The Obama Administration took the United States to war against Libya without bothering to notify Congress, much less obtain a Constitutionally-mandated declaration of war. In the midst of our severe economic downturn, this misadventure has already cost us hundreds of millions of dollars and we can be sure the final price tag will be several times higher.
Why did the US intervene in a civil war in a country that has neither attacked us nor poses a threat? We are told this was another humanitarian intervention, like Clinton’s 1999 war against Serbia. But as civilian victims of the US-led coalition bombing continue to add up, it is getting difficult to determine whether the problem we are creating on the ground is worse than the one we were trying to solve.
Though the administration seems to be playing with semantics, calling this a “kinetic military action,” let’s be clear: this is a US act of war on Libya. Imposing a no-fly zone over the air space of a sovereign nation is an act of war, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pointed out before the bombing began. That the administration hesitates to call this war, possibly due to the troubling Constitutional implications, does not mean that it is not one. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution could not be clearer: the power and obligation to declare war resides solely in the US Congress.
There was ample time and opportunity for the administration to consult the UN, NATO and the Arab League before going to war, but not the US Congress.
Aside from the manner in which the administration took us to war, it is also troubling that our government has taken a decisive stand for one side of an internal conflict in another sovereign country. The administration speaks out of both sides of its mouth on this, claiming that the US is not attempting to overthrow the Gaddafi regime while clearly benefitting the rebels and stating that Gaddafi must leave. Does this make any sense? Gaddafi may well be every bit the “bad guy” we are told he is, but who are the rebels we are assisting? Do we have any clue? Will they bring freedom and prosperity to Libya if they are victorious? We might like to hope so, but the fact is, we don’t know. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, explained in a recent article that there is plausible reason to believe the rebels are current or former Islamist mujahedin, eager to engage in jihad. Indeed, Gaddafi has fought against Libyan Islamists for years and is seen by them as a bitter enemy. Astoundingly, it may well be that we are assisting al Qaeda in this new war!
The costs of this terrible mistake cannot be ignored. Congress has been locked in battles over budget cuts and agonizing over ways to save money. Recent proposed spending cuts have by now been completely wiped out with this new war! Will we be rebuilding Libya ten years from now? Will Congress simply roll over and rubber stamp more emergency spending bills for this new war as they have done in the past? We must end our participation in any attack on Libya immediately and I have signed on to legislation that would do exactly that. Congress must assert its Constitutional authority and rein in an administration clearly out of control.
Tuesday
FED AND INFLATION
The subcommittee which I chair held a hearing on monetary policy and rising prices. Whether we consider food, gasoline, or clothing, the cost of living is increasing significantly. True inflation is defined as an increase in the money supply. All other things being equal, an increase in the money supply leads to a rise in prices. Inflation’s destructive effects have ruined societies from the Roman Empire to Weimar Germany to modern-day Zimbabwe.
Blame for the most recent round of price increases has been laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve's program of credit expansion for the past three years. The current program, known as QE2, sought to purchase a total of $900 billion in US Treasury debt over a period of 8 months. Roughly $110 billion of newly created money is flooding into commodity markets each month.
The price of cotton is up more than 170% over the past year, oil is up over 40%, and many categories of food staples are seeing double-digit price growth. This means that food, clothing, and gasoline will become increasingly expensive over the coming year. American families, many of whom already live paycheck to paycheck, increasingly will be forced by these rising prices into unwilling tradeoffs: purchasing ground beef rather than steak, drinking water rather than milk, and choosing canned vegetables over fresh in order to keep food on the table and pay the heating bill. Frugality can be a good thing, but only when it is by choice and not forced upon the citizenry by the Fed's ruinous monetary policy.
While the Fed takes credit for the increase in the stock markets, it claims no responsibility for the increases in food and commodity prices. Most economists fail to understand that inflation is at its root a monetary phenomenon. There may be other factors that contribute to price increases, such as famine, flooding, or global unrest, but those effects are transient. Consistently citing only these factors, while never acknowledging the effects of monetary policy, is a cop-out.
The unelected policymakers at the Fed are also the last to feel the effects of inflation. In fact, they benefit from it, as does the government as a whole. Those who receive this new money first, such as government employees, contractors, and bankers are able to use it before price increases occur, while those further down the totem pole suffer price increases before they see any wage increases. By continually reducing the purchasing power of the dollar, the Fed's monetary policy also punishes savings and thrift. After all, why save rapidly depreciating dollars?
Unfortunately, those policymakers who exercise the most power over the economy are also the least likely to understand the effects of their policies. Chairman Bernanke and other members of the Federal Open Market Committee were convinced in mid-2008 that the economy would rebound and continue to grow through 2009, even though it was clear to many observers that we were in the midst of a severe economic crisis. Even Greenspan was known for downplaying the importance of the growing housing bubble just as it was reaching its zenith. It remains impossible for even the brilliant minds at the Fed to achieve both the depth and breadth of knowledge necessary to enact central economic planning without eventually bringing the country to economic ruin. Our witnesses delved deeply into these issues and explained this phenomenon in very logical, simple terms. The American people increasingly understand what is going on with our money. I only hope the Fed is listening.
Blame for the most recent round of price increases has been laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve's program of credit expansion for the past three years. The current program, known as QE2, sought to purchase a total of $900 billion in US Treasury debt over a period of 8 months. Roughly $110 billion of newly created money is flooding into commodity markets each month.
The price of cotton is up more than 170% over the past year, oil is up over 40%, and many categories of food staples are seeing double-digit price growth. This means that food, clothing, and gasoline will become increasingly expensive over the coming year. American families, many of whom already live paycheck to paycheck, increasingly will be forced by these rising prices into unwilling tradeoffs: purchasing ground beef rather than steak, drinking water rather than milk, and choosing canned vegetables over fresh in order to keep food on the table and pay the heating bill. Frugality can be a good thing, but only when it is by choice and not forced upon the citizenry by the Fed's ruinous monetary policy.
While the Fed takes credit for the increase in the stock markets, it claims no responsibility for the increases in food and commodity prices. Most economists fail to understand that inflation is at its root a monetary phenomenon. There may be other factors that contribute to price increases, such as famine, flooding, or global unrest, but those effects are transient. Consistently citing only these factors, while never acknowledging the effects of monetary policy, is a cop-out.
The unelected policymakers at the Fed are also the last to feel the effects of inflation. In fact, they benefit from it, as does the government as a whole. Those who receive this new money first, such as government employees, contractors, and bankers are able to use it before price increases occur, while those further down the totem pole suffer price increases before they see any wage increases. By continually reducing the purchasing power of the dollar, the Fed's monetary policy also punishes savings and thrift. After all, why save rapidly depreciating dollars?
Unfortunately, those policymakers who exercise the most power over the economy are also the least likely to understand the effects of their policies. Chairman Bernanke and other members of the Federal Open Market Committee were convinced in mid-2008 that the economy would rebound and continue to grow through 2009, even though it was clear to many observers that we were in the midst of a severe economic crisis. Even Greenspan was known for downplaying the importance of the growing housing bubble just as it was reaching its zenith. It remains impossible for even the brilliant minds at the Fed to achieve both the depth and breadth of knowledge necessary to enact central economic planning without eventually bringing the country to economic ruin. Our witnesses delved deeply into these issues and explained this phenomenon in very logical, simple terms. The American people increasingly understand what is going on with our money. I only hope the Fed is listening.
Friday
FED ON A CRIME SPREE
There is perhaps no topic as important to the average American today as rising prices. Whether we consider food, gasoline, or clothing, the cost of living is increasing significantly. At a time of high unemployment, rising prices trap American families between a rock and a hard place. While rising prices colloquially are referred to as "inflation," true inflation is defined as an increase in the money supply, and all other things being equal, an increase in the money supply leads to a rise in prices. Inflation is and always has been throughout history a monetary phenomenon, and its destructive effects have ruined societies from the Roman Empire to Weimar Germany to modern-day Zimbabwe.
Blame for the most recent round of price increases has been laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve's program of quantitative easing, and rightly so in my opinion. This program, known as QE2, sought to purchase a total of $900 billion in US Treasury debt over a period of 8 months. Roughly $110 billion of newly created money is flooding into markets each month, markets which still have not fully recovered from the financial crisis of the last few years. Banks still hold billions of dollars in underperforming mortgage-backed securities on their books, securities which would render numerous major banks insolvent if they were "marked to market." These nervous banks are hesitant to loan out further money, instead holding well over a trillion dollars on reserve with the Fed. Is it any wonder, then, that the Fed's new hot money is flowing into commodity markets?
The price of cotton is up more than 170% over the past year, oil is up over 40%, and many categories of food staples are seeing double-digit price growth. This means that food, clothing, and gasoline will become increasingly expensive over the coming year. American families, many of whom already live paycheck to paycheck, increasingly will be forced by these rising prices into unwilling tradeoffs. Rising prices lead to consumers purchasing ground beef rather than steak, drinking water rather than milk, and choosing canned vegetables over fresh. Clothes are worn until they are threadbare, in order to conserve money that keeps food on the table and pays the heating bill. While some might argue that this new frugality is a good thing, frugality is virtuous only when it results from free choice, not when it is forced upon the citizenry by the Fed's ruinous monetary policy.
While the Fed takes credit for the increase in the stock markets, it claims no responsibility for the increases in food and commodity prices. Even most economists fail to understand that inflation is at root a monetary phenomenon. As the supply of money increases, more money chases the same amount of goods, and prices rise. There may be other factors that contribute to price rises, such as famine, flooding, or global unrest, but these effects on prices are always short-term, not long-term. Consistently citing rising demand, bad weather, or energy supply uncertainty while never acknowledging the effects of monetary policy is a cop-out. Governments throughout history have sought to blame price increases on bad weather, speculators, and a whole host of other factors, rather than acknowledging the effects of their inflationary monetary policies. Indeed, tyrants of many stripes have debased their nations' currencies while denying responsibility for the suffering that results.
The unelected policymakers at the Fed are also the last to feel the effects of inflation, in fact, they benefit from it, as does the government as a whole. Inflation results in a rise in prices, but those who receive this new money first, such as government employees, contractors, and bankers are able to use it before prices begin to increase, while those further down the totem pole suffer price increases before they see any of this new money. By reducing the purchasing power of the dollar, the Fed's monetary policy also harms savers, encouraging reckless indebtedness and a more present-oriented pattern of consumption. Hard work and thrift are punished, so economic actors naturally respond by spending more, borrowing more, and saving less. After all, why save rapidly depreciating dollars?
We must also remember that those policymakers who exercise the most power over the economy are also the least likely to understand the effects of their policies. Chairman Bernanke and other members of the Federal Open Market Committee were convinced in mid-2008 that the economy would rebound and continue to grow through 2009, even though it was clear to many observers that we were in the midst of a severe economic crisis. Chairman Greenspan before him was known for downplaying the importance of the growing housing bubble, even while it was reaching its zenith. It remains impossible for even the brilliant minds at the Fed to achieve both the depth and breadth of knowledge necessary to enable centralized economic planning. As Friedrich von Hayek stated in his Nobel Prize address:
"The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men's fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals."
Blame for the most recent round of price increases has been laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve's program of quantitative easing, and rightly so in my opinion. This program, known as QE2, sought to purchase a total of $900 billion in US Treasury debt over a period of 8 months. Roughly $110 billion of newly created money is flooding into markets each month, markets which still have not fully recovered from the financial crisis of the last few years. Banks still hold billions of dollars in underperforming mortgage-backed securities on their books, securities which would render numerous major banks insolvent if they were "marked to market." These nervous banks are hesitant to loan out further money, instead holding well over a trillion dollars on reserve with the Fed. Is it any wonder, then, that the Fed's new hot money is flowing into commodity markets?
The price of cotton is up more than 170% over the past year, oil is up over 40%, and many categories of food staples are seeing double-digit price growth. This means that food, clothing, and gasoline will become increasingly expensive over the coming year. American families, many of whom already live paycheck to paycheck, increasingly will be forced by these rising prices into unwilling tradeoffs. Rising prices lead to consumers purchasing ground beef rather than steak, drinking water rather than milk, and choosing canned vegetables over fresh. Clothes are worn until they are threadbare, in order to conserve money that keeps food on the table and pays the heating bill. While some might argue that this new frugality is a good thing, frugality is virtuous only when it results from free choice, not when it is forced upon the citizenry by the Fed's ruinous monetary policy.
While the Fed takes credit for the increase in the stock markets, it claims no responsibility for the increases in food and commodity prices. Even most economists fail to understand that inflation is at root a monetary phenomenon. As the supply of money increases, more money chases the same amount of goods, and prices rise. There may be other factors that contribute to price rises, such as famine, flooding, or global unrest, but these effects on prices are always short-term, not long-term. Consistently citing rising demand, bad weather, or energy supply uncertainty while never acknowledging the effects of monetary policy is a cop-out. Governments throughout history have sought to blame price increases on bad weather, speculators, and a whole host of other factors, rather than acknowledging the effects of their inflationary monetary policies. Indeed, tyrants of many stripes have debased their nations' currencies while denying responsibility for the suffering that results.
The unelected policymakers at the Fed are also the last to feel the effects of inflation, in fact, they benefit from it, as does the government as a whole. Inflation results in a rise in prices, but those who receive this new money first, such as government employees, contractors, and bankers are able to use it before prices begin to increase, while those further down the totem pole suffer price increases before they see any of this new money. By reducing the purchasing power of the dollar, the Fed's monetary policy also harms savers, encouraging reckless indebtedness and a more present-oriented pattern of consumption. Hard work and thrift are punished, so economic actors naturally respond by spending more, borrowing more, and saving less. After all, why save rapidly depreciating dollars?
We must also remember that those policymakers who exercise the most power over the economy are also the least likely to understand the effects of their policies. Chairman Bernanke and other members of the Federal Open Market Committee were convinced in mid-2008 that the economy would rebound and continue to grow through 2009, even though it was clear to many observers that we were in the midst of a severe economic crisis. Chairman Greenspan before him was known for downplaying the importance of the growing housing bubble, even while it was reaching its zenith. It remains impossible for even the brilliant minds at the Fed to achieve both the depth and breadth of knowledge necessary to enable centralized economic planning. As Friedrich von Hayek stated in his Nobel Prize address:
"The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men's fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals."
Monday
NO-FLY WON'T FLY CONSTITUTIONALLY
We once again heard numerous voices calling for intervention in Libya. Most say the US should establish a “no-fly” zone over Libya, pretending that it is a benign, virtually cost-free action, and the least we could do to assist those trying to oust the Gaddaffi regime. Let us be clear about one thing: for the US to establish a “no fly” zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. Establishing any kind of military presence in the sovereign territory of Libya will require committing troops to engage in combat against the Libyan air force, as well as anti-aircraft systems. The administration has stated that nothing is off the table as they discuss US responses to the unrest. This sort of talk is alarming on so many levels. Does this mean a nuclear strike is on the table? Apparently so.
In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. Frankly, it is not up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up “no-fly” zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution. Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked – not by Gaddafi, and not by the rebels. This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.
Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d’etat in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business. How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. These are terrible reasons to put our soldiers’ lives at risk.
Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don’t have the money for more military interventions overseas. We don’t have the money for our current military interventions overseas. We have to rely on the Fed’s printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars. That alone should put an end to any discussion about getting involved in Libya’s civil war.
In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. Frankly, it is not up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up “no-fly” zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution. Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked – not by Gaddafi, and not by the rebels. This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.
Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d’etat in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business. How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. These are terrible reasons to put our soldiers’ lives at risk.
Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don’t have the money for more military interventions overseas. We don’t have the money for our current military interventions overseas. We have to rely on the Fed’s printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars. That alone should put an end to any discussion about getting involved in Libya’s civil war.
BUYING FRIENDS CREATES MORE ENEMIES
Last week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and I had the opportunity to raise some of my concerns regarding US foreign policy and the costs of our interventionism around the world.
Many observers claim that the recent overthrow of governments in northern Africa and the Middle East will result in more liberty for individuals across those regions. I sincerely hope this proves to be true, but history is replete with revolutions that began as a cry for freedom against oppressive governments but ended badly. There are no guarantees that Egyptians, Tunisians, or others will be better off after these heralded regime changes.
We do know, however, that these conflicts in Africa and the Middle East can be made worse if the U.S. government attempts to intervene and support certain candidates or factions. Such intervention would not further US interests or win us new friends, but in fact would undermine the legitimacy of any government that may emerge after the end of old regimes. Just as we would resent and reject any political force that came to power here with the sponsorship of a foreign government, Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, and others are not likely to take kindly to what they view as one US puppet being replaced by another US puppet. It is ironic, but the US government’s endless promotion of “democracy” overseas actually distorts and undermines democracy in targeted nations. The involvement of a foreign power often undermines true self-determination.
Radicals who understand this may use rising resentment and anti-Americanism as leverage to gain power, thus defeating the stated purpose of US involvement in the first place. I have never understood how the US government justifies subsidizing a newspaper or political party abroad in the name of promoting independence and pluralism. It makes no sense.
Unfortunately it seems to me that the administration has learned nothing from recent events in the Mediterranean region. Secretary Clinton emphasized several times at the committee hearing that “nothing is off the table” with regard to a US response to internal civil unrest in Libya. Since when is it our obligation to use political pressure or even military force to solve every problem overseas? Washington is currently buzzing with talk of “no-fly zones” and even a land invasion of Libya to aid rebel groups seeking to overthrow the Gadaffi regime. Some military leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have rightly warned the more enthusiastic interventionists that such military operations can be enormously costly both financially and in lives.
The costs of trying to run the world are unsustainable, and we simply don’t have the money. Morally, it is inexcusable for the US to pick sides in such conflicts overseas, no matter how odious either side may be. Financially, it is no longer possible. The 2012 budget request from the administration for “international affairs,” which is code for “foreign aid”, is two and a half times larger than it was just nine years ago! As our economy shrinks at home, our obligations increase abroad. As our infrastructure crumbles at home, we continue to spend billions expanding infrastructure in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. If the interventionists have their way, no doubt we will be soon pay to reconstruct the infrastructure we destroy in a Libyan military operation. It does not take a genius to see that we are going broke, but Washington remains in denial and intent on business as usual. I fear that if we continue this way we may soon be out of business altogether.
Many observers claim that the recent overthrow of governments in northern Africa and the Middle East will result in more liberty for individuals across those regions. I sincerely hope this proves to be true, but history is replete with revolutions that began as a cry for freedom against oppressive governments but ended badly. There are no guarantees that Egyptians, Tunisians, or others will be better off after these heralded regime changes.
We do know, however, that these conflicts in Africa and the Middle East can be made worse if the U.S. government attempts to intervene and support certain candidates or factions. Such intervention would not further US interests or win us new friends, but in fact would undermine the legitimacy of any government that may emerge after the end of old regimes. Just as we would resent and reject any political force that came to power here with the sponsorship of a foreign government, Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, and others are not likely to take kindly to what they view as one US puppet being replaced by another US puppet. It is ironic, but the US government’s endless promotion of “democracy” overseas actually distorts and undermines democracy in targeted nations. The involvement of a foreign power often undermines true self-determination.
Radicals who understand this may use rising resentment and anti-Americanism as leverage to gain power, thus defeating the stated purpose of US involvement in the first place. I have never understood how the US government justifies subsidizing a newspaper or political party abroad in the name of promoting independence and pluralism. It makes no sense.
Unfortunately it seems to me that the administration has learned nothing from recent events in the Mediterranean region. Secretary Clinton emphasized several times at the committee hearing that “nothing is off the table” with regard to a US response to internal civil unrest in Libya. Since when is it our obligation to use political pressure or even military force to solve every problem overseas? Washington is currently buzzing with talk of “no-fly zones” and even a land invasion of Libya to aid rebel groups seeking to overthrow the Gadaffi regime. Some military leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have rightly warned the more enthusiastic interventionists that such military operations can be enormously costly both financially and in lives.
The costs of trying to run the world are unsustainable, and we simply don’t have the money. Morally, it is inexcusable for the US to pick sides in such conflicts overseas, no matter how odious either side may be. Financially, it is no longer possible. The 2012 budget request from the administration for “international affairs,” which is code for “foreign aid”, is two and a half times larger than it was just nine years ago! As our economy shrinks at home, our obligations increase abroad. As our infrastructure crumbles at home, we continue to spend billions expanding infrastructure in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. If the interventionists have their way, no doubt we will be soon pay to reconstruct the infrastructure we destroy in a Libyan military operation. It does not take a genius to see that we are going broke, but Washington remains in denial and intent on business as usual. I fear that if we continue this way we may soon be out of business altogether.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
