In my last column, I joked that with public spending out of control and the piling on of the international bailout bill, economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress. It is getting harder to joke about such a thing however, as the non-partisan General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated that the administration’s health care plan would actually cost over a trillion dollars. This reality check may have given us a temporary reprieve on this particular disastrous policy, however an equally disastrous energy policy reared its ugly head on Capitol Hill last week.
The Cap and Trade Bill HR 2454 was voted on last Friday. Proponents claim this bill will help the environment, but what it really does is put another nail in the economy’s coffin. The idea is to establish a national level of carbon dioxide emissions, and sell pollution permits to industry as the Catholic Church used to sell indulgences to sinners. HR 2454 also gives federal bureaucrats new power to regulate a wide variety of household appliances, such as light bulbs and refrigerators, and further distorts the market by providing more of your tax money to auto companies.
The administration has pointed to Spain as a shining example of this type of progressive energy policy. Spain has been massively diverting capital from the private sector into politically favored environmental projects for the better part of a decade, and many in Washington apparently like what they see. However, under no circumstances should anyone serious about economic recovery emulate an economy that is now approaching 20 percent unemployment, where every green job created, eliminated 2.2 real jobs and cost around $800,000 each!
The real inconvenient truth is that the cost of government regulations, taxes, fees, red tape and bureaucracy is a considerable expense that has to be considered when companies decide where to do business and how many people they can afford to hire. Increasing governmental burden directly causes capital flight and job losses, as Spain has learned. In this global economy its easy enough for businesses to relocate to countries that are more politically friendly to economic growth. If our government continues to kick the economy while its down, it will be a long time before it gets back up. In fact, jobs are much more likely to go overseas, compounding our problems.
And for what? Contrary to claims repeated over and over, there is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming is getting worse or that it is manmade. In fact over 30,000 scientists signed a petition recently directly disputing the claims on which this policy is based. Legitimate environmental claims should instead be directed towards the public sector. The government, especially the military, is the most serious polluter in the country, and is exempt from most EPA regulations. Meanwhile Washington bureaucrats have classified the very air we exhale as a pollutant and have gone unchallenged in this incredible assertion. The logical consequence is that there will come a time when we will have to buy a government permit just to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from our own lungs!
The events on Capitol Hill last week just demonstrate Washington’s audacity in manufacturing problems just so they can expand government power to solve them.
Sunday
WHAT I THINK....MATTHEW COLLINS
As far as finance and business goes, at least one rule generally holds true…
And this rule makes your job as an investor, entrepreneur or analyst ten times easier. The rule? If you can’t explain a particular investment or innovation to an eleven-year-old, then something shady is going on.
Credit Default Swaps, Securitization, GSEs, CDOs…all of these things were considered “financial wizardry” back in the bubble days. Now they’ve been exposed as little more than Wall Street’s version of three-card Monte.
But the card sharks behind these scams – not the individual investment banks on the frontline, but the huckster who put his seal of approval on these street side swindlings…the guy whose rate-setting mandates created the environment for these bubble shenanigans…that yahoo is still at large, and no one in the government really seems to care.
No one; that is, except for a rogue Texan. A man who won’t settle for anything less than the America he was promised in the constitution…
The Doctor is In
Most of us grew familiar with Ron Paul in late 2007 and early ’08. He campaigned on a platform of smaller government; specifically by means of eradicating the Fed and the Internal Revenue Service…a platform that turned out to be just a few months early.
But our Resident Offshore Expert – Former Congressman Bob Bauman – knew Ron from their days together in the House. As you might expect, Bob says the soft-spoken doctor is a kind man…one who definitely “talks the talk” in addition to walking the walk.
And beyond that, Ron’s surely no average politician.
No, he actually serves a practical purpose within his community…imagine that. He’s a doctor. An obstetrician, which has proven to be a bit of a roadblock for his less useful competition…
“I had real difficulty down in Brazoria County, where he practiced, because he'd delivered half the babies in the county. There were only two obstetricians in the county, and the other one was his partner.”
That was a competitor – Gammage – talking about one of Paul’s first campaigns that came in the wake of the Watergate scandal. It should’ve been a pushover for the Democrats. In hindsight, Gammage realized that he underestimated the grass roots pull that Ron Paul had amongst his constituents.
Since then, Ron’s been an established fringe voice in Congress. His message, steeped in fiscal common sense and Austrian school economics, has grown more popular over the years, culminating in his run at the 2008 primaries.
But Ron was still too much of a dark horse.
And the Republican Party couldn’t decide whether they wanted the guy from New York that cheated on his wife…or the guy from Arizona that got engaged to his current wife while married to his previous wife. Decisions, decisions.
Either way, the mainstream just wasn’t intelligent enough to understand and appreciate Paul’s message. But as always, he stayed the course; picking his own personal war with the Federal Reserve while trillions in bailouts flowed forth.
Audit The Fed!
His bill started as something of a flash in the pan.
Building off the momentum of his national campaign, Ron introduced HR 1207, a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. (Check out the video to the right for details)
At first, most people took this as another PR stunt from the dark horse of the Republican party. After all, if Bloomberg was already being stonewalled on their suit to find out where those $2 trillion in mysterious loans went…how could someone like Ron Paul actually bring down the curtain of secrecy? Most blew it off as an impossible feat.
But – being the man he is – Ron didn’t give up…
He schlepped the bill around Capitol Hill…and as concern grew over the Fed’s wildly inflationary money-printing policies, he started finding more and more supporters.
After several months of campaigning, of viral videos and Internet blog posts, the once dismissed “cooky doc from Texas” has become a force to be reckoned with.
His “Audit the Fed” bill now has over 240 co-sponsors, or roughly 55% of the House of Representatives, and its steadily gathering positive momentum in the press.
Now granted, he needs a lot more votes to push the bill through with a filibuster-proof majority. And the senate is – quite literally – a whole different barrel of monkeys.
But CNBC’s pundits covered the subject yesterday, and the general consensus was that Bernanke would have to at least “make a deal” with Dr. Paul on oversight of the Fed. I smiled at hearing that; knowing that the doctor drives a hard bargain, and he won’t compromise his ideals for a few sessions of Bernanke-blathering.
Neither Federal Nor a Reserve
As for the Fed passing the special test above, their website claims that the Federal Reserve is an, “independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.” Try explaining that to an eleven-year-old.
But you don’t even need that special test to know the Federal Reserve is a shady institution…
These guys have loaned out trillions of government (as in yours and my) money to a host of undisclosed recipients. They bullied Bank of America into buying up Merrill Lynch – with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson using such colorful language as “the turd in the punchbowl,” to describe BofA’s hesitation on closing the deal.
And that’s just the start of it.
From an Inspector General that attests to knowing nothing about nothing to a host of special initiatives that propped up bubble-era compensation levels, it’s become abundantly clear that “gangster capitalism” rules the U.S. And the beating heart of the U.S.’s gangster capitalism is none other than the Federal Reserve.
But nobody cares. The herd is complacent. Why? Decades of fattening. A lifetime of bubbles and trillions in promises of future payouts have lead most right-minded Americans to count their eggs before they’re hatched. Which is a shame, because when the day of reckoning comes, complacence will be punished as guilt.
And this rule makes your job as an investor, entrepreneur or analyst ten times easier. The rule? If you can’t explain a particular investment or innovation to an eleven-year-old, then something shady is going on.
Credit Default Swaps, Securitization, GSEs, CDOs…all of these things were considered “financial wizardry” back in the bubble days. Now they’ve been exposed as little more than Wall Street’s version of three-card Monte.
But the card sharks behind these scams – not the individual investment banks on the frontline, but the huckster who put his seal of approval on these street side swindlings…the guy whose rate-setting mandates created the environment for these bubble shenanigans…that yahoo is still at large, and no one in the government really seems to care.
No one; that is, except for a rogue Texan. A man who won’t settle for anything less than the America he was promised in the constitution…
The Doctor is In
Most of us grew familiar with Ron Paul in late 2007 and early ’08. He campaigned on a platform of smaller government; specifically by means of eradicating the Fed and the Internal Revenue Service…a platform that turned out to be just a few months early.
But our Resident Offshore Expert – Former Congressman Bob Bauman – knew Ron from their days together in the House. As you might expect, Bob says the soft-spoken doctor is a kind man…one who definitely “talks the talk” in addition to walking the walk.
And beyond that, Ron’s surely no average politician.
No, he actually serves a practical purpose within his community…imagine that. He’s a doctor. An obstetrician, which has proven to be a bit of a roadblock for his less useful competition…
“I had real difficulty down in Brazoria County, where he practiced, because he'd delivered half the babies in the county. There were only two obstetricians in the county, and the other one was his partner.”
That was a competitor – Gammage – talking about one of Paul’s first campaigns that came in the wake of the Watergate scandal. It should’ve been a pushover for the Democrats. In hindsight, Gammage realized that he underestimated the grass roots pull that Ron Paul had amongst his constituents.
Since then, Ron’s been an established fringe voice in Congress. His message, steeped in fiscal common sense and Austrian school economics, has grown more popular over the years, culminating in his run at the 2008 primaries.
But Ron was still too much of a dark horse.
And the Republican Party couldn’t decide whether they wanted the guy from New York that cheated on his wife…or the guy from Arizona that got engaged to his current wife while married to his previous wife. Decisions, decisions.
Either way, the mainstream just wasn’t intelligent enough to understand and appreciate Paul’s message. But as always, he stayed the course; picking his own personal war with the Federal Reserve while trillions in bailouts flowed forth.
Audit The Fed!
His bill started as something of a flash in the pan.
Building off the momentum of his national campaign, Ron introduced HR 1207, a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. (Check out the video to the right for details)
At first, most people took this as another PR stunt from the dark horse of the Republican party. After all, if Bloomberg was already being stonewalled on their suit to find out where those $2 trillion in mysterious loans went…how could someone like Ron Paul actually bring down the curtain of secrecy? Most blew it off as an impossible feat.
But – being the man he is – Ron didn’t give up…
He schlepped the bill around Capitol Hill…and as concern grew over the Fed’s wildly inflationary money-printing policies, he started finding more and more supporters.
After several months of campaigning, of viral videos and Internet blog posts, the once dismissed “cooky doc from Texas” has become a force to be reckoned with.
His “Audit the Fed” bill now has over 240 co-sponsors, or roughly 55% of the House of Representatives, and its steadily gathering positive momentum in the press.
Now granted, he needs a lot more votes to push the bill through with a filibuster-proof majority. And the senate is – quite literally – a whole different barrel of monkeys.
But CNBC’s pundits covered the subject yesterday, and the general consensus was that Bernanke would have to at least “make a deal” with Dr. Paul on oversight of the Fed. I smiled at hearing that; knowing that the doctor drives a hard bargain, and he won’t compromise his ideals for a few sessions of Bernanke-blathering.
Neither Federal Nor a Reserve
As for the Fed passing the special test above, their website claims that the Federal Reserve is an, “independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.” Try explaining that to an eleven-year-old.
But you don’t even need that special test to know the Federal Reserve is a shady institution…
These guys have loaned out trillions of government (as in yours and my) money to a host of undisclosed recipients. They bullied Bank of America into buying up Merrill Lynch – with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson using such colorful language as “the turd in the punchbowl,” to describe BofA’s hesitation on closing the deal.
And that’s just the start of it.
From an Inspector General that attests to knowing nothing about nothing to a host of special initiatives that propped up bubble-era compensation levels, it’s become abundantly clear that “gangster capitalism” rules the U.S. And the beating heart of the U.S.’s gangster capitalism is none other than the Federal Reserve.
But nobody cares. The herd is complacent. Why? Decades of fattening. A lifetime of bubbles and trillions in promises of future payouts have lead most right-minded Americans to count their eggs before they’re hatched. Which is a shame, because when the day of reckoning comes, complacence will be punished as guilt.
Thursday
INTERVIEW BY U.S. NEWS MATTHEW BANDYK
President Obama's financial regulatory plan has created controversy over the role of the Federal Reserve in our economy like rarely before. The person in Congress with perhaps the most unconventional point of view on these issues in American politics is Congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX), a longtime critic of the very institution of the Fed and fractional reserve banking. He has recently sponsored a bill that would audit the Fed, which has attracted cosponsors such as Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).
I talked to Congressman Paul about his unique perspective and why the Fed is controversial again.
Me: Do you think the Fed is the main culprit behind the current economic crisis?
Paul: I don't believe you can have financial bubbles without artificially expanding the supply of money and credit, and only the Fed can do that in collusion with the banks, who can operate under fractional reserve banking. So that's where the financial bubbles come from, whether it's housing or the stock market or the bond market. That's the source of the bubble, and that's what has to be addressed, and yet the Fed has been able to operate in secrecy on exactly how they allocate credit and what they do with international markets. So yes, the Fed is the number one culprit.
I guess the response from defenders of Greenspan would be that to jack up interest rates enough to defuse the housing bubble would have been really bad for growth and unemployment, and that was unacceptable at the time.
Yes, and that's why he inflated it instead. It's like a drug addiction. Nobody wants the pain that comes with getting off the drug. But it's more than the pain of avoiding addiction that drives Bernanke. It's a deep-seated philosophy that inflation is the cure, and that it can prevent the correction. But the correction has been locked in place. In the year 2000 it was locked in place. The market was trying to tell us we needed a correction. But it was prolonged so the bubble was made even bigger. This bubble has been going on since 1971 when the dollar became fiat and we had international reserve currency without backing. Ultimately, no matter what the Fed does, you can't prop up a bad system, and that's why this one is different than any recession we've had since 1971.
So that's where your bill to audit the Fed comes in?
In a way it's a mini-step, but it's also the reason I have a lot of co-sponsors because I haven't gotten into the controversy of fractional reserve banking and the issue of monetary policy per se. My main goal is to find out exactly what the Fed has been doing, especially in this crisis. Since the crisis has hit, there's been this whole idea of transparency about what the Treasury does with the TARP funds. So now the American people want to know what the Fed does. I believe that reform is inevitable, and that's the second step.
What do you mean by "what the Fed is doing"?
What they're doing with foreign governments, international financial organizations, what they buy and sell, and what markets they interfere with... how decisions are made. We don't have absolute figures, but it's estimated that they might have a guarantee of 3 or 4 or 5 trillion dollars. It doesn't have to be on the books because it might just be guarantees. This is big stuff and the Congress should know about it.
What do you mean by reform of the Fed?
This system has failed in a financial sense. I believe the dollar will fail too. We are going to have very high interest rates and price inflation rates. Finally, they will have to stop. That's why I want to see what the Fed is talking about and what they're saying to the central banks in other countries. They know that reform is coming--they're looking to the IMF, and Obama's on that side of the argument. That's exactly the opposite type of reform that free-market and strict-constitutionalist people don't want. We want reform toward honest money and sound money, rather than looking to internationalism propping up the flawed system just by changing it from a dollar-run system to an international system. Debate has to come on what types of reform are necessary.
Why audit the Fed if the goal is to end it?
To expose them, and then people will be convinced of what the problems are. A lot of people don't know too much about the Fed. If we audited the Fed, I would learn a whole lot. I think we'd learn that there's a lot of special-interest financing going on. We saw with the TARP funds--which were more open--these go to certain corporations but not others, some had to go bankrupt, some people got huge bonuses. I think we would see a lot of that in the way the Fed runs their finances.
Tim Geithner has said in statements defending the Obama administration's plan that the Fed is the only player big enough to defend against systemic risk.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear him say that, coming from someone who's been the ultimate insider. When he was at the New York Fed, he was a permanent member of the FOMC [Federal Open Market Committee], so therefore he's going to protect that whole institution. In an interview not long ago, he was quite frank that the Fed kept interest rates down too long and too low. I think he was caught off-guard. But he was telling the truth.
People who don't always see eye-to-eye with you on the role of government in the economy have signed on to the bill, like Dennis Kucinich, what do you think is going on there?
The person who introduced my bill in the Senate is Bernie Sanders, a so-called socialist. They're opposed to special-interest corporatism. They don't like corporatism anymore than I do. I don't like welfare for anybody, let alone corporations.
The Republicans in the Financial Services Committee have floated a plan that would also promote the Fed as a guard against systemic risk.
I understand what they're doing, and it's not knock-down, drag-out battle. Actually, if I had my druthers, I wouldn't advocate closing the Fed tomorrow. It'd be much better to work out a transition. What I want is competition in money--to have two circulating currencies in the United States, just like you have dozens of currencies circulating around the world, instantaneously adjusting value, and you can do that domestically. In some ways it helps my bill because I can say, look: the American people want transparency, and if you're going to give [the Fed] more power, it's important that we act in our capacity for oversight. People who might be supporting more power for the Fed still are receptive to the idea that we should know what they are doing.
I talked to Congressman Paul about his unique perspective and why the Fed is controversial again.
Me: Do you think the Fed is the main culprit behind the current economic crisis?
Paul: I don't believe you can have financial bubbles without artificially expanding the supply of money and credit, and only the Fed can do that in collusion with the banks, who can operate under fractional reserve banking. So that's where the financial bubbles come from, whether it's housing or the stock market or the bond market. That's the source of the bubble, and that's what has to be addressed, and yet the Fed has been able to operate in secrecy on exactly how they allocate credit and what they do with international markets. So yes, the Fed is the number one culprit.
I guess the response from defenders of Greenspan would be that to jack up interest rates enough to defuse the housing bubble would have been really bad for growth and unemployment, and that was unacceptable at the time.
Yes, and that's why he inflated it instead. It's like a drug addiction. Nobody wants the pain that comes with getting off the drug. But it's more than the pain of avoiding addiction that drives Bernanke. It's a deep-seated philosophy that inflation is the cure, and that it can prevent the correction. But the correction has been locked in place. In the year 2000 it was locked in place. The market was trying to tell us we needed a correction. But it was prolonged so the bubble was made even bigger. This bubble has been going on since 1971 when the dollar became fiat and we had international reserve currency without backing. Ultimately, no matter what the Fed does, you can't prop up a bad system, and that's why this one is different than any recession we've had since 1971.
So that's where your bill to audit the Fed comes in?
In a way it's a mini-step, but it's also the reason I have a lot of co-sponsors because I haven't gotten into the controversy of fractional reserve banking and the issue of monetary policy per se. My main goal is to find out exactly what the Fed has been doing, especially in this crisis. Since the crisis has hit, there's been this whole idea of transparency about what the Treasury does with the TARP funds. So now the American people want to know what the Fed does. I believe that reform is inevitable, and that's the second step.
What do you mean by "what the Fed is doing"?
What they're doing with foreign governments, international financial organizations, what they buy and sell, and what markets they interfere with... how decisions are made. We don't have absolute figures, but it's estimated that they might have a guarantee of 3 or 4 or 5 trillion dollars. It doesn't have to be on the books because it might just be guarantees. This is big stuff and the Congress should know about it.
What do you mean by reform of the Fed?
This system has failed in a financial sense. I believe the dollar will fail too. We are going to have very high interest rates and price inflation rates. Finally, they will have to stop. That's why I want to see what the Fed is talking about and what they're saying to the central banks in other countries. They know that reform is coming--they're looking to the IMF, and Obama's on that side of the argument. That's exactly the opposite type of reform that free-market and strict-constitutionalist people don't want. We want reform toward honest money and sound money, rather than looking to internationalism propping up the flawed system just by changing it from a dollar-run system to an international system. Debate has to come on what types of reform are necessary.
Why audit the Fed if the goal is to end it?
To expose them, and then people will be convinced of what the problems are. A lot of people don't know too much about the Fed. If we audited the Fed, I would learn a whole lot. I think we'd learn that there's a lot of special-interest financing going on. We saw with the TARP funds--which were more open--these go to certain corporations but not others, some had to go bankrupt, some people got huge bonuses. I think we would see a lot of that in the way the Fed runs their finances.
Tim Geithner has said in statements defending the Obama administration's plan that the Fed is the only player big enough to defend against systemic risk.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear him say that, coming from someone who's been the ultimate insider. When he was at the New York Fed, he was a permanent member of the FOMC [Federal Open Market Committee], so therefore he's going to protect that whole institution. In an interview not long ago, he was quite frank that the Fed kept interest rates down too long and too low. I think he was caught off-guard. But he was telling the truth.
People who don't always see eye-to-eye with you on the role of government in the economy have signed on to the bill, like Dennis Kucinich, what do you think is going on there?
The person who introduced my bill in the Senate is Bernie Sanders, a so-called socialist. They're opposed to special-interest corporatism. They don't like corporatism anymore than I do. I don't like welfare for anybody, let alone corporations.
The Republicans in the Financial Services Committee have floated a plan that would also promote the Fed as a guard against systemic risk.
I understand what they're doing, and it's not knock-down, drag-out battle. Actually, if I had my druthers, I wouldn't advocate closing the Fed tomorrow. It'd be much better to work out a transition. What I want is competition in money--to have two circulating currencies in the United States, just like you have dozens of currencies circulating around the world, instantaneously adjusting value, and you can do that domestically. In some ways it helps my bill because I can say, look: the American people want transparency, and if you're going to give [the Fed] more power, it's important that we act in our capacity for oversight. People who might be supporting more power for the Fed still are receptive to the idea that we should know what they are doing.
Tuesday
INTERNATIONAL BAILOUT BRINGS US CLOSER TO ECONOMIC COLLAPSE
Last week Congress passed the war supplemental appropriations bill. In an affront to all those who thought they voted for a peace candidate, the current president will be sending another $106 billion we don’t have to continue the bloodshed in Afghanistan and Iraq, without a hint of a plan to bring our troops home.
Many of my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration seem to have changed their tune. I maintain that a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse, and as long as Congress continues to enable these dangerous interventions abroad, there is no end in sight, that is until we face total economic collapse.
From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration. Washington spends with impunity domestically, bailing out and nationalizing everything they can get their hands on, and the foreign aid and IMF funding in this bill can rightly be called an international bailout!
As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends $660 million to Gaza, $555 million to Israel, $310 million to Egypt, $300 million to Jordan, and $420 million to Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for so-called “peacekeeping” missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders. Nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu” which could result in mandatory vaccinations for no discernable reason other than to enrich the Pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccine.
Perhaps most outrageous is the $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund. These new loan guarantees will allow that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt leaders and promote harmful economic policies overseas.
Not only does sending American taxpayer money to the IMF hurt citizens here, evidence shows that it even hurts those it pretends to help. Along with IMF loans comes IMF required policy changes, called Structural Adjustment Programs, which amount to forced Keynesianism. This is the very fantasy-infused economic model that has brought our own country to its knees, and IMF loans act as the Trojan Horse to inflict it on others. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that leaders in recipient nations tend to become more concerned with the wishes of international elites than the wishes and needs of their own people. Argentina and Kenya are just two examples of countries that followed IMF mandates right off a cliff. The IMF frequently recommends currency devaluation to poorer nations, which has wiped out the already impoverished over and over. There is also a long list of brutal dictators the IMF happily supported and propped up with loans that left their oppressed populace in staggering amounts of debt with no economic progress to show for it.
We are buying nothing but evil and global oppression by sending your taxdollars to the IMF. Not to mention there is no Constitutional authority to do so. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us safer at home, but in fact undermines our national security. I vehemently opposed this Supplemental Appropriations Bill and was dismayed to see it pass so easily.
Many of my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration seem to have changed their tune. I maintain that a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse, and as long as Congress continues to enable these dangerous interventions abroad, there is no end in sight, that is until we face total economic collapse.
From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration. Washington spends with impunity domestically, bailing out and nationalizing everything they can get their hands on, and the foreign aid and IMF funding in this bill can rightly be called an international bailout!
As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends $660 million to Gaza, $555 million to Israel, $310 million to Egypt, $300 million to Jordan, and $420 million to Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for so-called “peacekeeping” missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders. Nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu” which could result in mandatory vaccinations for no discernable reason other than to enrich the Pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccine.
Perhaps most outrageous is the $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund. These new loan guarantees will allow that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt leaders and promote harmful economic policies overseas.
Not only does sending American taxpayer money to the IMF hurt citizens here, evidence shows that it even hurts those it pretends to help. Along with IMF loans comes IMF required policy changes, called Structural Adjustment Programs, which amount to forced Keynesianism. This is the very fantasy-infused economic model that has brought our own country to its knees, and IMF loans act as the Trojan Horse to inflict it on others. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that leaders in recipient nations tend to become more concerned with the wishes of international elites than the wishes and needs of their own people. Argentina and Kenya are just two examples of countries that followed IMF mandates right off a cliff. The IMF frequently recommends currency devaluation to poorer nations, which has wiped out the already impoverished over and over. There is also a long list of brutal dictators the IMF happily supported and propped up with loans that left their oppressed populace in staggering amounts of debt with no economic progress to show for it.
We are buying nothing but evil and global oppression by sending your taxdollars to the IMF. Not to mention there is no Constitutional authority to do so. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us safer at home, but in fact undermines our national security. I vehemently opposed this Supplemental Appropriations Bill and was dismayed to see it pass so easily.
Wednesday
MOVING TOWARDS TOBACCO PROHIBITION
Last week, another bill was passed and signed into law that takes more of our freedoms and violates the Constitution of the United States. It was, of course, done for the sake of the children, and in the name of the health of the citizenry. It’s always the case that when your liberty is seized, it is seized for your own good. Such is the condescension of Washington.
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA. It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment. It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar. The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products. It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.
My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco. As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit. And that is exactly how smoking should be treated – as a bad habit and a personal choice. The way to combat poor choices is through education and information. Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people. Regulations for children should be at the state level. Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well. We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country.
Actions in Congress such as this tobacco bill are especially disconcerting after we thought we were beginning to see some progress in drawing down the wrong-headed and failed war on drugs. A majority of Americans now think marijuana should be legal, taxed and regulated, according to a recent Zogby poll and over 70 percent are in favor of allowing medicinal use of marijuana. Bills like this take us down exactly the wrong path. Instead of gaining more freedom with marijuana, we are moving closer to prohibiting tobacco. Our prisons are already bursting with non-violent drug offenders. How long will it be before a black market in tobacco fills the prisons with non-violent cigarette smokers?
Hemp and tobacco were staple crops for our founding fathers when our country was new. It is baffling to see how far removed from real freedom this country has become since then. Hemp, even for industrial uses, of which there are many, is illegal to grow at all. Now tobacco will have more layers of bureaucracy and interference piled on top of it. In this economy it is extremely upsetting to see this additional squeeze put on an entire industry. One has to wonder how many smaller farmers will be forced out of business because of this bill.
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA. It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment. It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar. The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products. It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.
My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco. As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit. And that is exactly how smoking should be treated – as a bad habit and a personal choice. The way to combat poor choices is through education and information. Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people. Regulations for children should be at the state level. Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well. We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country.
Actions in Congress such as this tobacco bill are especially disconcerting after we thought we were beginning to see some progress in drawing down the wrong-headed and failed war on drugs. A majority of Americans now think marijuana should be legal, taxed and regulated, according to a recent Zogby poll and over 70 percent are in favor of allowing medicinal use of marijuana. Bills like this take us down exactly the wrong path. Instead of gaining more freedom with marijuana, we are moving closer to prohibiting tobacco. Our prisons are already bursting with non-violent drug offenders. How long will it be before a black market in tobacco fills the prisons with non-violent cigarette smokers?
Hemp and tobacco were staple crops for our founding fathers when our country was new. It is baffling to see how far removed from real freedom this country has become since then. Hemp, even for industrial uses, of which there are many, is illegal to grow at all. Now tobacco will have more layers of bureaucracy and interference piled on top of it. In this economy it is extremely upsetting to see this additional squeeze put on an entire industry. One has to wonder how many smaller farmers will be forced out of business because of this bill.
NO MORE MURDEROUS RIP-OFFS
I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on the War Supplemental Appropriations. I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse.
This conference report, being a Washington-style compromise, reflects one thing Congress agrees on: spending money we do not have. So this “compromise” bill spends 15 percent more than the president requested, which is $9 billion more than in the original House bill and $14.6 billion more than the original Senate version. Included in this final version – in addition to the $106 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – is a $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund, allowing that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt elites and promote harmful economic policies overseas.
As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid. Included in this appropriation is $660 million for Gaza, $555 million for Israel, $310 million for Egypt, $300 million for Jordan, and $420 million for Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for “peacekeeping” missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders and nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu.”
Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home from Iraq and Afghanistan. If one looks at the original authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, it is clear that the ongoing and expanding nation-building mission there has nothing to do with our goal of capturing and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us safer at home, but in fact it undermines our national security. I urge my colleagues to defeat this reckless conference report.
This conference report, being a Washington-style compromise, reflects one thing Congress agrees on: spending money we do not have. So this “compromise” bill spends 15 percent more than the president requested, which is $9 billion more than in the original House bill and $14.6 billion more than the original Senate version. Included in this final version – in addition to the $106 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – is a $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund, allowing that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt elites and promote harmful economic policies overseas.
As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid. Included in this appropriation is $660 million for Gaza, $555 million for Israel, $310 million for Egypt, $300 million for Jordan, and $420 million for Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for “peacekeeping” missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders and nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu.”
Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home from Iraq and Afghanistan. If one looks at the original authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, it is clear that the ongoing and expanding nation-building mission there has nothing to do with our goal of capturing and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us safer at home, but in fact it undermines our national security. I urge my colleagues to defeat this reckless conference report.
Thursday
INTERVIEW BY KATHLEEN WELLS
Kathleen Wells: As a member of the U. S. House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee, what is your take on this issue of torture?
Congressman Ron Paul: Well, it's against the law – both our law and international law. So, we shouldn't do it. And I'm against it for personal, moral reasons. I think it's horrible. And for practical reasons, I think it's absolutely worthless. And if we are serious about getting information, if we use other techniques, we actually get more information.
Kathleen Wells: So, you do believe that we were committing torture in our interrogations in Guantanamo?
Congressman Ron Paul: I don't think the pictures I've seen were fictitious – the ones that were released a year or two ago. And, obviously, there are some more pictures of torture that they draw more attention to because they refuse to release them, which means that it must be a true indictment of what they were doing.
Kathleen Wells: What are your thoughts on President Obama's decision to release the torture memos?
Congressman Ron Paul: I think he is purely political. I think he has backed down on what he said. He was elected for change and it is the same old stuff and he is as much of a neo-con now as Bush was with this issue and other issues. The war has been expanded. He continues with not closing down Guantanamo. There is probably, for as most [sic] as we can tell, there is still secret rendition going on. We just moved some of this process overseas. We are not going to be aware of it in detail.
Kathleen Wells: You feel President Obama is a neo-con like Bush? You don't see a distinction between the two administrations?
Congressman Ron Paul: The tone is different, but the policies don't change. We are spreading the war. The war is expanding. We are not prosecuting those that committed torture. Guantanamo is not going to be closed down. So, no, I don't see [a distinction between Bush and Obama].
He [Obama] increased the DOD [Department of Defense] budget. We surely could spend some of that money at home where people are really hurting. But we increased the DOD budget, I think, by 10-percent. I can't see any significant change in foreign policy. The pretense in leaving Iraq was a mild pretense and I'm predicting that's not going to happen. There are going to be troops in Iraq throughout this administration, I'm convinced.
Kathleen Wells: Why are you convinced?
Congressman Ron Paul: Because I don't think anyone wants to face the difficulties that might ensue. The problems came from us being there and when we leave, the problems will probably accelerate a bit. And then they will blame leaving for [causing] the problems and, yet, the real problem was going in. So, I think the international pressure that we get from various allies will be so great that we won't leave. And just don't expect the policies to change.
It just goes along with what I have said for years. Foreign policy does not change with Republicans or Democrats. Overall, there is very little policy that changes. There is a lot of debate and a lot of rhetoric, but things continue as they do.
When Clinton was in, the Republicans condemned his Somalia problem. Bush said he wasn't going to be a nation builder and a policeman of the world and he gets in and he is worse. Obama says Bush is terrible and gets in and all of a sudden, guess who is cheering Obama on right now? People like [Senator] Lindsay Graham. The real hawks of the Republican Party are sorta enjoying this right now. They figure they are winning these fights.
Congressman Ron Paul: Well, it's against the law – both our law and international law. So, we shouldn't do it. And I'm against it for personal, moral reasons. I think it's horrible. And for practical reasons, I think it's absolutely worthless. And if we are serious about getting information, if we use other techniques, we actually get more information.
Kathleen Wells: So, you do believe that we were committing torture in our interrogations in Guantanamo?
Congressman Ron Paul: I don't think the pictures I've seen were fictitious – the ones that were released a year or two ago. And, obviously, there are some more pictures of torture that they draw more attention to because they refuse to release them, which means that it must be a true indictment of what they were doing.
Kathleen Wells: What are your thoughts on President Obama's decision to release the torture memos?
Congressman Ron Paul: I think he is purely political. I think he has backed down on what he said. He was elected for change and it is the same old stuff and he is as much of a neo-con now as Bush was with this issue and other issues. The war has been expanded. He continues with not closing down Guantanamo. There is probably, for as most [sic] as we can tell, there is still secret rendition going on. We just moved some of this process overseas. We are not going to be aware of it in detail.
Kathleen Wells: You feel President Obama is a neo-con like Bush? You don't see a distinction between the two administrations?
Congressman Ron Paul: The tone is different, but the policies don't change. We are spreading the war. The war is expanding. We are not prosecuting those that committed torture. Guantanamo is not going to be closed down. So, no, I don't see [a distinction between Bush and Obama].
He [Obama] increased the DOD [Department of Defense] budget. We surely could spend some of that money at home where people are really hurting. But we increased the DOD budget, I think, by 10-percent. I can't see any significant change in foreign policy. The pretense in leaving Iraq was a mild pretense and I'm predicting that's not going to happen. There are going to be troops in Iraq throughout this administration, I'm convinced.
Kathleen Wells: Why are you convinced?
Congressman Ron Paul: Because I don't think anyone wants to face the difficulties that might ensue. The problems came from us being there and when we leave, the problems will probably accelerate a bit. And then they will blame leaving for [causing] the problems and, yet, the real problem was going in. So, I think the international pressure that we get from various allies will be so great that we won't leave. And just don't expect the policies to change.
It just goes along with what I have said for years. Foreign policy does not change with Republicans or Democrats. Overall, there is very little policy that changes. There is a lot of debate and a lot of rhetoric, but things continue as they do.
When Clinton was in, the Republicans condemned his Somalia problem. Bush said he wasn't going to be a nation builder and a policeman of the world and he gets in and he is worse. Obama says Bush is terrible and gets in and all of a sudden, guess who is cheering Obama on right now? People like [Senator] Lindsay Graham. The real hawks of the Republican Party are sorta enjoying this right now. They figure they are winning these fights.
Tuesday
GM, AMTRAK AND AN INCREASINGLY FASCIST AMERICA
Last week, General Motors finally declared bankruptcy. Many in government thought $20 billion in taxpayer dollars would save the company, but as predicted, it only postponed the inevitable. The government will dump another $30 billion into GM and take a 60 percent controlling interest for it. Public officials are now involving themselves in tactical business decisions such as where GM’s headquarters should move and what kind of cars it will build.
The promise that this is temporary and will eventually be profitable is supposed to ease the American people into accepting this arrangement, but it is of little comfort to those who remember similar promises when the American taxpayers bought Amtrak. After three years, government was supposed to be out of the passenger rail business. 40 years and billions of dollars later, the government is still operating Amtrak at a loss, despite the fact that they have created a monopoly by making it illegal to compete with Amtrak. Imagine what they can now do to what is left of the great American auto industry!
In a truly free market, GM would get your money one way and one way only – by selling you a car you want, at a price you are willing to pay. Instead, the government is giving public money to a private company in spite of the market signals it has been sending.
Throwing money at GM does not stop it from being an engine of wealth destruction; on the contrary, it simply gives it more wealth to destroy.
Had it been allowed to fail naturally, the profitable pieces of GM would have been bought up and put to good use by now. The laid off employees would likely have found new jobs and all that capital would be in private hands, reinvested in companies that produce products demanded by consumers. Instead, we are all poorer now.
Political pressure, rather than the rule of law, is deciding how to divide up the remains of GM. The bondholders had billions in retirement savings invested in the company, and though they were entitled to nearly three times as much as the United Auto Workers, the bondholders were left with just a 10 percent stake compared to the union’s 17.5 percent stake. For their 60 percent stake, taxpayers have a future of constant bailouts to look forward to.
Comingling public control of private business is known as fascism. While today’s politicians may feel emboldened with all their new power, history will only repeat itself as all this collapses on itself. It is the height of hubris for bureaucrats and politicians to attempt to control the market and the freewill of the American people. In the end, the market always wins out. Maybe one day future generations will wise up and allow free markets to function and thrive without the albatross of government around its neck.
For now, it looks like those in charge have not learned the lessons of the past, and have doomed us to repeat those mistakes once again.
The promise that this is temporary and will eventually be profitable is supposed to ease the American people into accepting this arrangement, but it is of little comfort to those who remember similar promises when the American taxpayers bought Amtrak. After three years, government was supposed to be out of the passenger rail business. 40 years and billions of dollars later, the government is still operating Amtrak at a loss, despite the fact that they have created a monopoly by making it illegal to compete with Amtrak. Imagine what they can now do to what is left of the great American auto industry!
In a truly free market, GM would get your money one way and one way only – by selling you a car you want, at a price you are willing to pay. Instead, the government is giving public money to a private company in spite of the market signals it has been sending.
Throwing money at GM does not stop it from being an engine of wealth destruction; on the contrary, it simply gives it more wealth to destroy.
Had it been allowed to fail naturally, the profitable pieces of GM would have been bought up and put to good use by now. The laid off employees would likely have found new jobs and all that capital would be in private hands, reinvested in companies that produce products demanded by consumers. Instead, we are all poorer now.
Political pressure, rather than the rule of law, is deciding how to divide up the remains of GM. The bondholders had billions in retirement savings invested in the company, and though they were entitled to nearly three times as much as the United Auto Workers, the bondholders were left with just a 10 percent stake compared to the union’s 17.5 percent stake. For their 60 percent stake, taxpayers have a future of constant bailouts to look forward to.
Comingling public control of private business is known as fascism. While today’s politicians may feel emboldened with all their new power, history will only repeat itself as all this collapses on itself. It is the height of hubris for bureaucrats and politicians to attempt to control the market and the freewill of the American people. In the end, the market always wins out. Maybe one day future generations will wise up and allow free markets to function and thrive without the albatross of government around its neck.
For now, it looks like those in charge have not learned the lessons of the past, and have doomed us to repeat those mistakes once again.
FIGHT GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT INTO HEALTHCARE
With a faltering economy, and skyrocketing costs, healthcare continues to be a critical issue for all Americans. Unfortunately government encroachment into the doctor/patient relationship is poised to exacerbate our problems with healthcare.
As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that one of the foundations of quality healthcare is the patient's confidence that all information shared with his or her healthcare provider will remain private. And yet, the Federal Government plans to undermine this trust with establishment of mandatory electronic medical records collections and “unique health identifier” numbers assigned to all Americans. Funding for this program was among the numerous provisions jammed into the stimulus bill rushed through Congress earlier this year.
Electronic medical records that are part of the federal system will only receive the protection granted by the federal “medical privacy rule.” This misnamed rule actually protects the ability of government officials and state-favored special interests to view private medical records without patient consent.
Aside from those concerns, the government’s ability to protect medical records is highly questionable. After all, we are all familiar with cases where third parties obtained access to electronic veteran, tax, and other records because of errors made by federal bureaucrats. We should also consider the abuse of IRS records by administrations of both parties. What would happen if unscrupulous politicians gained the power to access their political enemies’ electronic medical records?
For these reasons I have introduced the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act, HR 2630, which allows patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system. The bill also repeals sections of federal law establishing a “unique health identifier” and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a 3rd party.
I have also introduced the Coercion is Not Health Care Act, HR 2629. This legislation forbids the federal government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, or conditioning participation in any federal program on the purchase of health insurance. Forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance is a back door approach to creating a government-controlled healthcare system. Congress would define what policies and coverage requirements satisfy their mandate. Does anyone then doubt that what conditions and treatments are covered would be determined by who has the most effective lobby? Or that Congress would be capable of writing a mandatory insurance policy that fits the unique needs of every individual in the United States?
With these conditions in place, I foresee the eventual imposition of price controls and limitations on what procedures and treatments that are covered. This will result in an increasing number of providers turning to “cash only” practices, making it difficult for those relying on the government-mandated insurance to find healthcare – the exact opposite of the desired result! Consider the increasing number of physicians who are already withdrawing from the Medicare program because of the low reimbursement and constant bureaucratic harassment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Congress should put the American people back in charge of healthcare by expanding healthcare tax credits and deductions, increasing access to Health Savings Accounts, respecting privacy and the doctor/patient relationship. Further politicizing and bureaucratizing of healthcare will only increase costs and reduce quality, as demonstrated by most other countries with socialized medicine.
As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that one of the foundations of quality healthcare is the patient's confidence that all information shared with his or her healthcare provider will remain private. And yet, the Federal Government plans to undermine this trust with establishment of mandatory electronic medical records collections and “unique health identifier” numbers assigned to all Americans. Funding for this program was among the numerous provisions jammed into the stimulus bill rushed through Congress earlier this year.
Electronic medical records that are part of the federal system will only receive the protection granted by the federal “medical privacy rule.” This misnamed rule actually protects the ability of government officials and state-favored special interests to view private medical records without patient consent.
Aside from those concerns, the government’s ability to protect medical records is highly questionable. After all, we are all familiar with cases where third parties obtained access to electronic veteran, tax, and other records because of errors made by federal bureaucrats. We should also consider the abuse of IRS records by administrations of both parties. What would happen if unscrupulous politicians gained the power to access their political enemies’ electronic medical records?
For these reasons I have introduced the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act, HR 2630, which allows patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system. The bill also repeals sections of federal law establishing a “unique health identifier” and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a 3rd party.
I have also introduced the Coercion is Not Health Care Act, HR 2629. This legislation forbids the federal government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, or conditioning participation in any federal program on the purchase of health insurance. Forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance is a back door approach to creating a government-controlled healthcare system. Congress would define what policies and coverage requirements satisfy their mandate. Does anyone then doubt that what conditions and treatments are covered would be determined by who has the most effective lobby? Or that Congress would be capable of writing a mandatory insurance policy that fits the unique needs of every individual in the United States?
With these conditions in place, I foresee the eventual imposition of price controls and limitations on what procedures and treatments that are covered. This will result in an increasing number of providers turning to “cash only” practices, making it difficult for those relying on the government-mandated insurance to find healthcare – the exact opposite of the desired result! Consider the increasing number of physicians who are already withdrawing from the Medicare program because of the low reimbursement and constant bureaucratic harassment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Congress should put the American people back in charge of healthcare by expanding healthcare tax credits and deductions, increasing access to Health Savings Accounts, respecting privacy and the doctor/patient relationship. Further politicizing and bureaucratizing of healthcare will only increase costs and reduce quality, as demonstrated by most other countries with socialized medicine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
