung up on the collective public credit card that you and your children will have to pay.
None of the Presidential candidates, save for Ron Paul, is prepared to save America.
America is on the brink of becoming a second-rate nation. With the devaluation of the American dollar, now worth around 65 cents in world trade, the moneyed nations, China, Japan and Indonesia, that provide America with most of the goods that consumers buy, are thinking of buying other currencies. When this occurs, the entire world economy collapses.
First no money, then no jobs
The public doesn’t recognize that our trading partners hold billions of U.S. dollars in exchange for the goods and services they have provided America. If these countries don’t lend the money back to America, there will be no money to buy more homes and automobiles. Then there will be no jobs.
Can’t we just print more money?
I can hear it now. Some naïve American will ask, "Can’t we just print more money?" That’s how we got into this mess in the first place. More money chasing the same goods and services produces inflation. $5 boxes of cereal are already in the offing. If your great-great grandfather left your family with $25,000 in his will in 1900, it would only be worth about $1042 today (2005 figures). Bankers, via inflation, rob money out of your bank account. "What about raising the minimum wage, like Obama and Clinton promise?" Same outcome – inflation. You’ll be paying $10 for a fast-food hamburger, like they do in Tokyo.
Can America pull out of this mess? Another major economy hasn’t been able to. Mark Gongloff, writing in The Wall Street Journal, says "The Japanese stock market first reached the 13000 mark in July 1985. Japan’s Nikkei index closed at 13017 last week. In between there was a stock market bubble, a real-estate bubble, a credit crunch, a messing banking sector cleanup, super-low interest rates and a series of short-term stimulus packages that solved nothing."
Sound familiar?
Go ahead, vote for your favorite candidate. Sink the American ship of state for sure. You have now been informed. To continue to ignore this deception makes you a party to the crime. Pirates have boarded the ship and taken the helm and you are aiding and abetting them.
You are an ethnic or racial minority and a man with dark skin is running for President. You feel it’s about time.
You are a negative voter. You vote against candidates you abhor, like Hillary, more than you vote for a candidate’s platform. So you settle for the candidate of the opposing major party.
You are a patriotic American, you don’t want cutbacks in military spending, and you want a "kick ass" President who will show the world America is boss. You vote for the ex-military man, McCain.
You are, like most Americans, reading about the new billionaires who founded Google, or you read about the tax breaks the rich are getting. When Democratic Party candidates say they will tax the rich to fund universal health care, you buy into the idea. It’s only fair.
You are never informed the "rich," the top 25 or 30 percent of wage earners, already pay most of the government’s bills, about 70% of taxes. The recent tax rebate, to stimulate the economy, was a government giveaway to many people who paid little or no taxes. The people who paid most of the taxes got no rebate.
You are a Christian. You want a President that breathes the rhetoric of God. You want a President who will continue to pursue the Islamist fascists, spawned by "towel head" Muslims whose competing religion is spreading fast. Your vote goes to Huckabee.
You are among the one-third of American homeowners who refinanced their homes as values rose, pulling $1 trillion out of equity that temporarily catapulted the economy, but you now face a variable interest rate mortgage that is about to rise. Or you bought a home with no down payment and now you face foreclosure. You’re not sure which Presidential candidate addresses your plight. Nor are you assured it won’t happen again.
You receive a tax refund this year, and you’ve got a bit more money to pay off your credit cards, till 2009, when yet another slowdown in consumer spending will occur, predictably right after the November election. The loans most likely to go into foreclosure have been frozen so everything will appear normal for the election.
Suddenly you realize, the war in Iraq, which was so overwhelmingly opposed, has now, somehow, been relegated to a side issue in the Presidential election. Military deaths in Iraq have suddenly declined. There are fewer roadside bombings, as if orchestrated on cue. Only one remaining candidate claims he will withdraw troops and put a halt to the growing and perpetual war-based economy. This fact escapes your attention. Your attention has been drawn away from the war and towards issues like universal health care.
Whom will voters choose?
The politically correct voter will opt for Hillary or Obama.
The negative voter will vote against Hillary.
The lower income voters, the masses, will likely fall for the carrot at the end of the stick and vote to tax the rich in hopes for universal health care. (A mandated health care plan in Massachusetts is already in financial trouble and a California plan had to be tabled when it became clear it could not be launched at a time when the economy is souring.)
The ship of state is sinking
Are any of these candidates prepared to correct course and keep the ship of state from sinking? Sinking? Yes, the greatest success story in economic history is about to capsize and drag the rest of the world into a watery grave with it.
Most voters really haven’t a clue what is really happening to America. You are being swayed by an orchestrated campaign by the news media that you cannot fathom. The TV networks want to create an image that everything is OK, so consumers will keep buying goods and services from the sponsors of the TV programs. The national brain-washing machine, the TV set, is how this consumer propaganda is communicated. Living beyond one’s means has become the norm in America.
America can be likened to a cruise ship that is taking on water faster than it can be bailed out. If the issue in your mind is whether the ship’s captain is female, or black, or is willing to offer more free services while on your cruise, or wants to mount more machine guns on the deck to deter terrorists, you are completely distracted from the imminent crisis that confronts America.
The ship’s captain may continue to issue assurances from the helm, but not only is the boat taking on water, it is headed for an iceberg! The news media is akin to the public address system on the ship. Keep the people distracted from the real danger that lies ahead. No sense panicking the customers.
Certain sinking
The unseen danger that lies ahead is the $60 trillion of unfunded obligations for Medicare and Social Security, says economist John Williams. The unfunded obligations of the federal government have risen from $20 trillion in 2000, when George Bush took office, to these now unprecedented levels.
Bush now assures Americans his pick for a successor is John McCain, who best espouses conservative views. Do true conservatives spend money that can never possibly be repaid, or make promises that can never be delivered?
Survival of the republic is at stake
David Walker, comptroller general of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, says the survival of the republic is at stake.
Walker has given up pleading with politicians and is taking up his bullhorn to warn the public directly. But the public, like sheep, is relying on the direction of their shepherds.
Taxing the rich won’t pay for universal health care, nor for the shortfalls of Medicare and Social Security. Over a 10-year period, elimination of tax cuts would only bring in an additional $3 trillion.
The people on this ship of state don’t recognize the greatest expense that is being hidden from view.
A military state
The biggest line item in the U.S. budget is defense (war) spending. The U.S. government commonly publishes a pie chart showing defense spending is about 20% of the U.S. annual budget, when it is actually 54%. According to the War Resisters League, out of a 3-trillion annual budget, the U.S. spends a whopping $1.449 trillion on war and when combined with debt payments for prior wars, the total outlays for war represent $2.650 trillion. Imagine half the cost of your cruise ship ticket is for security guards. The U.S. has become a military state without full recognition by its populace.
Despite this, emails will circulate the internet claiming that Hillary Clinton will scale back defense spending, putting our troops at risk. Patriotic American believe this.
Printing play money
To return to the ship of state analogy, the captain of the ship recognizes you might run out of money before the ship returns to its home port and has come up with a stunning idea. Print certificates that will be honored as real money below decks and have the ship’s purser divvy it out as a loan to everyone on board. Brilliant!
Passengers can now keep purchasing trinkets, jewelry and clothes from the ship’s many onboard shops. This is akin to the economic stimulus plan just approved by Congress.
But this amounts to nothing more than play money. Worse yet, when the print shop on board prints the money, it hands it over to the ship’s purser for the cost of printing, and he marks it up and cuts himself in for a profit before he lends it out to the passengers. This is like a hidden charge on your credit card bill. The passengers (citizens) don’t fully realize as they spend the money it will be added to their collective credit card in the form of the national debt. The next generation will face this bill.
Hidden charges
This is analogous to the way the U.S. mint prints money, hands it to private bankers, called The Federal Reserve, which then takes a cut before loaning out money to banks so people can buy homes, cars, and re-finance their homes. Americans pay more for everything because of this.
John F. Kennedy recognized the folly of renting money from a private bank rather than distributing it out directly to the public from the U.S. Mint. Kennedy foresaw a day when the U.S. would be mired in hopeless debt.
In 1963 Kennedy went around the Federal Reserve Bank and printed $4 billion of U.S. Notes, subverting the Federal Reserve Notes then in circulation. Kennedy was shot in Dallas in 1963 and the $4 billion of U.S. Notes quietly withdrawn from circulation.
Only one candidate is prepared to take the helm.
The only Presidential candidate who has the resolve to pull America out of this mess, and to keep the ship of state afloat, is Congressman Ron Paul. The TV networks have shunned Congressman Paul because his economic reforms, elimination of the Federal Reserve, down-sizing of the Federal government, dissolution of the Internal Revenue Service, and withdrawal from a war-based economy, would lead to the very demise of the TV networks that rely upon this ongoing ruse to stay in business. So the deception continues. You are being conned, and a huge bill is being rung up on the collective public credit card that you and your children will have to pay.
None of the Presidential candidates, save for Ron Paul, is prepared to save America.
America is on the brink of becoming a second-rate nation. With the devaluation of the American dollar, now worth around 65 cents in world trade, the moneyed nations, China, Japan and Indonesia, that provide America with most of the goods that consumers buy, are thinking of buying other currencies. When this occurs, the entire world economy collapses.
First no money, then no jobs
The public doesn’t recognize that our trading partners hold billions of U.S. dollars in exchange for the goods and services they have provided America. If these countries don’t lend the money back to America, there will be no money to buy more homes and automobiles. Then there will be no jobs.
Can’t we just print more money?
I can hear it now. Some naïve American will ask, "Can’t we just print more money?" That’s how we got into this mess in the first place. More money chasing the same goods and services produces inflation. $5 boxes of cereal are already in the offing. If your great-great grandfather left your family with $25,000 in his will in 1900, it would only be worth about $1042 today (2005 figures). Bankers, via inflation, rob money out of your bank account. "What about raising the minimum wage, like Obama and Clinton promise?" Same outcome – inflation. You’ll be paying $10 for a fast-food hamburger, like they do in Tokyo.
Can America pull out of this mess? Another major economy hasn’t been able to. Mark Gongloff, writing in The Wall Street Journal, says "The Japanese stock market first reached the 13000 mark in July 1985. Japan’s Nikkei index closed at 13017 last week. In between there was a stock market bubble, a real-estate bubble, a credit crunch, a messing banking sector cleanup, super-low interest rates and a series of short-term stimulus packages that solved nothing."
Sound familiar?
Go ahead, vote for your favorite candidate. Sink the American ship of state for sure. You have now been informed. To continue to ignore this deception makes you a party to the crime. Pirates have boarded the ship and taken the helm and you are aiding and abetting them.
Wednesday
Monday
PAVING PARADISE
The Constitution guarantees Americans the right to be secure against all unreasonable seizures. My home state of Texas is unfortunately planning on some very unreasonable seizures of land with the monstrous Trans Texas Corridor highway project. The TTC plans call for a highway to cut through about 4,000 Texas miles, and with separate rail lines for passenger and freight, a multi-lane highway with separate truck lanes, utility and cable easements, this highway could be as wide as 1200 feet across. In the end this project would consume something like half a million acres of land in Texas . However, since the exact path of the road has not been determined, it is putting much more acreage in jeopardy, and in limbo.
Taking land is destructive enough. But the perpetual threat of taking an undetermined amount of land is hanging over the heads of millions of Texans and putting their lives at a standstill. Land is a store of wealth and a source of stability. This highway project is tragically threatening that for so many Texans.
The principle of private property is the cornerstone to a free and prosperous society. In situations where a colossal government land grab is a distinct possibility, investment or improvement becomes more risky with an uncertain future and tends not to happen. How do you sell land that may or may not be taken by the government at some point in the not too distant future? Who would buy it? How do you cultivate or build on, or even near, land that may or may not be paved over and turned into a massive, noisy thoroughfare in a few years?
Even more insulting is the distinct possibility that, while the road will collect tolls and fees, making a private foreign firm billions of dollars in revenue, the costs of building it could be heavily borne by taxpayers. So the costs will be socialized and the profits privatized. Public-private partnership indeed!
From Washington I have voiced my staunch disapproval of taking these hard-working taxpayers’ land for a private toll road, by introducing legislation (HR 5191) that simply states, “No Federal funds appropriated or made available before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act may be used by a unit of Federal, State, or local government to carry out the highway project known as the 'Trans-Texas Corridor'.” I am working hard in Congress to make sure that no Federal funding is used to undermine property rights in this way.
We should be focusing on guarding and securing our borders for the protection of the American people. Instead we are paving the way for more and more people to cross the border as comfortably as possible. And taking the family farm to do it. It is an absolute outrage.
Taking land is destructive enough. But the perpetual threat of taking an undetermined amount of land is hanging over the heads of millions of Texans and putting their lives at a standstill. Land is a store of wealth and a source of stability. This highway project is tragically threatening that for so many Texans.
The principle of private property is the cornerstone to a free and prosperous society. In situations where a colossal government land grab is a distinct possibility, investment or improvement becomes more risky with an uncertain future and tends not to happen. How do you sell land that may or may not be taken by the government at some point in the not too distant future? Who would buy it? How do you cultivate or build on, or even near, land that may or may not be paved over and turned into a massive, noisy thoroughfare in a few years?
Even more insulting is the distinct possibility that, while the road will collect tolls and fees, making a private foreign firm billions of dollars in revenue, the costs of building it could be heavily borne by taxpayers. So the costs will be socialized and the profits privatized. Public-private partnership indeed!
From Washington I have voiced my staunch disapproval of taking these hard-working taxpayers’ land for a private toll road, by introducing legislation (HR 5191) that simply states, “No Federal funds appropriated or made available before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act may be used by a unit of Federal, State, or local government to carry out the highway project known as the 'Trans-Texas Corridor'.” I am working hard in Congress to make sure that no Federal funding is used to undermine property rights in this way.
We should be focusing on guarding and securing our borders for the protection of the American people. Instead we are paving the way for more and more people to cross the border as comfortably as possible. And taking the family farm to do it. It is an absolute outrage.
Friday
WHAT I THINK....NICK von HOFFMAN
The little man who wasn't there at the Republican TV debates is Ron Paul, the short-of-stature libertarian physician and Congressman. The debate moderators, who are threatening to become the ruin of electoral politics in the United States, almost never turn to ask Paul a question--that is, when he is allowed in the hall to participate.
On the occasions when they do toss a question Paul's way, they seem not to listen when he answers. And when he's finished, they turn away as if he hadn't said anything. Granted, libertarianism is a little outré and can sound as if it is close to anarchism. But there are times when Congressman Paul says things that are worth listening to.
He is the only candidate who brings up what is happening to our money, which is another way of saying that he is worried about why the cost of buying groceries is going through the roof. While the other presidential contenders are silent on the topic, Paul reminds us that "government officials consistently claimed that inflation is in check at barely 2 percent, but middle-class Americans know that their purchasing power--especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition--is shrinking much faster than 2 percent each year."
Paul is the contender who seems to understand that the Federal Reserve Board is not the Vatican and that its chairman, Ben Bernanke, is not the pope. It's a fixed practice by our politicians to treat whoever is the chairman of the Fed as though he were endowed with infallible powers.
On Wall Street, the sharper ones know better. They understand that lowering interest rates every time the stock market swoons will eventually, or even a lot sooner, bring a world of pain down on us. As it is, thanks to the Fed, interest rates are lower than the rate of inflation. This anomalous condition is called "negative interest," and for savers it means that their money is disappearing even as it rests safely tucked away in certificates of deposit.
For people who understand that their money is evaporating in front of their eyes there is a mighty incentive to rush out to the mall while that money is still worth something. For the moment a stampede to the stores by inflation-spooked people may please the economic pooh-bahs because current theory has it that people will buy lots of stuff, which in turn will create lots of jobs. But after they've spent their retirement money, then what?
Then people can spend their economic stimulus money. Left undiscussed is how the government is going to get the money it plans to hand out to anybody who has a pulse. Maybe Uncle Sam can borrow it from the Chinese or the Arabs--although both groups are losing enthusiasm for making loans to be paid back in ever-shrinking dollars.
Neither the Europeans nor the Brits with their higher interest rate euros and pounds will have much interest in investing in lower-rate dollars. There don't seem to be many people left we can con into bailing us out of a mistake we repeatedly make.
The Federal Reserve Board can print the money, which is exactly what Ron Paul is afraid of. The more it prints, the less it's worth. The US suffered through years of high inflation in the 1970s and, from the standpoint of personal income, has never completely recovered.
If he could, Ron Paul would abolish three-quarters of the government, which works out to meaning that about three-quarters of what Ron Paul says falls into the "impractical dreamer" category. That leaves one-quarter--but that fraction of his agenda is, no pun intended, on the money.
On the occasions when they do toss a question Paul's way, they seem not to listen when he answers. And when he's finished, they turn away as if he hadn't said anything. Granted, libertarianism is a little outré and can sound as if it is close to anarchism. But there are times when Congressman Paul says things that are worth listening to.
He is the only candidate who brings up what is happening to our money, which is another way of saying that he is worried about why the cost of buying groceries is going through the roof. While the other presidential contenders are silent on the topic, Paul reminds us that "government officials consistently claimed that inflation is in check at barely 2 percent, but middle-class Americans know that their purchasing power--especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition--is shrinking much faster than 2 percent each year."
Paul is the contender who seems to understand that the Federal Reserve Board is not the Vatican and that its chairman, Ben Bernanke, is not the pope. It's a fixed practice by our politicians to treat whoever is the chairman of the Fed as though he were endowed with infallible powers.
On Wall Street, the sharper ones know better. They understand that lowering interest rates every time the stock market swoons will eventually, or even a lot sooner, bring a world of pain down on us. As it is, thanks to the Fed, interest rates are lower than the rate of inflation. This anomalous condition is called "negative interest," and for savers it means that their money is disappearing even as it rests safely tucked away in certificates of deposit.
For people who understand that their money is evaporating in front of their eyes there is a mighty incentive to rush out to the mall while that money is still worth something. For the moment a stampede to the stores by inflation-spooked people may please the economic pooh-bahs because current theory has it that people will buy lots of stuff, which in turn will create lots of jobs. But after they've spent their retirement money, then what?
Then people can spend their economic stimulus money. Left undiscussed is how the government is going to get the money it plans to hand out to anybody who has a pulse. Maybe Uncle Sam can borrow it from the Chinese or the Arabs--although both groups are losing enthusiasm for making loans to be paid back in ever-shrinking dollars.
Neither the Europeans nor the Brits with their higher interest rate euros and pounds will have much interest in investing in lower-rate dollars. There don't seem to be many people left we can con into bailing us out of a mistake we repeatedly make.
The Federal Reserve Board can print the money, which is exactly what Ron Paul is afraid of. The more it prints, the less it's worth. The US suffered through years of high inflation in the 1970s and, from the standpoint of personal income, has never completely recovered.
If he could, Ron Paul would abolish three-quarters of the government, which works out to meaning that about three-quarters of what Ron Paul says falls into the "impractical dreamer" category. That leaves one-quarter--but that fraction of his agenda is, no pun intended, on the money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
