Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions. The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding abortions.
Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I have introduced the Taxpayer’s Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.
The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at the time, at the expense of the rights of others.
Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues altogether.
Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class warfare with wealth redistribution programs.
Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from patients who can’t pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes, red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.
The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither constitutional, moral, nor in the American people’s best interest.
Monday
WHAT THE FED HAS DONE
The Federal Reserve in collaboration with the giant banks has created the greatest financial crisis the world has ever seen.
The foolish notion that unlimited amounts of money and credit, created out of thin air, can provide sustained economic growth has delivered this crisis to us.
Instead of economic growth and stable prices it has given us a system of government and finance that now threatens the world financial and political institutions.
Real unemployment is now 20% and there has not been any economic growth since the onset of the crisis in the year 2000, according to non-government statistics.
Pyramiding debt and credit expansion, over the past 38 years, has come to an abrupt end – as predicted by free-market economists.
Pursuing the same policy of excessive spending, debt expansion, and monetary inflation, can only compound the problems and prevent the required correction.
Doubling the money supply didn’t work; quadrupling it won’t work either.
The problem of debt must be addressed.
Expanding debt when it was a principal cause of the crisis is foolhardy.
Excessive government and private debt is a consequence of a loose Federal Reserve monetary policy. Once a debt crisis hits, the solution must be paying it off or liquidating it. We are doing neither.
Net US debt is now 372% of GDP. In the crisis of the 1930s it peaked at 301%.
Household debt services requires 14% of the disposable income – an historic high.
Between 2000 and 2007 credit debt expanded five times as fast as gross domestic product.
With no restraint on spending, and revenues dropping due to the weak economy, raising taxes will be poison to the economy.
Buying up the bad debt of privileged institutions and dumping worthless assets on the American people is morally wrong and economically futile.
Monetizing government debt, as the Fed is currently doing, is destined to do great harm.
In the past 12 months the national debt has risen over $2.7 trillion. Future entitlement obligations are now reaching $100 trillion. US foreign indebtedness is $6 trillion.
Foreign purchases of US securities in May were $7.4 billion, down from a monthly peak of $95 billion in 2006.
The fact that the Fed had to buy $38.5 billion of government securities last week indicates that it will continue its complicity with Congress to monetize the rapidly expanding deficit. This policy is used to pay for the socialization of America and for the maintenance of an unwise American empire overseas, and to make up for the diminished appetite of foreigners for our debt.
Since the attack on the dollar will continue, I would suggest that the problems we have faced so far are nothing compared to what it will be like when the world, not only rejects our debt, but our dollar as well. That’s when we’ll witness political turmoil which will be to no one’s benefit.
The foolish notion that unlimited amounts of money and credit, created out of thin air, can provide sustained economic growth has delivered this crisis to us.
Instead of economic growth and stable prices it has given us a system of government and finance that now threatens the world financial and political institutions.
Real unemployment is now 20% and there has not been any economic growth since the onset of the crisis in the year 2000, according to non-government statistics.
Pyramiding debt and credit expansion, over the past 38 years, has come to an abrupt end – as predicted by free-market economists.
Pursuing the same policy of excessive spending, debt expansion, and monetary inflation, can only compound the problems and prevent the required correction.
Doubling the money supply didn’t work; quadrupling it won’t work either.
The problem of debt must be addressed.
Expanding debt when it was a principal cause of the crisis is foolhardy.
Excessive government and private debt is a consequence of a loose Federal Reserve monetary policy. Once a debt crisis hits, the solution must be paying it off or liquidating it. We are doing neither.
Net US debt is now 372% of GDP. In the crisis of the 1930s it peaked at 301%.
Household debt services requires 14% of the disposable income – an historic high.
Between 2000 and 2007 credit debt expanded five times as fast as gross domestic product.
With no restraint on spending, and revenues dropping due to the weak economy, raising taxes will be poison to the economy.
Buying up the bad debt of privileged institutions and dumping worthless assets on the American people is morally wrong and economically futile.
Monetizing government debt, as the Fed is currently doing, is destined to do great harm.
In the past 12 months the national debt has risen over $2.7 trillion. Future entitlement obligations are now reaching $100 trillion. US foreign indebtedness is $6 trillion.
Foreign purchases of US securities in May were $7.4 billion, down from a monthly peak of $95 billion in 2006.
The fact that the Fed had to buy $38.5 billion of government securities last week indicates that it will continue its complicity with Congress to monetize the rapidly expanding deficit. This policy is used to pay for the socialization of America and for the maintenance of an unwise American empire overseas, and to make up for the diminished appetite of foreigners for our debt.
Since the attack on the dollar will continue, I would suggest that the problems we have faced so far are nothing compared to what it will be like when the world, not only rejects our debt, but our dollar as well. That’s when we’ll witness political turmoil which will be to no one’s benefit.
Thursday
THE MYTH OF FED INDEPENDENCE
At a time when we find ourselves once again receiving a report on the Federal Reserve's conduct of monetary policy, it is more important than ever that we in the Congress push for more effective oversight and transparency of the Federal Reserve System. It would be unconscionable for this body, especially after the financial crisis of the last two years, not to take forceful and deliberate action to bring more transparency to the Fed.
A common misconception is that the Fed is completely independent of political pressure, and that any attempt to oversee or audit the Fed would jeopardize that independence. While the Fed has far too much authority to make agreements with foreign governments and central banks, or create temporary liquidity facilities, the governors and, more importantly, the chairman, are appointed by the President. The chairman is the dominant figure within the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, the public face of the Fed, and he must be reappointed by the President every four years, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Thus, his job security as chairman is dependent on keeping the President and the Senate pleased. Every time the chairman acts, it is with the knowledge that within four years he will be forced to justify his actions to the President and the Senate.
Meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee, the committee responsible for conducting monetary policy and setting interest rates, are held in secret. Minutes are released after three weeks, and transcripts after five years. The ostensible reasons for this secrecy are that too much openness will either hamper the freedom of FOMC participants to discuss issues freely, or that markets will be unnerved. However, this is not really a condemnation of transparency, but rather a sign that far too much power has been given to one tiny organization.
We here in the Congress hold our committee hearings publicly, broadcast on C-SPAN and over the Internet. We are the most powerful branch of the government and our decisions have no less effect on the lives of everyday Americans than the decisions of the Fed. More importantly, our discussions have a direct impact on our ability to win re-election. Every word we speak can be used against us in our campaigns for re-election. It would be far easier for us to hold hearings in secret and release minutes and transcripts well after the fact. Yet we understand that the American people deserve to know not only what comes out of Congress, but also what goes on in the legislative process.
In the same way, it is vital that the American people understand what is going on inside the Fed. Attempts at enhanced transparency and auditing of the Fed's auctions are not intended to dictate monetary policy to the Fed or second-guess the Fed's actions. To my knowledge not a single legislative proposal put forward thus far has this as its intended goal. We as Congressmen have the ultimate responsibility for keeping the Fed in check, but how can we fulfill that duty if we do not know what the Fed is doing? Greater transparency is the first step, and only then can we begin to perform effective oversight. Given the Fed's abysmal stewardship of the dollar and repeated fumbling of financial crises, we owe this to the American people.
A common misconception is that the Fed is completely independent of political pressure, and that any attempt to oversee or audit the Fed would jeopardize that independence. While the Fed has far too much authority to make agreements with foreign governments and central banks, or create temporary liquidity facilities, the governors and, more importantly, the chairman, are appointed by the President. The chairman is the dominant figure within the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, the public face of the Fed, and he must be reappointed by the President every four years, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Thus, his job security as chairman is dependent on keeping the President and the Senate pleased. Every time the chairman acts, it is with the knowledge that within four years he will be forced to justify his actions to the President and the Senate.
Meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee, the committee responsible for conducting monetary policy and setting interest rates, are held in secret. Minutes are released after three weeks, and transcripts after five years. The ostensible reasons for this secrecy are that too much openness will either hamper the freedom of FOMC participants to discuss issues freely, or that markets will be unnerved. However, this is not really a condemnation of transparency, but rather a sign that far too much power has been given to one tiny organization.
We here in the Congress hold our committee hearings publicly, broadcast on C-SPAN and over the Internet. We are the most powerful branch of the government and our decisions have no less effect on the lives of everyday Americans than the decisions of the Fed. More importantly, our discussions have a direct impact on our ability to win re-election. Every word we speak can be used against us in our campaigns for re-election. It would be far easier for us to hold hearings in secret and release minutes and transcripts well after the fact. Yet we understand that the American people deserve to know not only what comes out of Congress, but also what goes on in the legislative process.
In the same way, it is vital that the American people understand what is going on inside the Fed. Attempts at enhanced transparency and auditing of the Fed's auctions are not intended to dictate monetary policy to the Fed or second-guess the Fed's actions. To my knowledge not a single legislative proposal put forward thus far has this as its intended goal. We as Congressmen have the ultimate responsibility for keeping the Fed in check, but how can we fulfill that duty if we do not know what the Fed is doing? Greater transparency is the first step, and only then can we begin to perform effective oversight. Given the Fed's abysmal stewardship of the dollar and repeated fumbling of financial crises, we owe this to the American people.
Wednesday
WHAT I THINK....JUSTIN MILLER
The political world can't stop speculating on the next presidential race, but as it continues to daydream about 2012 it should include room for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R). Two surveys this month of Republican voters sought to size up the potential GOP field but did not include Paul. This is a mistake because Dr. No's philosophy is closer to the Republican mainstream than it was last year when he ran for president.
When the primaries began, Paul's warnings against inflationary money printing, an unaccountable Federal Reserve and an ever-expanding federal government seemed overheated to most Republicans. That was before the Fed printed $1 trillion this spring; the Treasury bought major shares in banks and automakers that are lynchpins in their respective economic sectors, and Democrats announced big plans for health care.
Now you hear conservatives worried about the Fed and inflation, and railing against the government's quasi-control of private businesses.
Republicans in Congress have been voting more like Paul since the primaries ended, namely on economic policy. First, half of the House GOP and Paul voted against the final version of the bailout authorization last October. Then, every single representative voted with Paul against the stimulus bill this year. (However, Paul and the GOP are still at odds on staying in Iraq and Afghanistan much longer.)
Furthermore, more than 150 House Republicans are now co-sponsoring Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve.
Paul's primary election results were not great, but they weren't inconsequential either: he won 10 percent of the votes in Iowa and 8 percent in New Hampshire.
If the economy isn't growing well in three years and the government has maintained its expanded economic role, it should only reason to stand that Paul would do better among Republicans than he did in the primaries, at least based on how Republican politicians are voting and conservative leaders are speaking. (For what it's worth, Paul won third place in the Conservative Action Political Committee's 2009 straw poll of activists' choices for president.)
Paul is just as plausible a candidate to run for the Republican nomination as are Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, or Mike Huckabee who were tested in polls this month. Like them, Paul's run for the White House (twice) before and has said he isn't opposed to doing it again, albeit he said it's "unlikely." What's more likely, based on the circumstantial evidence, is that the Republican voters would receive Paul better than they did last year. Feature him in polls from now on and we can test this hypothesis.
When the primaries began, Paul's warnings against inflationary money printing, an unaccountable Federal Reserve and an ever-expanding federal government seemed overheated to most Republicans. That was before the Fed printed $1 trillion this spring; the Treasury bought major shares in banks and automakers that are lynchpins in their respective economic sectors, and Democrats announced big plans for health care.
Now you hear conservatives worried about the Fed and inflation, and railing against the government's quasi-control of private businesses.
Republicans in Congress have been voting more like Paul since the primaries ended, namely on economic policy. First, half of the House GOP and Paul voted against the final version of the bailout authorization last October. Then, every single representative voted with Paul against the stimulus bill this year. (However, Paul and the GOP are still at odds on staying in Iraq and Afghanistan much longer.)
Furthermore, more than 150 House Republicans are now co-sponsoring Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve.
Paul's primary election results were not great, but they weren't inconsequential either: he won 10 percent of the votes in Iowa and 8 percent in New Hampshire.
If the economy isn't growing well in three years and the government has maintained its expanded economic role, it should only reason to stand that Paul would do better among Republicans than he did in the primaries, at least based on how Republican politicians are voting and conservative leaders are speaking. (For what it's worth, Paul won third place in the Conservative Action Political Committee's 2009 straw poll of activists' choices for president.)
Paul is just as plausible a candidate to run for the Republican nomination as are Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, or Mike Huckabee who were tested in polls this month. Like them, Paul's run for the White House (twice) before and has said he isn't opposed to doing it again, albeit he said it's "unlikely." What's more likely, based on the circumstantial evidence, is that the Republican voters would receive Paul better than they did last year. Feature him in polls from now on and we can test this hypothesis.
Tuesday
HEALTHCARE IS A GOOD, NOT A RIGHT
Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.
First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.
Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.
Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.
As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.
The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.
Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.
First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.
Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.
Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.
As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.
The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.
Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.
Friday
WHAT I THINK....MARY ANN AKERS
For anyone who doubted it, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the libertarian phenom of the 2008 presidential campaign, is a lover, not a fighter.
And he's spreading love far and wide across the Internet, albeit unwittingly.
Paul is the inspiration behind a new online dating site called Ron Paul Singles. "We put the LOVE in Revolution," the Web site proclaims.
It works just like any other online dating service. Plug in "man seeking woman," "woman seeking man," "woman seeking woman," "man seeking man" or even "couple seeking (fill in the blank)" and you're instantly shown the potential opportunities out there in the land of Ron Paul Love.
We asked Rep. Paul a few questions about the site via e-mail, including whether he ever imagined that he'd spur an entire online dating community built around... well, himself.
"Well, I never thought I'd speak to crowds of 5,000 college kids chanting 'End the Fed' and burning Federal Reserve notes, so I guess nothing surprises me that much anymore," Paul wrote back.
The neophyte yenta said he didn't know who was responsible for creating the Web site but "I suppose it's all about Freedom bringing people together -- spiritually, politically, and now, romantically." And he encouraged any of his single friends who "want to meet a great lover of liberty" to sign up for the Ron Paul Singles dating services and give him some feedback on their experiences.
Roll Call newspaper reported on the Ron Paul love site in its print edition today, dubbing the congressman, who is an obstetrician and gynecologist, "Doctor of Love."
Paul's office declined to speak to Roll Call about the dating site, but he told the Sleuth he kind of likes the new nickname. "It's got a nice ring to it -- I'll bet my wife will like it better than 'Dr. No.' And, I've always been sympathetic to the slogan 'make love, not war.'"
The Web site gurus say they're still waiting for their first real success story. But one customer has had a promising experience thus far, writing: "What initially started out as something to relieve a little boredom and to have some fun turned into one of the most beautiful experiences... I met the most amazing man on your site, it's still fairly new but I knew from the moment I saw his eyes, (the most beautiful eyes I've ever seen) that he would take me to a place I've longed to be and bring back my smile forgotten."
Rep. Paul is even responsible for making love happen offline.
Just last weekend in Las Vegas, at a regional conference of the grassroots lobby group Campaign for Liberty, of which Paul serves as honorary chairman, two young activists who went to hear Paul speak met and fell in love. And then some.
According to Jesse Benton, the senior vice president of Campaign for Liberty, the lovebirds, Brooke Kelley and Chris Kopack, met at 2 p.m. on Friday and went to a Vegas chapel at 4 a.m. on Saturday and tied the knot. "We wish the happy couple all the best," Benton said.
If he runs for president again in 2012, seems Ron Paul has a ready-made campaign slogan: Got Love?
And he's spreading love far and wide across the Internet, albeit unwittingly.
Paul is the inspiration behind a new online dating site called Ron Paul Singles. "We put the LOVE in Revolution," the Web site proclaims.
It works just like any other online dating service. Plug in "man seeking woman," "woman seeking man," "woman seeking woman," "man seeking man" or even "couple seeking (fill in the blank)" and you're instantly shown the potential opportunities out there in the land of Ron Paul Love.
We asked Rep. Paul a few questions about the site via e-mail, including whether he ever imagined that he'd spur an entire online dating community built around... well, himself.
"Well, I never thought I'd speak to crowds of 5,000 college kids chanting 'End the Fed' and burning Federal Reserve notes, so I guess nothing surprises me that much anymore," Paul wrote back.
The neophyte yenta said he didn't know who was responsible for creating the Web site but "I suppose it's all about Freedom bringing people together -- spiritually, politically, and now, romantically." And he encouraged any of his single friends who "want to meet a great lover of liberty" to sign up for the Ron Paul Singles dating services and give him some feedback on their experiences.
Roll Call newspaper reported on the Ron Paul love site in its print edition today, dubbing the congressman, who is an obstetrician and gynecologist, "Doctor of Love."
Paul's office declined to speak to Roll Call about the dating site, but he told the Sleuth he kind of likes the new nickname. "It's got a nice ring to it -- I'll bet my wife will like it better than 'Dr. No.' And, I've always been sympathetic to the slogan 'make love, not war.'"
The Web site gurus say they're still waiting for their first real success story. But one customer has had a promising experience thus far, writing: "What initially started out as something to relieve a little boredom and to have some fun turned into one of the most beautiful experiences... I met the most amazing man on your site, it's still fairly new but I knew from the moment I saw his eyes, (the most beautiful eyes I've ever seen) that he would take me to a place I've longed to be and bring back my smile forgotten."
Rep. Paul is even responsible for making love happen offline.
Just last weekend in Las Vegas, at a regional conference of the grassroots lobby group Campaign for Liberty, of which Paul serves as honorary chairman, two young activists who went to hear Paul speak met and fell in love. And then some.
According to Jesse Benton, the senior vice president of Campaign for Liberty, the lovebirds, Brooke Kelley and Chris Kopack, met at 2 p.m. on Friday and went to a Vegas chapel at 4 a.m. on Saturday and tied the knot. "We wish the happy couple all the best," Benton said.
If he runs for president again in 2012, seems Ron Paul has a ready-made campaign slogan: Got Love?
Tuesday
WHAT I THINK....CHELSEA SCHILLING
A movement to audit the Federal Reserve – the private institution that virtually controls U.S. interest rates, money supply and other economic influences – is gaining momentum in the House and Senate while the Fed ramps up its efforts to thwart scrutiny of its books.
House Resolution 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, now has 260 co-sponsors with many members of the House Financial Services Committee – where the bill currently resides – signed on already.
Likewise, Senate Bill 604, Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, orders a complete audit of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Banks before the end of 2010. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., has eight co-sponsors and remains in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
Members of the Senate recently blocked efforts by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to vote on his amendment to a spending bill that provides money for Congress' own budget. DeMint's plan was to add an amendment to the spending bill that would have provided for an audit of the Fed to include information about its funding facilities, market operations and any agreements with foreign banks and governments, DeMint told senators, according to Reuters.
In a July 9 hearing, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, questioned Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn about the Fed's transparency.
"I think the Federal Reserve has been quite transparent and has become much more transparent under Chairman Bernanke about what we're doing and why we're doing it," Kohn told Paul. "And I think we can retain our independence and your ability to trust what we're doing only by explaining to you what we're doing and why we're doing it."
Paul asked why the Fed cites "public interest" when it refuses to open up the central bank's most sensitive decisions to political scrutiny and release discretely recorded transcripts of its policy meetings in the next five years. Kohn made his case for continued Fed secrecy.
"I would be very concerned that releasing those transcripts would inhibit debate," Kohn said. "I think it's in the public interest that we have an unfettered debate within the Open Market Committee, that we are able to speculate among ourselves … that there be no inhibition on the back and forth within the Open Market Committee. Frankly, I've been at the Federal Reserve for several decades now. In my view, publishing the transcripts themselves have had a somewhat inhibiting effect on the way the debate is carried out. …
House Resolution 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, now has 260 co-sponsors with many members of the House Financial Services Committee – where the bill currently resides – signed on already.
Likewise, Senate Bill 604, Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, orders a complete audit of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Banks before the end of 2010. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., has eight co-sponsors and remains in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
Members of the Senate recently blocked efforts by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to vote on his amendment to a spending bill that provides money for Congress' own budget. DeMint's plan was to add an amendment to the spending bill that would have provided for an audit of the Fed to include information about its funding facilities, market operations and any agreements with foreign banks and governments, DeMint told senators, according to Reuters.
In a July 9 hearing, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, questioned Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn about the Fed's transparency.
"I think the Federal Reserve has been quite transparent and has become much more transparent under Chairman Bernanke about what we're doing and why we're doing it," Kohn told Paul. "And I think we can retain our independence and your ability to trust what we're doing only by explaining to you what we're doing and why we're doing it."
Paul asked why the Fed cites "public interest" when it refuses to open up the central bank's most sensitive decisions to political scrutiny and release discretely recorded transcripts of its policy meetings in the next five years. Kohn made his case for continued Fed secrecy.
"I would be very concerned that releasing those transcripts would inhibit debate," Kohn said. "I think it's in the public interest that we have an unfettered debate within the Open Market Committee, that we are able to speculate among ourselves … that there be no inhibition on the back and forth within the Open Market Committee. Frankly, I've been at the Federal Reserve for several decades now. In my view, publishing the transcripts themselves have had a somewhat inhibiting effect on the way the debate is carried out. …
FED INDEPENDENCE OR FED SECRECY?
Last week I was very pleased that hearings were held on the independence of the Federal Reserve system. My bill HR 1207, known as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, was discussed at length, as well as the general question of whether or not the Federal Reserve should continue to operate independently.
The public is demanding transparency in government like never before. A majority of the House has cosponsored HR 1207. Yet, Senator Jim DeMint’s heroic efforts to attach it to another piece of legislation elicited intense opposition by the Senate leadership.
The hearings on Capitol Hill provided us with a great deal of information about the types of arguments that will be levied against meaningful transparency and how the secretive central bankers will defend the status quo that is so beneficial to them.
Claims are made that auditing the Fed would compromise its independence. However, by independence, they really mean secrecy. The Fed clearly cherishes its vast power to create and spend trillions of dollars, diluting the value of every other dollar in circulation, making deals with other central banks, and bailing out cronies, all to the detriment of the taxpayer, and to the enrichment of themselves. I am happy to challenge this type of “independence”.
They claim the Fed is endowed with special intellectual abilities with which to control the market and that central bankers magically know what the market needs. We should just trust them. This is patently ridiculous. The market is a complex and intricate thing. No one knows what the market needs other than the market itself. It sends signals, such as prices, that should be reacted to and respected, not thwarted and controlled. Bankers are not all-knowing and cannot ignore the rules of supply and demand. They might act as if they are, but their manipulation of the market just ends up throwing it wildly off balance, which gives us the boom and bust cycles.
They claim the Fed must remain apolitical. No organization is apolitical that relies on the President to appoint the Chairman. In fact, it is subject to the worst sort of politics – power to create trillions of dollars and affect the value of every dollar in the country without the accountability of direct elections or meaningful oversight! The Fed typically enacts monetary policy that is favorable to particular administrations close to elections, to the detriment of long term considerations. They do this partly because of the political appointee process for the Chairmanship.
The only accountability the Federal Reserve has is ultimately to Congress, which granted its charter and can revoke it at any time. It is Congress’s constitutional duty to protect the value of the money, and they have abdicated this responsibility for far too long. This was the issue that got me involved in politics 35 years ago. It is very encouraging to finally see the issue getting some needed exposure and traction. It is regrettable that it took a crisis of this magnitude to get a serious debate on this issue.
The public is demanding transparency in government like never before. A majority of the House has cosponsored HR 1207. Yet, Senator Jim DeMint’s heroic efforts to attach it to another piece of legislation elicited intense opposition by the Senate leadership.
The hearings on Capitol Hill provided us with a great deal of information about the types of arguments that will be levied against meaningful transparency and how the secretive central bankers will defend the status quo that is so beneficial to them.
Claims are made that auditing the Fed would compromise its independence. However, by independence, they really mean secrecy. The Fed clearly cherishes its vast power to create and spend trillions of dollars, diluting the value of every other dollar in circulation, making deals with other central banks, and bailing out cronies, all to the detriment of the taxpayer, and to the enrichment of themselves. I am happy to challenge this type of “independence”.
They claim the Fed is endowed with special intellectual abilities with which to control the market and that central bankers magically know what the market needs. We should just trust them. This is patently ridiculous. The market is a complex and intricate thing. No one knows what the market needs other than the market itself. It sends signals, such as prices, that should be reacted to and respected, not thwarted and controlled. Bankers are not all-knowing and cannot ignore the rules of supply and demand. They might act as if they are, but their manipulation of the market just ends up throwing it wildly off balance, which gives us the boom and bust cycles.
They claim the Fed must remain apolitical. No organization is apolitical that relies on the President to appoint the Chairman. In fact, it is subject to the worst sort of politics – power to create trillions of dollars and affect the value of every dollar in the country without the accountability of direct elections or meaningful oversight! The Fed typically enacts monetary policy that is favorable to particular administrations close to elections, to the detriment of long term considerations. They do this partly because of the political appointee process for the Chairmanship.
The only accountability the Federal Reserve has is ultimately to Congress, which granted its charter and can revoke it at any time. It is Congress’s constitutional duty to protect the value of the money, and they have abdicated this responsibility for far too long. This was the issue that got me involved in politics 35 years ago. It is very encouraging to finally see the issue getting some needed exposure and traction. It is regrettable that it took a crisis of this magnitude to get a serious debate on this issue.
Friday
WHAT i THINK....ANDY HOFFMAN
As you know, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is one of my heroes, a real-life American Patriot in a world of sleezy, self-serving, amoral politicians.
For years, he has stated exactly what I have been saying, that the country is being destroyed by loose monetary policy (i.e. printing money) by the Federal Reserve, not to mention equally loose fiscal policy by Congress, which appears motivated by one thing and one thing only; the lobbying funds of WALL STREET (what funds are left, mostly because Congress just GAVE them out to those insolvent institutions courtesy of the taxpayers).
Mr. Paul has introduced a bill to have the Federal Reserve, the most secretive group of slime in the world, audited. By the way, the Fed is NOT a government institution, but a privately-owned bank by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc., charged with monetary policy. The Fed was created during a special Christmas session of Congress back in 1913, where very few members even showed up to vote, and has since debased the currency by more than 95% (and counting) while generating wild profits for the banks that own it.
Actually, the Constitution prohibits such an institution, stating that only the government should print money. But then again, when was the last time the Constitution was heeded? Or better yet, the last time the people showed even the slightest interest in its destruction?
Remember when Bush was allowed to bomb Iraq without a Congressional vote? Yes, that was a blatant disavowal of the Constitution as well, and look how that turned out. How about Obama taking over the auto industry and unilaterally imposing sanction and terms on the union members, bondholders, etc.? Or Paulson arbitrarily deciding that the major banks (which nearly single-handedly destroyed the economy) needed printed taxpayer money to “save” them?
The Constitution was created by a group of men trying to account for all of history’s most destructive government practices, which time and again have been repeated (such as hyperinflation) by greedy, destructive politicians at the expense of the people. In other words, it was a direct attempt to prevent such things from occurring in the newly formed America. But alas, in just over 200 years, we have nearly completely repudiated its aims (mostly in the past decade), and not coincidentally the country is far along the road to ruin.
The U.S. passed its peak of power and prestige, what a surprise, roughly a decade ago, principally due to the movement of its manufacturing base to China. And since that time the government has done what it always does; try to restore the “status quo” by taking moronic, destructive steps, in this case by ignoring the Constitution which was created to prevent just such actions. Plus, in this case the entire world has been aiding and abetting this stupidity because they own so many dollars (and thus don’t want it to crash), which in and of itself was due to the most moronic and history-repudiating decision of all, the complete renouncement of the gold standard (led by the U.S., of course), in 1971.
Anyhow, in the below U-Tube video, Paul for the first time PUBLICLY states that the government manipulates the dollar AND the gold price, something he has been obviously careful about stating. But now he does. I’ll forgive him the fact that the Fed does this in collusion with the Treasury Department, but you get the point. Actually, the entire last five minutes of this video is fascinating.
www.gata.org/node/7573.
And just to show just how lethargic and uncaring Americans are about their cratering country, watch the below U-Tube video of soon-to-be ex-Fed Chairman Bernanke, one of the most idiotic and inept people I have come across in my life, stating how passage of the Paul bill would cause ‘destruction of the dollar, the U.S. economy, and the financial system.’
Think he’s got anything to hide?
And do you yet care? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRSvq0D35dU
After all the evil that has been perpetrated on the U.S. public over the past year by Washington and Wall Street, still not a hint of outrage, disbelief, or care.
But that will change, I am 100% sure.
By now it should be clear that “green shoots of recovery” was more propaganda (actually, that term was coined by none other than Bernanke), and if you think the first wave of the money printing explosion was bad, get ready for round two!
PROTECT YOURSELF, starting with the stocking of gold/silver, food, and other life necessities, and secondly by supporting this bill (link below), which already has the support of roughly 245 Congresmen! www.ronpaul.com
For years, he has stated exactly what I have been saying, that the country is being destroyed by loose monetary policy (i.e. printing money) by the Federal Reserve, not to mention equally loose fiscal policy by Congress, which appears motivated by one thing and one thing only; the lobbying funds of WALL STREET (what funds are left, mostly because Congress just GAVE them out to those insolvent institutions courtesy of the taxpayers).
Mr. Paul has introduced a bill to have the Federal Reserve, the most secretive group of slime in the world, audited. By the way, the Fed is NOT a government institution, but a privately-owned bank by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc., charged with monetary policy. The Fed was created during a special Christmas session of Congress back in 1913, where very few members even showed up to vote, and has since debased the currency by more than 95% (and counting) while generating wild profits for the banks that own it.
Actually, the Constitution prohibits such an institution, stating that only the government should print money. But then again, when was the last time the Constitution was heeded? Or better yet, the last time the people showed even the slightest interest in its destruction?
Remember when Bush was allowed to bomb Iraq without a Congressional vote? Yes, that was a blatant disavowal of the Constitution as well, and look how that turned out. How about Obama taking over the auto industry and unilaterally imposing sanction and terms on the union members, bondholders, etc.? Or Paulson arbitrarily deciding that the major banks (which nearly single-handedly destroyed the economy) needed printed taxpayer money to “save” them?
The Constitution was created by a group of men trying to account for all of history’s most destructive government practices, which time and again have been repeated (such as hyperinflation) by greedy, destructive politicians at the expense of the people. In other words, it was a direct attempt to prevent such things from occurring in the newly formed America. But alas, in just over 200 years, we have nearly completely repudiated its aims (mostly in the past decade), and not coincidentally the country is far along the road to ruin.
The U.S. passed its peak of power and prestige, what a surprise, roughly a decade ago, principally due to the movement of its manufacturing base to China. And since that time the government has done what it always does; try to restore the “status quo” by taking moronic, destructive steps, in this case by ignoring the Constitution which was created to prevent just such actions. Plus, in this case the entire world has been aiding and abetting this stupidity because they own so many dollars (and thus don’t want it to crash), which in and of itself was due to the most moronic and history-repudiating decision of all, the complete renouncement of the gold standard (led by the U.S., of course), in 1971.
Anyhow, in the below U-Tube video, Paul for the first time PUBLICLY states that the government manipulates the dollar AND the gold price, something he has been obviously careful about stating. But now he does. I’ll forgive him the fact that the Fed does this in collusion with the Treasury Department, but you get the point. Actually, the entire last five minutes of this video is fascinating.
www.gata.org/node/7573.
And just to show just how lethargic and uncaring Americans are about their cratering country, watch the below U-Tube video of soon-to-be ex-Fed Chairman Bernanke, one of the most idiotic and inept people I have come across in my life, stating how passage of the Paul bill would cause ‘destruction of the dollar, the U.S. economy, and the financial system.’
Think he’s got anything to hide?
And do you yet care? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRSvq0D35dU
After all the evil that has been perpetrated on the U.S. public over the past year by Washington and Wall Street, still not a hint of outrage, disbelief, or care.
But that will change, I am 100% sure.
By now it should be clear that “green shoots of recovery” was more propaganda (actually, that term was coined by none other than Bernanke), and if you think the first wave of the money printing explosion was bad, get ready for round two!
PROTECT YOURSELF, starting with the stocking of gold/silver, food, and other life necessities, and secondly by supporting this bill (link below), which already has the support of roughly 245 Congresmen! www.ronpaul.com
Wednesday
WHAT I THINK....ERIC MARGOLIS
Republican Congressman Ron Paul invited me to speak to his Liberty caucus luncheon in Washington last week on the intensifying wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Eight libertarian and independent-minded Republican congressmen attended in Paul's office on Capitol Hill. Paul sits on the powerful house foreign affairs committee.
Readers will recall that last year I called Paul, "the only candidate who is telling Americans the truth about foreign affairs." Like the cynic Diogenes seeking an honest man, I came to respect and admire Paul's courage, honesty and refusal to accept special interest money.
Paul had no need to wear an American flag on his lapel to prove his real patriotism and dedication to the U.S. constitution. Speaking of today's U.S. Congress, Paul observes: "Special interests have replaced the concern the founders had for the general welfare."
In fact, Paul has been a model of the legislators envisaged by America's founding fathers: Men of high moral standards and intellect dedicated to the nation's well being. He reminds me in many ways of the fiercely upright senators of the early Roman Republic, the model for the United States Congress.
Paul, a physician, used to deliver babies on Mondays and Saturdays while serving in office.
Paul became a hero to many Americans last year when he ran for president against the political establishment. The 11-term Texas congressman became the most respected and admired American politician around the world after Barack Obama.
The 74-year-old doctor from Texas electrified young Americans with his grassroots campaign, providing voters a real alternative to the Republican and Democratic establishment, which often appears to be one party with two factions. Paul's clear, cool voice challenged all the propaganda about Afghanistan and Iraq. He also is waging a lonely battle against the dangerous economic nostrums now coming from the Obama White House and congressional Democrats.
FOREIGN WARS
Paul and fellow libertarian Republicans advocate individual rights, strict constitutionalism, limited government, free enterprise and an end to American global domination, nation building and foreign wars.
Paul opposes U.S. involvement in other nation's internal affairs. As anti-Iranian hysteria gripped the nation last month, Paul was the only house member who voted against a bill condemning Iran for its recent election. That's courage.
"There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs," writes Paul. He dismisses neocon claims that "we have to either fight them over there or over here" as a "false choice. "America has no business policing the world. U.S. foreign policy is undermining national security," says Paul.
Only Congress, he insists, has the right to declare war, not the president. Congress cravenly abandoned this right during the build up to the Iraq War that was fuelled by shameless lies and the crassest jingoism.
Paul's amiable manner and lack of the bloated self-importance that so typifies Washington bigwigs conceals a very keen intellect and depth of knowledge. He also has one of the capital's sharpest foreign affairs staff chiefs, Daniel McAdams.
POTENT REMEDY
As I talked with Paul, it occurred to me that he and his fellow libertarians are the potent remedy that the dreadfully sick Republican Party so desperately needs. Paul's Liberty caucus hopefully will form the core around which a vigorous, new party grows that addresses America's real needs.
President George W. Bush and the neocons pretty much destroyed the Republican Party, as this column predicted back in 2003. What's left of the Grand Old Party, of which I have been a lifelong and, recently, most unhappy member, has become a rump dominated by religious fundamentalists, regional interests, war-lusting neoconservatives and bumbling, rural Romeos. Mountebanks and demagogues are vying to become the party's voice.
Paul and his fellow libertarians offer Republicans and Americans a badly needed alternative to the dumbed-down Republicans and the wildly spending Democrats, whose expanded Afghanistan war and increasingly neosocialist policies are leading the nation into dangerous waters.
Eight libertarian and independent-minded Republican congressmen attended in Paul's office on Capitol Hill. Paul sits on the powerful house foreign affairs committee.
Readers will recall that last year I called Paul, "the only candidate who is telling Americans the truth about foreign affairs." Like the cynic Diogenes seeking an honest man, I came to respect and admire Paul's courage, honesty and refusal to accept special interest money.
Paul had no need to wear an American flag on his lapel to prove his real patriotism and dedication to the U.S. constitution. Speaking of today's U.S. Congress, Paul observes: "Special interests have replaced the concern the founders had for the general welfare."
In fact, Paul has been a model of the legislators envisaged by America's founding fathers: Men of high moral standards and intellect dedicated to the nation's well being. He reminds me in many ways of the fiercely upright senators of the early Roman Republic, the model for the United States Congress.
Paul, a physician, used to deliver babies on Mondays and Saturdays while serving in office.
Paul became a hero to many Americans last year when he ran for president against the political establishment. The 11-term Texas congressman became the most respected and admired American politician around the world after Barack Obama.
The 74-year-old doctor from Texas electrified young Americans with his grassroots campaign, providing voters a real alternative to the Republican and Democratic establishment, which often appears to be one party with two factions. Paul's clear, cool voice challenged all the propaganda about Afghanistan and Iraq. He also is waging a lonely battle against the dangerous economic nostrums now coming from the Obama White House and congressional Democrats.
FOREIGN WARS
Paul and fellow libertarian Republicans advocate individual rights, strict constitutionalism, limited government, free enterprise and an end to American global domination, nation building and foreign wars.
Paul opposes U.S. involvement in other nation's internal affairs. As anti-Iranian hysteria gripped the nation last month, Paul was the only house member who voted against a bill condemning Iran for its recent election. That's courage.
"There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs," writes Paul. He dismisses neocon claims that "we have to either fight them over there or over here" as a "false choice. "America has no business policing the world. U.S. foreign policy is undermining national security," says Paul.
Only Congress, he insists, has the right to declare war, not the president. Congress cravenly abandoned this right during the build up to the Iraq War that was fuelled by shameless lies and the crassest jingoism.
Paul's amiable manner and lack of the bloated self-importance that so typifies Washington bigwigs conceals a very keen intellect and depth of knowledge. He also has one of the capital's sharpest foreign affairs staff chiefs, Daniel McAdams.
POTENT REMEDY
As I talked with Paul, it occurred to me that he and his fellow libertarians are the potent remedy that the dreadfully sick Republican Party so desperately needs. Paul's Liberty caucus hopefully will form the core around which a vigorous, new party grows that addresses America's real needs.
President George W. Bush and the neocons pretty much destroyed the Republican Party, as this column predicted back in 2003. What's left of the Grand Old Party, of which I have been a lifelong and, recently, most unhappy member, has become a rump dominated by religious fundamentalists, regional interests, war-lusting neoconservatives and bumbling, rural Romeos. Mountebanks and demagogues are vying to become the party's voice.
Paul and his fellow libertarians offer Republicans and Americans a badly needed alternative to the dumbed-down Republicans and the wildly spending Democrats, whose expanded Afghanistan war and increasingly neosocialist policies are leading the nation into dangerous waters.
Tuesday
CELEBRATING THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ON THE FOURTH
Every year on the Fourth of July we remember our founding fathers and the precious inheritance of freedom that they secured for us. Every year it seems we get further and further away from that birthright, but we still have much to celebrate.
This country was founded on principles of freedom from overbearing rulers, onerous taxation, and the right to live our lives as we see fit. Our independence was won after decades, and even centuries of abuses that unscrupulous, corrupted leaders and big governments visited upon their subjects. The Founders knew there was a better way, and they forged it here on this soil.
In the new United States of America, the rights of the individual were enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Today, government encroaches on those rights through countless provisions in numerous laws. However, how much worse off might we be had the Founders not enumerated these rights in the highest law of the land? While it is true that many aspects of those rights have been redefined and watered down, and will likely continue to be eroded, we can celebrate the wisdom of the Founders and that at our very core we, as Americans, still hold these rights dear.
The American tradition of individual liberty and self-reliance still runs deep, in spite of the increasing nanny state tendencies that government has been gradually shoving down our throats. It is sad to see government seeking to completely replace the voluntary protections through families and charities that we have relied on throughout our history. Especially disturbing is the rhetoric of community and interdependence being employed by the administration to institute government as the great middle man for all healthcare and charity for which all citizens must dutifully sacrifice. This trend is not improving quality of life for Americans, but instead is greatly enriching the government bureaucracies that take a generous cut of all transactions in the welfare state. There still remains much resistance to cradle to grave government dependence and control. This spirit of fierce independence is a tribute to our founders and is cause to celebrate.
The majority of our Founders believed in sound money, in part because they knew it kept government in check. Governments that are unable to expand the money supply and manipulate credit at will are unable to fund frivolous wars of conquest. Instead of adventurism abroad, seeking monsters to destroy, governments restrained by sound money are restricted to truly defensive wars that the people are willing to fight and to fund. Today, in spite of all the economic turmoil that fiat currency and military interventionism has caused, there is cause to celebrate. The demand to audit the Federal Reserve is quite encouraging. The truth about the fed will put us one step closer to sound money, and peace.
Public outcry against the bank bailouts and the government power grab known as cap-and-trade proves that the spirit of liberty still lives. Part of our celebration of Independence Day should include a renewed determination to keep fighting the good fight for freedom. As long as government continually seeks to take liberties away, patriots need to keep fighting this ongoing war for sustained independence.
This country was founded on principles of freedom from overbearing rulers, onerous taxation, and the right to live our lives as we see fit. Our independence was won after decades, and even centuries of abuses that unscrupulous, corrupted leaders and big governments visited upon their subjects. The Founders knew there was a better way, and they forged it here on this soil.
In the new United States of America, the rights of the individual were enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Today, government encroaches on those rights through countless provisions in numerous laws. However, how much worse off might we be had the Founders not enumerated these rights in the highest law of the land? While it is true that many aspects of those rights have been redefined and watered down, and will likely continue to be eroded, we can celebrate the wisdom of the Founders and that at our very core we, as Americans, still hold these rights dear.
The American tradition of individual liberty and self-reliance still runs deep, in spite of the increasing nanny state tendencies that government has been gradually shoving down our throats. It is sad to see government seeking to completely replace the voluntary protections through families and charities that we have relied on throughout our history. Especially disturbing is the rhetoric of community and interdependence being employed by the administration to institute government as the great middle man for all healthcare and charity for which all citizens must dutifully sacrifice. This trend is not improving quality of life for Americans, but instead is greatly enriching the government bureaucracies that take a generous cut of all transactions in the welfare state. There still remains much resistance to cradle to grave government dependence and control. This spirit of fierce independence is a tribute to our founders and is cause to celebrate.
The majority of our Founders believed in sound money, in part because they knew it kept government in check. Governments that are unable to expand the money supply and manipulate credit at will are unable to fund frivolous wars of conquest. Instead of adventurism abroad, seeking monsters to destroy, governments restrained by sound money are restricted to truly defensive wars that the people are willing to fight and to fund. Today, in spite of all the economic turmoil that fiat currency and military interventionism has caused, there is cause to celebrate. The demand to audit the Federal Reserve is quite encouraging. The truth about the fed will put us one step closer to sound money, and peace.
Public outcry against the bank bailouts and the government power grab known as cap-and-trade proves that the spirit of liberty still lives. Part of our celebration of Independence Day should include a renewed determination to keep fighting the good fight for freedom. As long as government continually seeks to take liberties away, patriots need to keep fighting this ongoing war for sustained independence.
Thursday
WHAT I THINK....JUDSON BERGER
All of a sudden, Congress is paying close attention to Ron Paul.
The feisty congressman from Texas, whose insurgent "Ron Paul Revolution" presidential campaign rankled Republican leaders last year, now has the GOP House leadership on his side -- backing a measure that generated paltry support when he first introduced it 26 years ago.
Paul, as of Tuesday, has won 245 co-sponsors to a bill that would require a full-fledged audit of the Federal Reserve by the end of 2010.
Paul attracted just 18 co-sponsors when he authored a similar bill, which died, in 1983. While the impact Fed policies have on inflation is once again a concern, fears about loose monetary policy and excessive federal spending appear even more widespread in 2009.
"In the past, I never got much support, but I think it's the financial crisis obviously that's drawing so much attention to it, and people want to know more about the Federal Reserve," Paul told FOXNews.com.
With the Federal Reserve holding interest rates at rock-bottom levels, pumping trillions into the economy and now poised to have new powers to oversee the financial system under President Obama's proposed regulatory overhaul, Paul said lawmakers want transparency.
"If they give them a lot more power and there's no more transparency, that'll be a disaster," he said.
The bill would call for the comptroller general in the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed and report those findings to Congress. The GAO's ability to conduct such audits now is severely restricted.
A slew of top Republicans are backing the bill, as are many Democrats.
"Ron Paul has the right idea on this," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who supports similar legislation in the Senate. "I'm just hoping we can get a clear audit. ... We need to know what they're up to."
House Republican Leader John Boehner, who signed on as a co-sponsor this month, wrote in a recent blog post that the "lack of transparency and accountability" regarding federal dollars committed by the Fed and Treasury Department raise "serious concerns" and make an audit critical.
"The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would remove all of these restrictions, and allow GAO to get real answers from the Federal Reserve to protect American taxpayers," Boehner wrote.
Unfortunately for Paul, the bill appears to be idling in the House Financial Services Committee, which is chaired by Barney Frank, D-Mass. The bill has been sitting there, gathering co-sponsors, since Paul introduced it in late February.
"You've kind of got to rely on the Democratic leadership (to move the bill along)," a Boehner aide said. "I haven't heard a lot of support from Chairman Frank."
Calls to Frank's office were not returned.
Paul acknowledged that his bill hasn't advanced but said Frank has "promised" him he will deal with his bill and is willing to give it a hearing. Paul said it's easily got the "momentum" to pass the full House.
A representative with the Federal Reserve could not be reached for comment.
Obama, though, voiced confidence in Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last Tuesday and defended the Fed's overall ability to regulate effectively as well as his proposal to give the body more power.
"If you look at what we've proposed, we are not so much expanding the Fed's power as we are focusing what the Fed needs to do to prevent the kinds of crises that are happening again," Obama said. "We want that power to be available so that taxpayers aren't on the hook."
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced a bill similar to Paul's in the Senate in March, which so far has attracted just three co-sponsors -- DeMint and Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Mike Crapo of Idaho.
But DeMint told FOX News last week that the measure would have a good chance of passing the Senate if supporters can push Paul's to a vote, which he said would be successful, in the House.
"I think if we can get that much attention on this bill, I don't believe senators could vote against it, if people knew what they were voting for because everyone is suspicious of the Federal Reserve," DeMint said.
Paul's underlying goal is to abolish the Federal Reserve, which he finds contemptible.
"I blame almost everything on the Fed because they create the bubbles, they create the credit," Paul said.
But the move to require an audit, which Paul described as "neutral," puts him a bit more in the congressional mainstream.
That's a change of pace. The long-time congressman's GOP primary bid was decidedly outside the mainstream. His campaign drew enthusiastic support last year, and though it wasn't enough to pose an electoral threat to the top candidates, he even staged his own September counter-convention in Minneapolis -- down the road from the official Republican National Convention in St. Paul. His "Rally for the Republic" drew more than 10,000 supporters and was complete with a rock band and a slew of faux-delegates wielding signs for their states.
Paul frequently plays the role of party and congressional outsider. Most recently, he was the lone "no" vote on last Friday's resolution to condemn the Iranian government's crackdown on protesters.
He cited constitutional concerns in that vote, as he has in his criticism of the Fed and a slew of other issues.
"The whole process is unconstitutional. There is no legal authority to operate such a monetary system," Paul said in February, in a statement calling for Washington to "end the Fed." He introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act the following day.
The feisty congressman from Texas, whose insurgent "Ron Paul Revolution" presidential campaign rankled Republican leaders last year, now has the GOP House leadership on his side -- backing a measure that generated paltry support when he first introduced it 26 years ago.
Paul, as of Tuesday, has won 245 co-sponsors to a bill that would require a full-fledged audit of the Federal Reserve by the end of 2010.
Paul attracted just 18 co-sponsors when he authored a similar bill, which died, in 1983. While the impact Fed policies have on inflation is once again a concern, fears about loose monetary policy and excessive federal spending appear even more widespread in 2009.
"In the past, I never got much support, but I think it's the financial crisis obviously that's drawing so much attention to it, and people want to know more about the Federal Reserve," Paul told FOXNews.com.
With the Federal Reserve holding interest rates at rock-bottom levels, pumping trillions into the economy and now poised to have new powers to oversee the financial system under President Obama's proposed regulatory overhaul, Paul said lawmakers want transparency.
"If they give them a lot more power and there's no more transparency, that'll be a disaster," he said.
The bill would call for the comptroller general in the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed and report those findings to Congress. The GAO's ability to conduct such audits now is severely restricted.
A slew of top Republicans are backing the bill, as are many Democrats.
"Ron Paul has the right idea on this," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who supports similar legislation in the Senate. "I'm just hoping we can get a clear audit. ... We need to know what they're up to."
House Republican Leader John Boehner, who signed on as a co-sponsor this month, wrote in a recent blog post that the "lack of transparency and accountability" regarding federal dollars committed by the Fed and Treasury Department raise "serious concerns" and make an audit critical.
"The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would remove all of these restrictions, and allow GAO to get real answers from the Federal Reserve to protect American taxpayers," Boehner wrote.
Unfortunately for Paul, the bill appears to be idling in the House Financial Services Committee, which is chaired by Barney Frank, D-Mass. The bill has been sitting there, gathering co-sponsors, since Paul introduced it in late February.
"You've kind of got to rely on the Democratic leadership (to move the bill along)," a Boehner aide said. "I haven't heard a lot of support from Chairman Frank."
Calls to Frank's office were not returned.
Paul acknowledged that his bill hasn't advanced but said Frank has "promised" him he will deal with his bill and is willing to give it a hearing. Paul said it's easily got the "momentum" to pass the full House.
A representative with the Federal Reserve could not be reached for comment.
Obama, though, voiced confidence in Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last Tuesday and defended the Fed's overall ability to regulate effectively as well as his proposal to give the body more power.
"If you look at what we've proposed, we are not so much expanding the Fed's power as we are focusing what the Fed needs to do to prevent the kinds of crises that are happening again," Obama said. "We want that power to be available so that taxpayers aren't on the hook."
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced a bill similar to Paul's in the Senate in March, which so far has attracted just three co-sponsors -- DeMint and Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Mike Crapo of Idaho.
But DeMint told FOX News last week that the measure would have a good chance of passing the Senate if supporters can push Paul's to a vote, which he said would be successful, in the House.
"I think if we can get that much attention on this bill, I don't believe senators could vote against it, if people knew what they were voting for because everyone is suspicious of the Federal Reserve," DeMint said.
Paul's underlying goal is to abolish the Federal Reserve, which he finds contemptible.
"I blame almost everything on the Fed because they create the bubbles, they create the credit," Paul said.
But the move to require an audit, which Paul described as "neutral," puts him a bit more in the congressional mainstream.
That's a change of pace. The long-time congressman's GOP primary bid was decidedly outside the mainstream. His campaign drew enthusiastic support last year, and though it wasn't enough to pose an electoral threat to the top candidates, he even staged his own September counter-convention in Minneapolis -- down the road from the official Republican National Convention in St. Paul. His "Rally for the Republic" drew more than 10,000 supporters and was complete with a rock band and a slew of faux-delegates wielding signs for their states.
Paul frequently plays the role of party and congressional outsider. Most recently, he was the lone "no" vote on last Friday's resolution to condemn the Iranian government's crackdown on protesters.
He cited constitutional concerns in that vote, as he has in his criticism of the Fed and a slew of other issues.
"The whole process is unconstitutional. There is no legal authority to operate such a monetary system," Paul said in February, in a statement calling for Washington to "end the Fed." He introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act the following day.
OVER HERE VS. OVER THERE
There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.
Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."
Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.
Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for his adventurism in Somalia and Kosovo. As recently as 2000, George W. Bush campaigned on a "humbler" foreign policy and decried nation-building.
But our foreign policy today looks starkly different.
Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to "fight them over there" they say, so we don't have to "fight them over here." This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.
Moving forward, I suggest that we as Americans adhere to these five principles:
1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions. The purpose of the United States is to protect the liberty of the American people. We should never allow the WTO, NAFTA, the U.N. or the Law of the Sea Treaty to transfer power from America to an international body.
2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world. America should be armed with defensive weapons capable of repelling any attack. We should spend all appropriate money to make sure that no country in world can credibly threaten us.
Unfortunately, our foreign policy is undermining our security. We have more than 700 military installations in 135 countries around the globe. We have 50,000 troops in Germany, 30,000 in Japan, and 25,000 in South Korea. Worse, we have our brave men and women bogged down occupying Iraq and Afghanistan in the midst of ethnic strife and civil war.
We spend more than $1 trillion per year on our foreign policy, and our military is stretched thin. We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. We must bring our troops home from around the world, cut overseas spending and strengthen our national defense.
3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Congress abandoned that responsibility during the buildup to the Iraq war and must never make that mistake again. When wars are undeclared, they drag on with no clear plan or exit strategy. If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.
4. We do not engage in nation-building. Conservatives know government is a poor tool to solve problems. It then makes no sense that we would think that our government could build civil societies and solve the tremendously complex problems of a developing country. Nation-building does not work. It places a tremendous burden on our military and takes directly from the pockets of the American taxpayer. The best thing we as Americans can do is offer friendship while setting a good example of what a free and prosperous society looks like. Ronald Reagan wanted America to be a "shining city on the hill." We should make that our goal.
5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations. Intervention, however, always has unintended consequences and almost always gets us in trouble. For example, in 1953, our CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and installed the Shah of Iran, a ruthless dictator. The blowback from our actions was in large part responsible for the extremist Iranian Revolution of 1979, the taking of our hostages and the many problems we have had with Iran ever since. So much of our intervention makes no sense. We backed Saddam Hussein for much of the 1980s, and then twice went to war against him. In the 1990s, we bribed North Korea not to pursue atomic weapons with nuclear technology, and Kim Jong-il used that assistance to build several nuclear bombs.
Intervention simply does not serve our long-term interests.
The world is a dangerous place and we should be concerned, but intervention and militarism cannot solve our problems. The answers to our foreign policy problems lie in defending our soil, scaling back our global military footprint and trading with all willing partners. We have strayed far from this philosophy, but we can get back on track by looking to our Constitution, our traditions and the example of our Founding Fathers.
Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."
Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.
Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for his adventurism in Somalia and Kosovo. As recently as 2000, George W. Bush campaigned on a "humbler" foreign policy and decried nation-building.
But our foreign policy today looks starkly different.
Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to "fight them over there" they say, so we don't have to "fight them over here." This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.
Moving forward, I suggest that we as Americans adhere to these five principles:
1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions. The purpose of the United States is to protect the liberty of the American people. We should never allow the WTO, NAFTA, the U.N. or the Law of the Sea Treaty to transfer power from America to an international body.
2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world. America should be armed with defensive weapons capable of repelling any attack. We should spend all appropriate money to make sure that no country in world can credibly threaten us.
Unfortunately, our foreign policy is undermining our security. We have more than 700 military installations in 135 countries around the globe. We have 50,000 troops in Germany, 30,000 in Japan, and 25,000 in South Korea. Worse, we have our brave men and women bogged down occupying Iraq and Afghanistan in the midst of ethnic strife and civil war.
We spend more than $1 trillion per year on our foreign policy, and our military is stretched thin. We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. We must bring our troops home from around the world, cut overseas spending and strengthen our national defense.
3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Congress abandoned that responsibility during the buildup to the Iraq war and must never make that mistake again. When wars are undeclared, they drag on with no clear plan or exit strategy. If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.
4. We do not engage in nation-building. Conservatives know government is a poor tool to solve problems. It then makes no sense that we would think that our government could build civil societies and solve the tremendously complex problems of a developing country. Nation-building does not work. It places a tremendous burden on our military and takes directly from the pockets of the American taxpayer. The best thing we as Americans can do is offer friendship while setting a good example of what a free and prosperous society looks like. Ronald Reagan wanted America to be a "shining city on the hill." We should make that our goal.
5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations. Intervention, however, always has unintended consequences and almost always gets us in trouble. For example, in 1953, our CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and installed the Shah of Iran, a ruthless dictator. The blowback from our actions was in large part responsible for the extremist Iranian Revolution of 1979, the taking of our hostages and the many problems we have had with Iran ever since. So much of our intervention makes no sense. We backed Saddam Hussein for much of the 1980s, and then twice went to war against him. In the 1990s, we bribed North Korea not to pursue atomic weapons with nuclear technology, and Kim Jong-il used that assistance to build several nuclear bombs.
Intervention simply does not serve our long-term interests.
The world is a dangerous place and we should be concerned, but intervention and militarism cannot solve our problems. The answers to our foreign policy problems lie in defending our soil, scaling back our global military footprint and trading with all willing partners. We have strayed far from this philosophy, but we can get back on track by looking to our Constitution, our traditions and the example of our Founding Fathers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
