Saturday
Wednesday
WHAT I THINK......DAN HIRSCHORN
Ron Paul’s opinions about cutting the budget are well-known, but on Monday, he got specific: The Texas congressman laid out a budget blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the elimination of five Cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American troops fighting overseas.
There’s even a symbolic readjustment of the president’s salary to put it in line with the average American salary.
“Our debt is too big, our government is too big, and we have to recognize how serious the problem is,” Paul said during an afternoon speech in Las Vegas ahead of Tuesday’s GOP debate there.
The plan, Paul said, would cut $1 trillion in spending his first year in the White House and create a balanced federal budget by the third year of his presidency.
“All the current candidates and many in Washington, they sort of talk around [the problem],” Paul said. “A lot of people will say, ‘well cutting a trillion dollars in one year is radical.’ Well, I operate under the assumption that the radicals have been in charge for way too long.”
Many of the ideas in Paul’s 11-page Plan to Restore America are familiar from his staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites, like eliminating the Education and Energy Departments. But Paul goes further, proposing an immediate freeze on spending by numerous government agencies at levels from 2006, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastic reductions in spending elsewhere. The Environmental Protection Agency would see a 30 percent cut; the Food and Drug Administration would see a 40 percent cut; and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.
Appearing on CNN ahead of the speech, Paul was pressed by Wolf Blitzer on how eliminating about 221,000 government jobs across five cabinet departments would boost the economy. He responded: “They’re not productive jobs,” he said.
“You cut government spending, that money goes back to you. You get to spend the money,” Paul said during his speech. “I am absolutely convinced it is the only road to prosperity.”
Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.
And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year, when Social Security’s become an issue within the Republican presidential primaries, the campaign says that plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”
The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president’s pay would be cut from $400,000 to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.”
Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties. All tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush would be extended.
And like the rest of his GOP rivals, Paul would repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, along with the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law enacted last year. A longtime Federal Reserve critic, Paul would also push a full audit of the central bank, as well as legislation to “strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.”
There’s even a symbolic readjustment of the president’s salary to put it in line with the average American salary.
“Our debt is too big, our government is too big, and we have to recognize how serious the problem is,” Paul said during an afternoon speech in Las Vegas ahead of Tuesday’s GOP debate there.
The plan, Paul said, would cut $1 trillion in spending his first year in the White House and create a balanced federal budget by the third year of his presidency.
“All the current candidates and many in Washington, they sort of talk around [the problem],” Paul said. “A lot of people will say, ‘well cutting a trillion dollars in one year is radical.’ Well, I operate under the assumption that the radicals have been in charge for way too long.”
Many of the ideas in Paul’s 11-page Plan to Restore America are familiar from his staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites, like eliminating the Education and Energy Departments. But Paul goes further, proposing an immediate freeze on spending by numerous government agencies at levels from 2006, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastic reductions in spending elsewhere. The Environmental Protection Agency would see a 30 percent cut; the Food and Drug Administration would see a 40 percent cut; and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.
Appearing on CNN ahead of the speech, Paul was pressed by Wolf Blitzer on how eliminating about 221,000 government jobs across five cabinet departments would boost the economy. He responded: “They’re not productive jobs,” he said.
“You cut government spending, that money goes back to you. You get to spend the money,” Paul said during his speech. “I am absolutely convinced it is the only road to prosperity.”
Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.
And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year, when Social Security’s become an issue within the Republican presidential primaries, the campaign says that plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”
The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president’s pay would be cut from $400,000 to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.”
Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties. All tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush would be extended.
And like the rest of his GOP rivals, Paul would repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, along with the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law enacted last year. A longtime Federal Reserve critic, Paul would also push a full audit of the central bank, as well as legislation to “strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.”
Monday
THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT
Amid the din of economic nonsense being bandied about since the collapse of the housing bubble and the steep ramping up of our national debt, there has been the persistent refrain that Washington should be run more like a business. If only more business people were in charge to wield their business acumen, we would have this country in shape in no time. But is that a good solution?
Businesses seek primarily to increase their revenues and profits. Government revenue depends on taxes. Government accumulates taxmoney by squeezing it out of people's productive earnings with threats of audits, fines and imprisonment. Our government already collects roughly $2.1 trillion annually from the productive taxpayers of America. We hardly need to increase our federal government's revenues like a private business!
Businesses sell products or services to voluntary buyers, always looking to increase their market share as much as possible. But what is the federal government's product or service? Rules, regulations, bureaucracy, paperwork, red tape, hoops to jump through, uneven protection and security from people with guns, coercion and compliance through force and confiscation of assets, militarism instead of national defense, and of course a vast welfare state. Do we need more of these government services? Hardly. In fact, we have far too many of these destructive things already.
What we need is more freedom. Freedom is the simple ability of people to live their lives as they see fit without government coercion, provided they do not initiate force or fraud against others. What we really need is a less coercive government, not more revenues.
Washington needs to stop seeing itself as a growth industry, and realize that the true function of government is to protect liberty. Washington certainly has expanded and grown and accumulated a great deal of the people's capital for itself, but this has been at the expense of our nation's prosperity. This trend needs to be reversed.
We don't need yet another "jobs" bill to supposedly put the American people back to work. Politicians need to realize that, aside from outright hiring some 14 million people, government does not create jobs. The only thing government does is hinder job creation by getting in the way and consuming otherwise private resources. Therefore, the most useful thing government can do for unemployment is to "liquidate" much of what government does in the first place.
One plain example is our tax policy that encourages U.S. corporations to accumulate foreign earnings abroad rather than repatriate such earnings. Currently there is over $1 trillion of capital that companies are keeping overseas because of the 35% tax charged for bringing it back to the US. Our government literally is pushing capital and jobs overseas that could be used to hire an estimated 2.5 million people here at home.
Businesses create jobs. Government is not a business. We don't need more stimulus or phony jobs bills. We don't need more revenue - $2 trillion is plenty to fund the federal government annually. What we do need is a wholesale rejection of government as a central economic planner.
Businesses seek primarily to increase their revenues and profits. Government revenue depends on taxes. Government accumulates taxmoney by squeezing it out of people's productive earnings with threats of audits, fines and imprisonment. Our government already collects roughly $2.1 trillion annually from the productive taxpayers of America. We hardly need to increase our federal government's revenues like a private business!
Businesses sell products or services to voluntary buyers, always looking to increase their market share as much as possible. But what is the federal government's product or service? Rules, regulations, bureaucracy, paperwork, red tape, hoops to jump through, uneven protection and security from people with guns, coercion and compliance through force and confiscation of assets, militarism instead of national defense, and of course a vast welfare state. Do we need more of these government services? Hardly. In fact, we have far too many of these destructive things already.
What we need is more freedom. Freedom is the simple ability of people to live their lives as they see fit without government coercion, provided they do not initiate force or fraud against others. What we really need is a less coercive government, not more revenues.
Washington needs to stop seeing itself as a growth industry, and realize that the true function of government is to protect liberty. Washington certainly has expanded and grown and accumulated a great deal of the people's capital for itself, but this has been at the expense of our nation's prosperity. This trend needs to be reversed.
We don't need yet another "jobs" bill to supposedly put the American people back to work. Politicians need to realize that, aside from outright hiring some 14 million people, government does not create jobs. The only thing government does is hinder job creation by getting in the way and consuming otherwise private resources. Therefore, the most useful thing government can do for unemployment is to "liquidate" much of what government does in the first place.
One plain example is our tax policy that encourages U.S. corporations to accumulate foreign earnings abroad rather than repatriate such earnings. Currently there is over $1 trillion of capital that companies are keeping overseas because of the 35% tax charged for bringing it back to the US. Our government literally is pushing capital and jobs overseas that could be used to hire an estimated 2.5 million people here at home.
Businesses create jobs. Government is not a business. We don't need more stimulus or phony jobs bills. We don't need more revenue - $2 trillion is plenty to fund the federal government annually. What we do need is a wholesale rejection of government as a central economic planner.
Saturday
WHAT I THINK.........SCOTT LAZAROWITZ
If these talk radio shows I listen to are indicative of the American population in general, and Republicans and conservatives in particular, then, stop the world, I’m getting off. The statists among the Republican field of presidential candidates propose to change things a little bit here and there, but in them and their supporters there is a severe psychological denial and stubborn refusal to recognize that the entire system of central planning in Washington needs to go. It is inherently flawed.
The deniers and fantasizers are saying that, as long as anyone but Barack Obama is elected in 2012, then things will get better. No, they won’t. Many people are fixated on making sure that the Republicans choose someone who is "electable," and they actually think that the Teflon Guy, Mitt Romney, is that candidate. However, one talk show caller to the Howie Carr show in Boston this week had it right: Romney will be just like McCain was in 2008, handing the election over to Obama on a silver platter.
But, even if Romney does get elected, and given that many of these pundits and political junkies are statists and think only in the short term, they never seem to be considering what happens after Romney’s inauguration. Will he do anything about the Federal Reserve, or Wall Street? Or stop the murderous warmongering? Nope. These statist candidates who love their central planning bureaucracies will not change a thing in Washington, even though it is those very central planning bureaucracies, especially the Fed and the national security-military complex, that have been destroying America.
On one of those annoying radio talk shows this week, conservative talk host Michael Graham took a call from someone in favor of ending the Federal Reserve "monstrosity," and Graham’s reply was something like, "oh, and instead give Congress control over our money," and so forth. But did Graham allow the caller to respond, possibly suggesting another alternative, such as having a free market in money with competitive currencies? Nope. Graham just concluded the conversation and took another call.
And talk host Howie Carr had a caller who disliked Romney and said he was between Herman Cain and Ron Paul. Carr seemed to agree with some of the caller’s positive comments about Paul, "except that Paul is crazy," and "says crazy things." Yeah, like closing down the Federal Reserve and allowing the people to have their freedom once again, and ending the police state and ending the warmongering that does nothing but provoke foreign people to act against us. Crazy, man. Ending those things is crazy. Keeping the status quo of statism is sane and reasonable. Welcome to 1984.
And, when political consultant Frank Luntz was interviewed by Sean Hannity, Luntz accused the media of trying to cause Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to attack (and thus destroy) each other. Yeah, so? Is there something wrong with that? Please let the statist warmongers destroy each other, before they destroy us!
Meanwhile, over at the White House, Barry and Evita are working feverishly on their invitations for Inauguration Day, 2013.
Incidentally, Howie Carr is the one who wrote two books on organized crime mobsters, one on the notorious "Whitey" Bulger and one on Bulger’s hit man, Johnny Martorano. Perhaps Carr should consider writing a book on the criminal Wall Street and government gangsters, and how they embezzle the people’s hard-earned wealth through the Fed and banking cartel.
I honestly don’t know why I continue to listen to these radio talk shows. While some of these talk hosts are willing to point out Romney’s flaws, in hearing many of their callers, however, one would have to conclude that Romney literally bathes in Teflon. During the 1980s, with one scandal after another, and because nothing stuck to Ronald Reagan, President Reagan was known as the "Teflon President." But he had nothing on Mitt Romney.
Even the terribly negative economic effects of Romney’s socialist and fascist medical plan in Massachusetts do not seem to influence voters. People don’t seem to care that, as governor, Romney was a champion of Big Government. And is it really that easy for people to forget Romney’s publicly expressed affection for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy when Romney signed the RomneyCare atrocity into law? And Romney’s snubbing of a medical patient in a wheelchair, when the patient asked if Romney would have him and his doctor arrested for using medical marijuana. Yes, Romney wants to make sure the patient is insured, and then he can arrest him.
Frankly, when I see a politician who exhibits the kind of carnival barker-like gestures that Romney does, I feel afraid, very afraid. But because he is made with Teflon, nothing sticks. Right behind Romney in Teflon content is Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Oh, well.
I think that, thanks to government-controlled American schooling, many Americans are in denial about how broken and unfixable our current federal, statist system of central planning is. They are in denial of the truth that our government’s foreign policy has been invasive of other peoples, and that such an interventionist policy is immoral. But when people hear those criticisms of our government, as Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger noted, so many people confuse the government (filled to the rim with corruption and imbecilic bureaucrats) with the actual country, America. During the 2008 presidential campaign, many people perceived Ron Paul as "blaming America" for terrorism and 9/11, when Paul was actually blaming the government’s counter-productive, interventionist foreign policy.
But on the talk radio shows and the TV pundit shows, so many people continue to shrug off Ron Paul and his support of freedom and individual rights, and the sanctity of voluntary contracts, private property and the rule of law. It’s as though the deniers are afraid of Paul’s views, as though they fear freedom and personal responsibility, and that such fears are why they don’t seem to want to consider Paul’s candidacy.
But in the event that Ron Paul does not win the Republican nomination for president, I strongly suggest that he leave the Republicrat Party for good and run as a third party Independent. Some people fear that such a move will siphon votes away from the Republican nominee and ensure an Obama reelection, even though a Romney nomination is what will ensure an Obama reelection. But others believe that a Ron Paul third-party candidacy will siphon anti-war, pro-civil liberties votes away from Obama. The best thing such a move would do is it would bother the hell out of those conservative radio talk hosts, especially Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. Just that in and of itself would make a Ron Paul-third party run simply delightful.
However, in the end, it doesn’t matter who is elected in 2012, because the whole system of central planning is inherently flawed, and it can’t be reformed. I’m sure that Ron Paul disagrees with me on that, but the idea of "limited government" is impossible. Central planning doesn’t work in money and banking, immigration, and certainly not in national security.
America needs to get rid of the one thing that has been the biggest cause of America’s destruction, the federal government. The country needs to decentralize, states need to secede and become fully independent and sovereign, just like the Soviet Union did, and the functions of money and security especially need to be de-monopolized away from government control. Have Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity ever even considered such ideas? Or are such ideas just too "crazy" to be considered?
But the bottom line for me is this: I’ve got to stop listening to those annoying talk radio shows!
The deniers and fantasizers are saying that, as long as anyone but Barack Obama is elected in 2012, then things will get better. No, they won’t. Many people are fixated on making sure that the Republicans choose someone who is "electable," and they actually think that the Teflon Guy, Mitt Romney, is that candidate. However, one talk show caller to the Howie Carr show in Boston this week had it right: Romney will be just like McCain was in 2008, handing the election over to Obama on a silver platter.
But, even if Romney does get elected, and given that many of these pundits and political junkies are statists and think only in the short term, they never seem to be considering what happens after Romney’s inauguration. Will he do anything about the Federal Reserve, or Wall Street? Or stop the murderous warmongering? Nope. These statist candidates who love their central planning bureaucracies will not change a thing in Washington, even though it is those very central planning bureaucracies, especially the Fed and the national security-military complex, that have been destroying America.
On one of those annoying radio talk shows this week, conservative talk host Michael Graham took a call from someone in favor of ending the Federal Reserve "monstrosity," and Graham’s reply was something like, "oh, and instead give Congress control over our money," and so forth. But did Graham allow the caller to respond, possibly suggesting another alternative, such as having a free market in money with competitive currencies? Nope. Graham just concluded the conversation and took another call.
And talk host Howie Carr had a caller who disliked Romney and said he was between Herman Cain and Ron Paul. Carr seemed to agree with some of the caller’s positive comments about Paul, "except that Paul is crazy," and "says crazy things." Yeah, like closing down the Federal Reserve and allowing the people to have their freedom once again, and ending the police state and ending the warmongering that does nothing but provoke foreign people to act against us. Crazy, man. Ending those things is crazy. Keeping the status quo of statism is sane and reasonable. Welcome to 1984.
And, when political consultant Frank Luntz was interviewed by Sean Hannity, Luntz accused the media of trying to cause Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to attack (and thus destroy) each other. Yeah, so? Is there something wrong with that? Please let the statist warmongers destroy each other, before they destroy us!
Meanwhile, over at the White House, Barry and Evita are working feverishly on their invitations for Inauguration Day, 2013.
Incidentally, Howie Carr is the one who wrote two books on organized crime mobsters, one on the notorious "Whitey" Bulger and one on Bulger’s hit man, Johnny Martorano. Perhaps Carr should consider writing a book on the criminal Wall Street and government gangsters, and how they embezzle the people’s hard-earned wealth through the Fed and banking cartel.
I honestly don’t know why I continue to listen to these radio talk shows. While some of these talk hosts are willing to point out Romney’s flaws, in hearing many of their callers, however, one would have to conclude that Romney literally bathes in Teflon. During the 1980s, with one scandal after another, and because nothing stuck to Ronald Reagan, President Reagan was known as the "Teflon President." But he had nothing on Mitt Romney.
Even the terribly negative economic effects of Romney’s socialist and fascist medical plan in Massachusetts do not seem to influence voters. People don’t seem to care that, as governor, Romney was a champion of Big Government. And is it really that easy for people to forget Romney’s publicly expressed affection for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy when Romney signed the RomneyCare atrocity into law? And Romney’s snubbing of a medical patient in a wheelchair, when the patient asked if Romney would have him and his doctor arrested for using medical marijuana. Yes, Romney wants to make sure the patient is insured, and then he can arrest him.
Frankly, when I see a politician who exhibits the kind of carnival barker-like gestures that Romney does, I feel afraid, very afraid. But because he is made with Teflon, nothing sticks. Right behind Romney in Teflon content is Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Oh, well.
I think that, thanks to government-controlled American schooling, many Americans are in denial about how broken and unfixable our current federal, statist system of central planning is. They are in denial of the truth that our government’s foreign policy has been invasive of other peoples, and that such an interventionist policy is immoral. But when people hear those criticisms of our government, as Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger noted, so many people confuse the government (filled to the rim with corruption and imbecilic bureaucrats) with the actual country, America. During the 2008 presidential campaign, many people perceived Ron Paul as "blaming America" for terrorism and 9/11, when Paul was actually blaming the government’s counter-productive, interventionist foreign policy.
But on the talk radio shows and the TV pundit shows, so many people continue to shrug off Ron Paul and his support of freedom and individual rights, and the sanctity of voluntary contracts, private property and the rule of law. It’s as though the deniers are afraid of Paul’s views, as though they fear freedom and personal responsibility, and that such fears are why they don’t seem to want to consider Paul’s candidacy.
But in the event that Ron Paul does not win the Republican nomination for president, I strongly suggest that he leave the Republicrat Party for good and run as a third party Independent. Some people fear that such a move will siphon votes away from the Republican nominee and ensure an Obama reelection, even though a Romney nomination is what will ensure an Obama reelection. But others believe that a Ron Paul third-party candidacy will siphon anti-war, pro-civil liberties votes away from Obama. The best thing such a move would do is it would bother the hell out of those conservative radio talk hosts, especially Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. Just that in and of itself would make a Ron Paul-third party run simply delightful.
However, in the end, it doesn’t matter who is elected in 2012, because the whole system of central planning is inherently flawed, and it can’t be reformed. I’m sure that Ron Paul disagrees with me on that, but the idea of "limited government" is impossible. Central planning doesn’t work in money and banking, immigration, and certainly not in national security.
America needs to get rid of the one thing that has been the biggest cause of America’s destruction, the federal government. The country needs to decentralize, states need to secede and become fully independent and sovereign, just like the Soviet Union did, and the functions of money and security especially need to be de-monopolized away from government control. Have Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity ever even considered such ideas? Or are such ideas just too "crazy" to be considered?
But the bottom line for me is this: I’ve got to stop listening to those annoying talk radio shows!
Tuesday
A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
According to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, Americans are never to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Constitution is not some aspirational statement of values, allowing exceptions when convenient, but rather, it is the law of the land. It is the basis of our Republic and our principal bulwark against tyranny.
Last week’s assassination of two American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, is an outrage and a criminal act carried out by the President and his administration. If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned assassination can be voided when there is a “really bad American”, is there any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States? If, as we learned last week, a secret government committee, not subject to congressional oversight or judicial review, can now target certain Americans for assassination, under what moral authority do we presume to lecture the rest of the world about protecting human rights? Didn’t we just bomb Libya into oblivion under the auspices of protecting the civilians from being targeted by their government? Timothy McVeigh was certainly a threat, as were Nidal Hassan and Jared Lee Loughner. They killed people in front of many witnesses. They took up arms against their government in a literal way, yet were still afforded trials. These constitutional protections are in place because our Founders realized it is a very serious matter to deprive any individual of life or liberty. Our outrage against even the obviously guilty is not worth the sacrifice of the rule of law. Al-Awlaki has been outspoken against the United States and we are told he encouraged violence against Americans. We do not know that he actually committed any acts of violence. Ironically, he was once invited to the Pentagon as part of an outreach to moderate Muslims after 9/11. As the US attacks against Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia expanded, it is said that he became more fervent and radical in his opposition to US foreign policy.
Many cheer this killing because they believe that in a time of war, due process is not necessary - not even for citizens, and especially not for those overseas. However, there has been no formal declaration of war and certainly not one against Yemen. The post-9/11 authorization for force would not have covered these two Americans because no one is claiming they had any connection to that attack. Al-Awlaki was on a kill list compiled by a secret panel within President Obama’s National Security Council and Justice Department. How many more Americans citizens are on that list? They won’t tell us. What are the criteria? They won’t tell us. Where is the evidence? They won’t tell us.
Al-Awlaki's father tried desperately to get the administration to at least allow his son to have legal representation to challenge the “kill” order. He was denied. Rather than give him his day in court, the administration, behind closed doors, served as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.The most worrisome aspect of this is that any new powers this administration accrues will serve as precedents for future administrations. Even those who completely trust this administration must understand that if this usurpation of power and denial of due process is allowed to stand, these powers will remain to be expanded on by the next administration and then the next. Will you trust them? History shows that once a population gives up its rights, they are not easily won back. Beware.
Last week’s assassination of two American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, is an outrage and a criminal act carried out by the President and his administration. If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned assassination can be voided when there is a “really bad American”, is there any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States? If, as we learned last week, a secret government committee, not subject to congressional oversight or judicial review, can now target certain Americans for assassination, under what moral authority do we presume to lecture the rest of the world about protecting human rights? Didn’t we just bomb Libya into oblivion under the auspices of protecting the civilians from being targeted by their government? Timothy McVeigh was certainly a threat, as were Nidal Hassan and Jared Lee Loughner. They killed people in front of many witnesses. They took up arms against their government in a literal way, yet were still afforded trials. These constitutional protections are in place because our Founders realized it is a very serious matter to deprive any individual of life or liberty. Our outrage against even the obviously guilty is not worth the sacrifice of the rule of law. Al-Awlaki has been outspoken against the United States and we are told he encouraged violence against Americans. We do not know that he actually committed any acts of violence. Ironically, he was once invited to the Pentagon as part of an outreach to moderate Muslims after 9/11. As the US attacks against Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia expanded, it is said that he became more fervent and radical in his opposition to US foreign policy.
Many cheer this killing because they believe that in a time of war, due process is not necessary - not even for citizens, and especially not for those overseas. However, there has been no formal declaration of war and certainly not one against Yemen. The post-9/11 authorization for force would not have covered these two Americans because no one is claiming they had any connection to that attack. Al-Awlaki was on a kill list compiled by a secret panel within President Obama’s National Security Council and Justice Department. How many more Americans citizens are on that list? They won’t tell us. What are the criteria? They won’t tell us. Where is the evidence? They won’t tell us.
Al-Awlaki's father tried desperately to get the administration to at least allow his son to have legal representation to challenge the “kill” order. He was denied. Rather than give him his day in court, the administration, behind closed doors, served as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.The most worrisome aspect of this is that any new powers this administration accrues will serve as precedents for future administrations. Even those who completely trust this administration must understand that if this usurpation of power and denial of due process is allowed to stand, these powers will remain to be expanded on by the next administration and then the next. Will you trust them? History shows that once a population gives up its rights, they are not easily won back. Beware.
Saturday
A LESSON
Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). FSOC has been given a mandate to identify threats to the American financial system. With all the major financial regulators as members of FSOC, this new organization is like the Plunge Protection Team on steroids, and there is no telling what kind of damage FSOC will end up doing to financial markets.
While our domestic economy continues to suffer as a result of the Federal Reserve's intervention into credit markets, the euro increasingly looks likely to collapse. Here too the federal government has intervened, with the Federal Reserve promising unlimited dollar liquidity support to European central banks, and Secretary Geithner traveling to Europe to castigate the Europeans for moving "too slowly" in addressing their financial crisis. Whether or not the euro's collapse leads to the introduction of a new international monetary regime remains an open question. There is also the newly revived issue of China's currency, in which it appears that Congress may attempt to punish China for the alleged artificial weakness of its currency. The irony of Congress dictating monetary policy to the People's Bank of China when they would not even dare audit, let alone dictate, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy seems to be lost on the neo-mercantilist supporters of the China currency bill.
What role FSOC plays in all of these recent developments needs to be ascertained. The design of the euro seems to have been flawed from the beginning, and the likelihood of a return to national currencies seems all the more certain every day. A collapse of the euro would undoubtedly have ramifications on the American financial system, but what those effects would be and what the Treasury and Federal Reserve's response would be is not certain. The Federal Reserve has already offered unlimited amounts of dollar liquidity to European central banks, at least according to the Europeans. The Fed has not yet deigned to provide anyone with the details of these arrangements, so we have no idea how much money was promised or how this money will be used. Considering that swap lines peaked during the financial crisis at $580 billion, it would not be surprising to see that number reached or exceeded in the event that Europe faces a currency meltdown. It is imperative that we find out how much the US government has involved itself in negotiations surrounding the European financial crisis.
With the dollar growing increasingly weak in the past few years, some had feared that a dollar currency crisis would provide a useful excuse to introduce a new international monetary regime, one that would replace the euro, national currencies, and supplant the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Now the possibility has been raised that the euro's instability might provide the impetus for such a scheme. This is a topic which has been neglected in recent years but which is especially important because of the work the G20 has undertaken on global currency reform since 2008. What role US representatives have played in these negotiations is unknown to Congress, nor do we know what global currency reform initiatives are being discussed. I fear that the G20 negotiations will result in a fait accompli that will be forced upon the American people with no opportunity for input or debate
Ever since the closing of the gold window by President Nixon in 1971, the unbacked US dollar has served as the world's reserve currency. No longer constrained by being required to exchange dollars for gold, the US government has been able to fund its fiscal profligacy with trillions of dollars of new money created out of thin air. The only constraint on government spending is the willingness of investors to continue to purchase the Treasury debt issued to fund the government's massive fiscal deficits.
Unhappiness at this current state of affairs has led to calls to replace the current global dollar standard with a new global currency system. Many of the proposals work from the assumption that national governments cannot be trusted to manage currencies in a responsible manner, and that only an international organization such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) can provide a stable global reserve currency. These proposals dig back to the roots of the discredited Bretton Woods system, only instead of resurrecting the flawed gold-exchange standard they propose a version of John Maynard Keynes' "bancor", an international fiat currency based on the IMF's current special drawing rights (SDR).
To return to sound money, we need to return to the monetary system our founders intended. Gold and silver were to be the only types of currency which the states could declare to be legal tender, the government was not given a monopoly on currency issuance, and foreign coin could circulate just as freely as American coin. Rather than further centralizing currency issuance in an unaccountable international organization such as the IMF, currency issuance needs to be decentralized. The free market can provide currency just as it provides every other good. All that is needed is for government to remove the restrictions on private mints. Gold is gold no matter who mints it, and unlike paper money it cannot be created out of thin air. Gold-backed currency serves as the ultimate check on government spending and debt creation. Only by returning to commodity-backed currency can we return to fiscal and monetary sanity and break the cycle of booms and busts brought upon us by the Federal Reserve.
In conclusion, this Committee has a great role to play in overseeing the administration's activities in both international and domestic monetary policy. We need to keep watch over the actions of FSOC and its members with regard to the Eurozone bailout, bring to light the administration's negotiations with the G20, and vigorously oppose any efforts to force the United States into a new global currency, while simultaneously laying the groundwork for a return to sound money in this country.
While our domestic economy continues to suffer as a result of the Federal Reserve's intervention into credit markets, the euro increasingly looks likely to collapse. Here too the federal government has intervened, with the Federal Reserve promising unlimited dollar liquidity support to European central banks, and Secretary Geithner traveling to Europe to castigate the Europeans for moving "too slowly" in addressing their financial crisis. Whether or not the euro's collapse leads to the introduction of a new international monetary regime remains an open question. There is also the newly revived issue of China's currency, in which it appears that Congress may attempt to punish China for the alleged artificial weakness of its currency. The irony of Congress dictating monetary policy to the People's Bank of China when they would not even dare audit, let alone dictate, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy seems to be lost on the neo-mercantilist supporters of the China currency bill.
What role FSOC plays in all of these recent developments needs to be ascertained. The design of the euro seems to have been flawed from the beginning, and the likelihood of a return to national currencies seems all the more certain every day. A collapse of the euro would undoubtedly have ramifications on the American financial system, but what those effects would be and what the Treasury and Federal Reserve's response would be is not certain. The Federal Reserve has already offered unlimited amounts of dollar liquidity to European central banks, at least according to the Europeans. The Fed has not yet deigned to provide anyone with the details of these arrangements, so we have no idea how much money was promised or how this money will be used. Considering that swap lines peaked during the financial crisis at $580 billion, it would not be surprising to see that number reached or exceeded in the event that Europe faces a currency meltdown. It is imperative that we find out how much the US government has involved itself in negotiations surrounding the European financial crisis.
With the dollar growing increasingly weak in the past few years, some had feared that a dollar currency crisis would provide a useful excuse to introduce a new international monetary regime, one that would replace the euro, national currencies, and supplant the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Now the possibility has been raised that the euro's instability might provide the impetus for such a scheme. This is a topic which has been neglected in recent years but which is especially important because of the work the G20 has undertaken on global currency reform since 2008. What role US representatives have played in these negotiations is unknown to Congress, nor do we know what global currency reform initiatives are being discussed. I fear that the G20 negotiations will result in a fait accompli that will be forced upon the American people with no opportunity for input or debate
Ever since the closing of the gold window by President Nixon in 1971, the unbacked US dollar has served as the world's reserve currency. No longer constrained by being required to exchange dollars for gold, the US government has been able to fund its fiscal profligacy with trillions of dollars of new money created out of thin air. The only constraint on government spending is the willingness of investors to continue to purchase the Treasury debt issued to fund the government's massive fiscal deficits.
Unhappiness at this current state of affairs has led to calls to replace the current global dollar standard with a new global currency system. Many of the proposals work from the assumption that national governments cannot be trusted to manage currencies in a responsible manner, and that only an international organization such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) can provide a stable global reserve currency. These proposals dig back to the roots of the discredited Bretton Woods system, only instead of resurrecting the flawed gold-exchange standard they propose a version of John Maynard Keynes' "bancor", an international fiat currency based on the IMF's current special drawing rights (SDR).
To return to sound money, we need to return to the monetary system our founders intended. Gold and silver were to be the only types of currency which the states could declare to be legal tender, the government was not given a monopoly on currency issuance, and foreign coin could circulate just as freely as American coin. Rather than further centralizing currency issuance in an unaccountable international organization such as the IMF, currency issuance needs to be decentralized. The free market can provide currency just as it provides every other good. All that is needed is for government to remove the restrictions on private mints. Gold is gold no matter who mints it, and unlike paper money it cannot be created out of thin air. Gold-backed currency serves as the ultimate check on government spending and debt creation. Only by returning to commodity-backed currency can we return to fiscal and monetary sanity and break the cycle of booms and busts brought upon us by the Federal Reserve.
In conclusion, this Committee has a great role to play in overseeing the administration's activities in both international and domestic monetary policy. We need to keep watch over the actions of FSOC and its members with regard to the Eurozone bailout, bring to light the administration's negotiations with the G20, and vigorously oppose any efforts to force the United States into a new global currency, while simultaneously laying the groundwork for a return to sound money in this country.
Monday
THE FED TWISTS, THE MARKET SHOUTS
Last week the Federal Reserve began the second incarnation of "Operation Twist", an attempt to drive down interest rates by purchasing long-term Treasury debt and selling short-term debt. This is just the latest instance of the central bank desperately flailing around doing something merely for the sake of doing something. Fed officials still do not understand-- or admit-- that the Fed itself caused the financial crisis by driving interest rates too low and relentlessly expanding the money supply. Thus, this latest action will just exacerbate the problem.
Markets, however, understand that the Fed has failed and has no clue what it is doing. This is why markets went into a tailspin after the Fed's new strategy was announced. Stock, bonds, and commodities dropped in price while the financial press wondered whether this worldwide sell-off meant that the entire system was collapsing. Not since 2008 had there been such a dramatic drop across so many different sectors of the market.
Because of continued rising inflation and the Federal Reserve's suppression of interest rates, investing in traditional safe havens such as savings accounts, mutual funds, and Treasury bonds has become unprofitable. Lots of money is moving through the system seeking a return on investments or at least some measure of safety, as increasingly desperate investors move their funds around in search of long-term profits and stability. Until the Fed stops its monetary intervention and allows interest rates to be set by the free market, investors will move their money in a volatile manner. They will invest in commodities and stocks while prices swing upwards, but will flee to bonds and cash at the first sign of a downturn.
The uncertainty caused by the Fed does help some people – professional traders on Wall Street for example. Increased volatility and huge price swings mean more opportunities for profit, as sophisticated electronic trading programs can buy and sell huge positions within a fraction of a second of a major market movement. But small businessmen are misled by the artificially low interest rates into making unwise investments, and those whose jobs vanish when the Federal Reserve's latest bubble pops suffer. Without the knowledge or ability to move with the markets or diversify overseas, average Americans see their savings stagnate or depreciate-- along with their hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow.
The only way to return to a sound economy is for the Federal Reserve to cease and desist its monetary manipulation and allow interest rates to be determined by markets, just as the price of goods, services, and labor should be determined by markets. Everything the Fed is doing by pumping money into the economy benefits only the insolvent, too-big-to-fail banks. Low interest rates encourage consumers to take on more debt, meaning more profits for the banks issuing those loans. Purchasing mortgage-backed securities, as the Fed has done, keeps housing prices inflated, helping the banks who have non-performing mortgages on their books. However, it hurts consumers who continue to be priced out of the housing market. In order to maintain a decent standard of living for the American people and to restore the vibrancy of the U.S. economy, it is time to end the Fed.
Markets, however, understand that the Fed has failed and has no clue what it is doing. This is why markets went into a tailspin after the Fed's new strategy was announced. Stock, bonds, and commodities dropped in price while the financial press wondered whether this worldwide sell-off meant that the entire system was collapsing. Not since 2008 had there been such a dramatic drop across so many different sectors of the market.
Because of continued rising inflation and the Federal Reserve's suppression of interest rates, investing in traditional safe havens such as savings accounts, mutual funds, and Treasury bonds has become unprofitable. Lots of money is moving through the system seeking a return on investments or at least some measure of safety, as increasingly desperate investors move their funds around in search of long-term profits and stability. Until the Fed stops its monetary intervention and allows interest rates to be set by the free market, investors will move their money in a volatile manner. They will invest in commodities and stocks while prices swing upwards, but will flee to bonds and cash at the first sign of a downturn.
The uncertainty caused by the Fed does help some people – professional traders on Wall Street for example. Increased volatility and huge price swings mean more opportunities for profit, as sophisticated electronic trading programs can buy and sell huge positions within a fraction of a second of a major market movement. But small businessmen are misled by the artificially low interest rates into making unwise investments, and those whose jobs vanish when the Federal Reserve's latest bubble pops suffer. Without the knowledge or ability to move with the markets or diversify overseas, average Americans see their savings stagnate or depreciate-- along with their hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow.
The only way to return to a sound economy is for the Federal Reserve to cease and desist its monetary manipulation and allow interest rates to be determined by markets, just as the price of goods, services, and labor should be determined by markets. Everything the Fed is doing by pumping money into the economy benefits only the insolvent, too-big-to-fail banks. Low interest rates encourage consumers to take on more debt, meaning more profits for the banks issuing those loans. Purchasing mortgage-backed securities, as the Fed has done, keeps housing prices inflated, helping the banks who have non-performing mortgages on their books. However, it hurts consumers who continue to be priced out of the housing market. In order to maintain a decent standard of living for the American people and to restore the vibrancy of the U.S. economy, it is time to end the Fed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
