Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Abortion...It's not up the Feds!!!
Another great piece by Congressman Ron Paul

As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.


Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.
Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.

Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.

Smoking ban...

How ridiculous are smoking bans? I heard today from an American Cancer Society rep that about 70-80% of people are non-smokers. Ok, what about the 20-30% of people who are? Do they not get a say in this? Policy should not be made just because of majority rule. In fact, I thought government was supposed to exist to protect the rights of the minority! That being said, I don't believe smokers or non-smokers have a right to anything. It is exaclty because neither group has a right to something that the government should stay out of this debate. Let the individual businesses decide what is best for their employees/customers. A smart business will realize that it is in their best interest to have space reserved for both smokers and non-smokers. Businesses that don't recoginize the desires of their employees/customers will fail and thus, problem solved. Government, leave us alone!

Friday, January 27, 2006

Public choice economics...

There's an interesting article in the Christian Science Monitor today that reviews the massive wealth redistribution that is occuring in the United States. According to the article, nearly 60% of the federal budget is now redistributed wealth. This is explained by "public choice theory" or "pluralism." Essentially, various constituent groups lobby for wealth to be taken and distributed to them and the government is pulled in the direction of the strongest groups. These groups have a strong incentive to lobby for their interests (millions of dollars) while the average taxpayer's incentive to lobby on their own behalf is much smaller. Put another way, coerced taxation is spread over millions of taxpayers while the collected monies are directed to a much smaller group of people. One example of this is the senior lobby. As the population ages, the senior lobby will continue to grow at the expense of everyone else. Or if you believe, as I do, that entitlement programs perpetuate and not end poverty, you will see that the wealth redistibution curve will grow exponentially as welfare programs are enacted.

What does this all mean? It means that regardless of the party that is in office, the country is heading toward socialism. Simple economics shows that the incentives are stronger for those that benefit from wealth redistribution than for those that do not. We simply have to hope that the taxpayers rise up and become a vocal voice against wealth redistribution, regardless of how much of they have to lose or gain...

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Intervention in the free market...
From Murray Rothbard



The free market and the free price system make goods from around the world available to consumers. The free market also gives the largest possible scope to entrepreneurs, who risk capital to allocate resources so as to satisfy the future desires of the mass of consumers as efficiently as possible. Saving and investment can then develop capital goods and increase the productivity and wages of workers, thereby increasing their standard of living. The free competitive market also rewards and stimulates technological innovation that allows the innovator to get a head start in satisfying consumer wants in new and creative ways.
Not only is investment encouraged, but perhaps more important, the price system, and the profit-and-loss incentives of the market, guide capital investment and production into the proper paths. The intricate latticework can mesh and "clear" all markets so that there are no sudden, unforeseen, and inexplicable shortages and surpluses anywhere in the production system.
But exchanges are not necessarily free. Many are coerced. If a robber threatens you with "Your money or your life," your payment to him is coerced and not voluntary, and he benefits at your expense. It is robbery, not free markets, that actually follows the mercantilist model: the robber benefits at the expense of the coerced. Exploitation occurs not in the free market, but where the coercer exploits his victim. In the long run, coercion is a negative-sum game that leads to reduced production, saving, and investment, a depleted stock of capital, and reduced productivity and living standards for all, perhaps even for the coercers themselves.
Government, in every society, is the only lawful system of coercion. Taxation is a coerced exchange, and the heavier the burden of taxation on production, the more likely it is that economic growth will falter and decline. Other forms of government coercion (e.g., price controls or restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market) hamper and cripple market exchanges, while others (prohibitions on deceptive practices, enforcement of contracts) can facilitate voluntary exchanges.
The ultimate in government coercion is socialism. Under socialist central planning the socialist planning board lacks a price system for land or capital goods. As even socialists like Robert Heilbroner now admit, the socialist planning board therefore has no way to calculate prices or costs or to invest capital so that the latticework of production meshes and clears. The current Soviet experience, where a bumper wheat harvest somehow cannot find its way to retail stores, is an instructive example of the impossibility of operating a complex, modern economy in the absence of a free market. There was neither incentive nor means of calculating prices and costs for hopper cars to get to the wheat, for the flour mills to receive and process it, and so on down through the large number of stages needed to reach the ultimate consumer in Moscow or Sverdlovsk. The investment in wheat is almost totally wasted.
Market socialism is, in fact, a contradiction in terms. The fashionable discussion of market socialism often overlooks one crucial aspect of the market. When two goods are indeed exchanged, what is really exchanged is the property titles in those goods. When I buy a newspaper for fifty cents, the seller and I are exchanging property titles: I yield the ownership of the fifty cents and grant it to the news dealer, and he yields the ownership of the newspaper to me. The exact same process occurs as in buying a house, except that in the case of the newspaper, matters are much more informal, and we can all avoid the intricate process of deeds, notarized contracts, agents, attorneys, mortgage brokers, and so on. But the economic nature of the two transactions remains the same.
This means that the key to the existence and flourishing of the free market is a society in which the rights and titles of private property are respected, defended, and kept secure. The key to socialism, on the other hand, is government ownership of the means of production, land, and capital goods. Thus, there can be no market in land or capital goods worthy of the name.
Some critics of the free-market argue that property rights are in conflict with "human" rights. But the critics fail to realize that in a free-market system, every person has a property right over his own person and his own labor, and that he can make free contracts for those services. Slavery violates the basic property right of the slave over his own body and person, a right that is the groundwork for any person's property rights over nonhuman material objects. What's more, all rights are human rights, whether it is everyone's right to free speech or one individual's property rights in his own home.
A common charge against the free-market society is that it institutes "the law of the jungle," of "dog eat dog," that it spurns human cooperation for competition, and that it exalts material success as opposed to spiritual values, philosophy, or leisure activities. On the contrary, the jungle is precisely a society of coercion, theft, and parasitism, a society that demolishes lives and living standards. The peaceful market competition of producers and suppliers is a profoundly cooperative process in which everyone benefits, and where everyone's living standard flourishes (compared to what it would be in an unfree society). And the undoubted material success of free societies provides the general affluence that permits us to enjoy an enormous amount of leisure as compared to other societies, and to pursue matters of the spirit. It is the coercive countries with little or no market activity, notably under communism, where the grind of daily existence not only impoverishes people materially, but deadens their spirit.

Sick of the Bucks...

I'm getting pretty tired of the Bucks crappy play. Magloire is starting to look like a goon. Not the "push people around Shaquille O'Neal" type of goon but the "Luc Longley trip over my own feet" type of goon. TJ Ford needs to realize you drive and kick out BEFORE you step out of bounds and Stots needs to realize that Jiri Welsch and Toni Kukoc are third line players, not second. Bogut looks good, but he only touches the ball 10 times a game, and what's with him playing around the foul line all of the time, the guy's 7'0 tall! I'm ready to see what the Brew Crew can manage, is it April yet?

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Hate Crimes...

Laws against hate crimes are unconstitutional. Plain and simple they violate the 1st amendment to free speech. The right of free speech has oft been interpreted as the right to free thought. When a crime is deemed a "hate crime" and the government adds an extra layer of punishment to a crime (take robbery, arson, etc.), they essentially are punishing that person's thoughts. I have the right to hate gays, christians, jews, whites (I really don't, just making a point), but I don't have the right to burn their houses down. So, if I do burn their houses down, shouldn't it remain my actions that are punished, not my thoughts? Further, aren't hate crime laws unfair to the "average" victim of a crime? For example, if I were to be mugged and on the other side of town my friend Jose was mugged because he's Mexican (and thus a hate crime law is invoked), I would be pretty upset if the guy that mugged me got less time because he only wanted my wallet. With this example in mind, it is always the illegal ACTION that should be punished, not the motivation behind it.

Monday, January 23, 2006

This just in from United Auto Workers...

United Auto Workers president Ron Gettelfinger said in a statement today regarding Ford's pending cuts "Certainly, today's announcement will only make the 2007 negotiations all the more difficult and all the more important." Translation: "We feel the ship sinking and we're going to make sure we get ours before it goes down." You have to wonder if 60 or 70 years of union contracts and pensions had anything to do with the current state of affairs. The retort to this is that foreign manufacturers can pay labor at less cost to keep their margins. Well of course they can, they aren't handcuffed by union rules and regs. This is exactly the reason the hottest job market is technology; the tech startups (now behemuths) of the 80's weren't constricted by union rates and bloated pension payouts and could afford to grow at a measured pace and have reserves for when the industry niche hit a tough patch. This doesn't bode well for Milwaukee that is still one of the most union dominated cities in America. Do I respect worker's rights? Yes, but I equally respect the right of a business to determine who they will hire and at what rate.

This friggin' guy kills me...

Eugene Kane in today's JS-Online discussing the GOP tire slashing trial says that the actions shouldn't reflect on the parents. I agree with his point that the parents didn't commit the crime and are therefore not on trial, but get this quote, "As Perry said, sometimes you can do all you can and your child just ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time." Wrong place at the wrong time? What the heck does that mean. Is he insinuating the Pratt and Moore kids were walking past the GOP vans to buy baseball cards when a gust of wind pushed them (and their switchblades) in the tires? Absurd.

I'm glad I always have Eugene's nonsense to make me laugh on a Monday morning...

Friday, January 20, 2006

Still waiting to hear the verdict in the tire slashing trial. Can't wait to see these punks get strung up. Even better than that though is watching Star Jones, er, Gwen Moore put her foot in her mouth. My son is innocent! Show some parenting skills and say, "My son did this and when the justice system is done with him, I'll just be getting started kicking his a..!" Of course, that wouldn't be fitting of the victimization culture she's been used to promoting. Great leadership Gwen, keep it up. By the way, where is that other goof Marvin Pratt in all of this? He must realize how poor Ms. Moore is making herself look...

Thursday, January 19, 2006

So I was reading today about bin Laden's threat of future attacks and his passing offer a "truce." This sounds like similar threats/offer packages he's put forth over the past few years. If I recall, he made a similar threat directed toward Europe about a year ago. Now let me start by saying that I don't think the war in Iraq has been worth the enormous expense to the American taxpayer, not to mention the loss of lives of Americans and Iraqis. But boy does this ever sound like bin Laden in on the run or what? Would you have thought the man who has consistently decried "death to Americans" would be interested in a truce? What would lead to such a change of heart? Clearly he's on the run and is scrambling to find a way to turn down the heat. One early argument for the war was that we would "take the fight to them" or "get it off American soil." I didn't really buy that argument at first, but it can't be a fluke that there hasn't been another attack in America in almost five years. Further, now bin Laden's priorities seem to be on what's going on in Iraq. Again, he's clearly more concerned about getting the troops away from where he is hiding. Ultimately, I may think the cost of this war is too high, but you can't argue with the fact we're now in a position to get this guy...

Searching for a New Direction
by Ron Paulby Ron Paul


Before the US House of Representatives, January 18, 2006
The Abramoff scandal has been described as the biggest Washington scandal ever: bigger than Watergate; bigger than Abscam; bigger than Koreagate; bigger than the House banking scandal; bigger than Teapot Dome. Possibly so. It’s certainly serious and significant.
It has prompted urgent proposals of suggested reforms to deal with the mess. If only we have more rules and regulations, more reporting requirements, and stricter enforcement of laws, the American people will be assured we mean business. Ethics and character will return to the halls of Congress. It is argued that new champions of reform should be elected to leadership positions, to show how serious we are about dealing with the crisis of confidence generated by the Abramoff affair. Then all will be well. But it’s not so simple. Maybe what we have seen so far is just the tip of the iceberg, an insidious crisis staring us in the face that we refuse to properly identify and deal with.
It’s been suggested we need to change course and correct the way Congress is run. A good idea, but if we merely tinker with current attitudes about what role the federal government ought to play in our lives, it won’t do much to solve the ethics crisis. True reform is impossible without addressing the immorality of wealth redistribution. Merely electing new leaders and writing more rules to regulate those who petition Congress will achieve nothing.
Could it be that we’re all looking in the wrong places for a solution to recurring, constant, and pervasive corruption in government? Perhaps some of us in Congress are mistaken about the true problem; perhaps others deliberately distract us from exposing the truth about how miserably corrupt the budget process in Congress is. Others simply are in a state of denial. But the denial will come to an end as the Abramoff scandal reveals more and more. It eventually will expose the scandal of the ages: how and to what degree the American people have become indebted by the totally irresponsible spending habits of the U.S. Congress – as encouraged by successive administrations, condoned by our courts, and enjoyed by the recipients of the largesse.
This system of government is coming to an end – a fact that significantly contributes to the growing anxiety of most Americans, especially those who pay the bills and receive little in return from the corrupt system that has evolved over the decades.
Believe me, if everybody benefited equally there would be scant outcry over a little bribery and influence peddling. As our country grows poorer and more indebted, fewer people benefit. The beneficiaries are not the hard-working, honest people who pay the taxes. The groups that master the system of lobbying and special interest legislation are the ones who truly benefit.
The steady erosion of real wealth in this country, and the dependency on government generated by welfarism and warfarism, presents itself as the crisis of the ages. Lobbying scandals and the need for new leadership are mere symptoms of a much, much deeper problem.
There are quite a few reasons a relatively free country allows itself to fall into such an ethical and financial mess.
One major contributing factor for the past hundred years is our serious misunderstanding of the dangers of pure democracy. The founders detested democracy and avoided the use of the word in all the early documents. Today, most Americans accept without question a policy of sacrificing life, property, and dollars to force “democracy” on a country 6,000 miles away. This tells us how little opposition there is to “democracy.” No one questions the principle that a majority electorate should be allowed to rule the country, dictate rights, and redistribute wealth.
Our system of democracy has come to mean worshipping the notion that a majority vote for the distribution of government largesse, loot confiscated from the American people through an immoral tax system, is morally and constitutionally acceptable. Under these circumstances it’s no wonder a system of runaway lobbying and special interests has developed. Add this to the military industrial complex that developed over the decades due to a foreign policy of perpetual war and foreign military intervention, and we shouldn’t wonder why there is such a powerful motivation to learn the tricks of the lobbying trade – and why former members of Congress and their aides become such high-priced commodities. Buying influence is much more lucrative than working and producing for a living. The trouble is the process invites moral corruption. The dollars involved grow larger and larger because of the deficit financing and inflation that pure democracy always generates.
Dealing with lobbying scandals while ignoring the scandal of unconstitutional runaway government will solve nothing. If people truly believe that reform is the solution, through regulating lobbyists and increasing congressional reporting requirements, the real problem will be ignored and never identified. This reform only makes things worse.
Greater regulation of lobbyists is a dangerous and unnecessary proposition. If one expects to solve a problem without correctly identifying its source, the problem persists. The First amendment clearly states: “Congress shall make no laws respecting…the right of the people…to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” That means NO law!
The problem of special interest government that breeds corruption comes from our lack of respect for the Constitution in the first place. So what do we do? We further violate the Constitution rather than examine it for guidance as to the proper role of the federal government. Laws addressing bribery, theft, and fraud, already on the books, are adequate to deal with the criminal activities associated with lobbying. New laws and regulations are unnecessary.
The theft that the federal government commits against its citizens, and the power that Congress has assumed illegally, are the real crimes that need to be dealt with. In this regard we truly do need a new direction. Get rid of the evil tax system; the fraudulent monetary system; and the power of government to run our lives, the economy, and the world; and the Abramoff types would be exposed for the mere gnats they are. There would be a lot less of them, since the incentives to buy politicians would be removed.
Even under today’s flawed system of democratic government, which is dedicated to redistributing property by force, a lot could be accomplished if government attracted men and women of good will and character. Members could refuse to yield to the temptations of office, and reject the path to a lobbying career. But it seems once government adopts the rules of immorality, some of the participants in the process yield to the temptation as well, succumbing to the belief that the new moral standards are acceptable.
Today though, any new rules designed to restrain special interest favoritism will only push the money further under the table. Too much is at stake. Corporations, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and politicians have grown accustomed to the system, and have learned to work within it to survive. Only when the trough is emptied will the country wake up. Eliminating earmarks in the budget will not solve the problem.
Comparing the current scandal to the “big” one, the Abramoff types are petty thieves. The government deals in trillions of dollars; the Abramoffs in mere tens of millions. Take a look at the undeclared war we’re bogged down in 6,000 miles from our shores. We’ve spent 300 billion dollars already, but Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz argues that the war actually will cost between one and two trillion dollars when it’s all over and done with. That’s trillions, not billions. Even that figure is unpredictable, because we may be in Iraq another year or ten – who knows? Considering the war had nothing to do with our national security, we’re talking big bucks being wasted and lining the pockets of many well-connected American corporations. Waste, fraud, stupidity, and no-bid contracts characterize the process. And it’s all done in the name of patriotism and national security. Dissenters are accused of supporting the enemy. Now this is a rip-off that a little tinkering with House rules and restraints on lobbyists won’t do much to solve.
Think of how this undeclared war has contributed to our national deficit, undermined military morale and preparedness, antagonized our allies, and exposed us to an even greater threat from those who resent our destructive occupation. Claiming we have no interests in the oil of the entire Middle East hardly helps our credibility throughout the world.
The system of special interest government that has evolved over the last several decades has given us a national debt of over eight trillion dollars, a debt that now expands by over 600 billion dollars each year. Our total obligations are estimated between fifteen and twenty trillion dollars. Most people realize the Social Security system, the Medicare system, and the new prescription drug plan are unfunded. Thousands of private pension funds are now being dumped on the U.S. government and American taxpayers. We are borrowing over 700 billion dollars each year from foreigners to finance this extravagance, and we now qualify as the greatest international debtor nation in history. Excessive consumption using borrowed money is hardly the way to secure a sound economy.
Instead of reining in government spending, Congress remains oblivious to the financial dangers and panders to special interests by offering no resistance whatsoever to every request for new spending. Congress spends nearly 2 ½ trillion dollars annually in an attempt to satisfy everyone’s demands. The system has generated over 200 trillion dollars of derivatives. These problems can’t be addressed with token leadership changes and tinkering with the budget. A new and a dramatic direction is required.
As current policy further erodes the budget, special interests and members of Congress become even more aggressive in their efforts to capture a piece of the dwindling economic pie. That success is the measure of effectiveness that guarantees a member’s re-election.
The biggest rip-off of all – the paper money system that is morally and economically equivalent to counterfeiting – is never questioned. It is the deceptive tool for transferring billions from the unsuspecting poor and middle-class to the special interest rich. And in the process, the deficit-propelled budget process supports the spending demands of all the special interests – left and right, welfare and warfare – while delaying payment to another day and sometimes even to another generation.
The enormous sums spent each year to support the influential special interests expand exponentially, and no one really asks how it’s accomplished. Raising taxes to balance the budget is out of the question – and rightfully so. Foreigners have been generous in their willingness to loan us most of what we need, but even that generosity is limited and may well diminish in the future.
But if the Federal Reserve did not pick up the slack and create huge amounts of new credit and money out of thin air, interest rates would rise and call a halt to the charade. The people who suffer from a depreciated dollar don’t understand why they suffer, while the people who benefit promote the corrupt system. The wealthy clean up on Wall Street, and the unsophisticated buy in as the market tops off. Wealth is transferred from one group to another, and it’s all related to the system that allows politicians and the central banks to create money out of thin air. It’s literally legalized counterfeiting.
Is it any wonder jobs go overseas? True capital only comes from savings, and Americans save nothing. We only borrow and consume. A counterfeiter has no incentive to take his newly created money and build factories. The incentive for Americans is to buy consumer goods from other countries whose people are willing to save and invest in their factories and jobs. The only way we can continue this charade is to borrow excess dollars back from the foreign governments who sell us goods, and perpetuate the pretense of wealth that we enjoy.
The system of money contributes significantly to the problem of illegal immigration. On the surface, immigrants escaping poverty in Mexico and Central America come here for the economic opportunity that our economy offers. However, the social services they receive, including education and medical benefits – as well as the jobs they get – are dependent on our perpetual indebtedness to foreign countries. When the burden of debt becomes excessive, this incentive to seek prosperity here in the United States will change.
The prime beneficiaries of a paper money system are those who use the money early – governments, politicians, bankers, international corporations, and the military industrial complex. Those who suffer most are the ones at the end of the money chain – the people forced to use depreciated dollars to buy urgently needed goods and services to survive. And guess what? By then their money is worth less, prices soar, and their standard of living goes down.
The consequences of this system, fully in place for the past thirty-four years, are astronomical and impossible to accurately measure. Industries go offshore and the jobs follow. Price inflation eats away at the middle class, and deficits soar while spending escalates rapidly as Congress hopes to keep up with the problems it created. The remaining wealth that we struggle to hold onto is based on debt, future tax revenues, and our ability to manufacture new dollars without restraint. There’s only one problem: it all depends on trust in the dollar, especially by foreign holders and purchasers. This trust will end, and signs of the beginning of the end are already appearing.
During this administration the dollar has suffered severely as a consequence of the policy of inflating the currency to pay our bills. The dollar price of gold has more than doubled ($252 to $560 per ounce, a 122 % increase). This means the dollar has depreciated in terms of gold, the time-honored and reliable measurement of a nation’s currency, by an astounding 55%. The long-term economic health of the nation is measured by the soundness of its currency. Once Rome converted from a republic to an empire, she depreciated her currency to pay the bills. This eventually led to Rome’s downfall. That is exactly what America is facing unless we change our ways.
Now this is a real scandal worth worrying about. Since it’s not yet on Washington’s radar screen, no attempt at addressing the problem is being made. Instead, we’ll be sure to make those the Constitution terms, “petitioners to redress their grievances” fill out more forms. We’ll make government officials attend more ethics courses so they can learn how to be more ethical.
A free nation, as it moves toward authoritarianism, tolerates and hides a lot of abuse in the system. The human impulse for wealth creation is hard to destroy. But in the end it will happen here, if true reform of our economic, monetary, and political system is not accomplished.
Whether government programs are promoted for “good” causes (helping the poor), or bad causes (permitting a military-industrial complex to capitalize on war profits), the principles of the market are undermined. Eventually nearly everyone becomes dependent on the system of deficits, borrowing, printing press money, and the special interest budget process that distributes loot by majority vote.
Today, most business interests and the poor are dependent on government handouts. Education and medical care are almost completely controlled and regulated by an overpowering central government. We have come to accept our role as world policemen and nation builder with little question, despite the bad results and an inability to pay the bills.
The question is, what will it take to bring about the changes in policy needed to reverse this dangerous trend? The answer is: quite a lot. And unfortunately it’s not on the horizon. It probably won’t come until there is a rejection of the dollar as the safest and strongest world currency, and a return to commodity money like gold and silver to restore confidence.
The Abramoff-type scandals come and go in Washington, patched over with grandiose schemes of reform that amount to nothing but more government and congressional mischief. But our efforts should be directed toward eliminating the greatest of all frauds – printing press money that creates the political conditions breeding the vultures and leeches who feed off the corrupt system.
Counterfeiting money never creates wealth – it only steals wealth from the unsuspecting. The Federal Reserve creation of money is exactly the same. Increasing the dollars in circulation can only diminish the value of each existing dollar. Only production and jobs can make a country wealthy in the long run. Today it’s obvious our country is becoming poorer and more uneasy as our jobs and capital go overseas.
The Abramoff scandal can serve a useful purpose if we put it in context of the entire system that encourages corruption.
If it’s seen as an isolated case of individual corruption, and not an expected consequence of big government run amuck, little good will come of it. If we understand how our system of government intervenes in our personal lives, the entire economy, and the internal affairs of nations around the world, we can understand how it generates the conditions where lobbyists thrive. Only then will some good come of it. Only then will we understand that undermining the First amendment right of the people to petition their government is hardly a solution to this much more serious and pervasive problem.
If we’re inclined to improve conditions, we should give serious consideration to the following policy reforms, reforms the American people who cherish liberty would enthusiastically support:
No more “No Child Left Behind” legislation;
No more prescription drug programs;
No more undeclared wars;
No more nation building;
No more acting as the world policemen;
No more deficits;
Cut spending – everywhere;
No more political and partisan resolutions designed to embarrass those who may well have legitimate and honest disagreements with current policy;
No inferences that disagreeing with policy is unpatriotic or disloyal to the country;
No more pretense of budget reform while ignoring off-budget spending and the ever-growing fourteen appropriations bills;
Cut funding for corporate welfare, foreign aid, international NGOs, defense contractors, the military industrial complex, and rich corporate farmers before cutting welfare for the poor at home;
No more unconstitutional intrusions into the privacy of law-abiding American citizens;
Reconsider the hysterical demands for security over liberty by curtailing the ever-expanding and oppressive wars on drugs, tax violators, and gun ownership.
Finally, why not try something novel, like having Congress act as an independent and equal branch of government? Restore the principle of the separation of powers, so that we can perform our duty to provide checks and balances on an executive branch (and an accommodating judiciary) that spies on Americans, glorifies the welfare state, fights undeclared wars, and enormously increases the national debt. Congress was not meant to be a rubber stamp. It’s time for a new direction.