by Michael S. Rozeff
The U.S. government is insolvent. Who says so? Timothy F. Geithner, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.
Geithner sent a letter to Congress on Jan. 6, 2011 asking for the debt limit to be raised. If it is not raised, he warned, the U.S. will default on its debt. In his words:
Never in our history has Congress failed to increase the debt limit when necessary. Failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United States."
He didn’t say that the government will be inconvenienced. He didn’t say that the government would be forced to muddle through by delaying payments, raising taxes, and cutting non-obligatory programs and services. He said the government will default. This means that the government doesn’t have enough cash to pay its obligations to the many and sundry persons to whom it owes cash unless Congress authorizes an issue of even more debt.
After the government issues the new debt, its overall debt will be even higher than before. Unless its obligations that require cash payments are reduced, or unless it finds new sources of revenue, or unless the interest rates that it pays decline, the same situation will surely occur again and occur even faster because its overall debt will have risen. It will run short of cash to pay its obligations.
Suppose that you had a debt of $10,000 that required a payment of $500 in order to stave off your creditors’ seizing your assets. Suppose that you didn’t have the $500. One way out would be to borrow $500 from a new lender and use that $500 to pay off the old lenders. That buys you time. However, now you have debts of $10,500. You have to find ways of lowering this or else you will again be faced with an even worse situation.
You are approaching insolvency when you begin to run out of new lenders who are willing to add to your debt. The willing lenders dry up because they know that they have to get in line to get their promised payments while you continually seek out new borrowers, all the while making your situation worse and worse.
Knowing their precarious position, the new lenders are likely to demand rising default risk premiums.
That means they demand higher interest rates.
That means your cash payment obligations go up. That hastens your approach to insolvency.
Insolvency occurs when you cannot find enough cash from any source, even new lenders, in order to make required payments.
The U.S. is approaching insolvency, according to its Treasury Secretary. He didn’t put the matter in precisely that way, but he put it in words that are as close as you can get to it. He said that the U.S. would default, and its only way out at this moment is to issue more debt.
The increases in the debt limit have necessarily accompanied the increase in the government’s overall debt. Those increases have been especially astonishing in the last 10 years. The ceiling is now $14.29 trillion. The ceiling was $5.73 trillion in September of 2001. That’s a growth rate of over 10 percent a year.
A few months back, Laurence Kotlikoff wrote that "The U.S. is bankrupt." Using the government’s numbers properly labeled, he found that the U.S. fiscal gap, which is the difference between the present value of projected spending and revenues, is $202 trillion. An IMF study of the U.S. finances found that it would have to double taxes to close its fiscal gap. This is an impossibility. It would destroy the struggling economy.
Geithner’s statement confirms those of other analysts outside of the U.S. government.
According to Kotlikoff, the government’s sixty-year "massive Ponzi scheme" will end when there are not enough revenues to pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He sees large benefit cuts, large tax increases, and high inflation ahead when the government seeks to survive.
How will the U.S. extricate itself from this situation? That’s a matter of speculation because there are many interacting variables involved. There are lots of ifs, ands, and buts.
When a state cannot meet its promised obligations, there is no bankruptcy code to guide a reorganization, as there is with a company. There is no court to oversee a restructuring. There is no judge or panel that decides on the priority of claims. Instead, the government itself decides how to handle its inability to pay cash to fulfill its promises.
In the immediate future, the U.S. government will not default on its bonds. They will have priority of payment. The reason the government will do that is to maintain its capacity to borrow at reasonable rates of interest so that it can maintain its size and programs. If the government defaulted on its bonds as a way of solving its financial problem, it would have immediately to cut back its spending severely. The government would shrink radically all at once. The government would take a big bath. Congress doesn’t want to do that. It would rather stretch out the default process and inflict the pain over time and among more groups than bondholders. Congressmen prefer to maintain themselves in power while managing a large government. Other branches and bureaucracies also prefer to keep their pet programs and activities afloat.
Therefore, as usual, Congress will raise the debt limit again. That doesn’t end the financial problem. It adds to it even as it postpones and enhances possible insolvency.
The new lenders that the government seeks out to lend it new cash are likely to demand higher interest rates, except for one major lender, which is the Federal Reserve System.
Bond yields are subject to numerous worldwide influences. They include the default risk premiums demanded by foreign lenders, including Asian central banks. Those risk premiums are likely to rise.
In contrast, the Federal Reserve has committed itself to buying $600 billion of new government debt in the next few months. Its purchases tend to support bond prices and keep interest rates down, other things equal.
As the Federal Reserve keeps buying more and more government debt, with no prospect of reducing its holdings unless and until the government gets its house in order, bond yields are likely to rise, despite Fed buying, because yields also reflect inflation premiums. The prospect of inflation will rise as the Fed monetizes the debt. We would then see yields rising accompanied by firm prices of commodities and metals.
The inflationary participation by the Fed, which postpones the inevitable fiscal decisions of the government, harms all holders of fixed-dollar assets and all those whose receipts of dollars are fixed and lag behind the Fed’s production of new dollars. In addition and more importantly, the inflation sets in motion another boom-bust cycle.
Continued debt monetization by the Fed is quite likely for many reasons. One is that the Fed can act even when Congress is deadlocked. Another is the apparent necessity, in the Fed’s view, to avoid the failure of government debt issues. A third is that the Fed rationalizes what it’s doing by economic slack and low headline CPI inflation. Fourth, the banking system is still insolvent and the Fed wishes to raise asset prices. Fifth, the Fed doesn’t connect its debt monetization to higher yields. When it starts to make that connection, either directly or because headline CPI inflation rises, then it may be more likely to alter its current policy.
If the U.S. does not decrease the fiscal gap, rising yields will rapidly force it into taking action because rising yields raise the likelihood of insolvency and raise the likelihood of its occurring sooner rather than later.
The effects of the Fed’s inflation on stocks vary by individual company. They depend on the net monetary positions of the companies, the nature and location of its operations, its hedging, and other factors. There is no simple prognosis for the whole stock market.
Since yields are likely to rise as lenders demand higher default risk premiums and as they demand higher inflation premiums (when the Fed monetizes debt), with the Fed’s ability to keep rates down only a temporary and/or only a restraining phenomenon, and since these yield increases hasten the prospect of insolvency, the government can only avoid default by either slowing down its borrowing (and spending) or by raising revenues. Doing nothing means it will default.
If government borrowing slows down, its spending will have to slow down. Many Americans will find this very unpleasant as benefits, now and prospective, are cut, and as various other programs are cut. If government raises taxes, the impact of its gargantuan borrowing will come home to Americans, again in a most unpleasant way. Their disposable incomes will fall sharply.
Outright default on U.S. bonds is not in the cards because that immobilizes the entire U.S. government. The government won’t do that. It will look after itself and its own survival first. The American public comes last. Default upon promises made to Americans is the more likely course of action.
Thus, the government will slow budget increases, or stop them altogether, or cut its spending in absolute terms. Like any borrower, its borrowing capacity is not unlimited. Its borrowing capacity depends on its taxing power which, in turn, depends on the productivity of those whom it taxes. Causation runs in both directions. The productivity also depends on the tax and regulatory structures. It’s inconceivable that the government could double taxes. If it did, most of the economy would attempt to go underground. Whatever remained above ground would have vastly reduced incentives to produce.
Which groups and programs will be the object of government cutbacks? That is again a matter of speculation. It depends on which groups have the firmest control over the government’s purse, which groups make the largest protests, and which groups have the greatest influence on votes for key Congressmen and campaign contributions. I agree with Kotlikoff and Gary North that the most likely targets are the largest ones, and they are the social welfare programs.
Some groups are going to experience the brunt of the actions taken to avoid default. Others are likely to go relatively unscathed. Government bureaucrats will try to protect themselves. This is going to create domestic conflict, protests, and dissension. Life is going to be much harder for Americans in the future, unless increased productivity from some unknown sources of invention or technology offsets the impact of government promises that are going to be defaulted upon.
Congress has another option, which is to seize the assets of Americans. This is a form of taxation. Congress can force pension funds to take its bond issues. This would force down the prices of corporate stocks and bonds. It would devastate the economy. A large-scale program of bond cram-downs is almost tantamount to making the Fed absorb bonds. It puts pressure on the Fed to create more money so as to keep asset prices up. Such a program would be an act of desperation by the government that simply beggared the population. It would certainly not resolve the insolvency.
When, if ever, will Congress start to act in size, that is, with cutbacks large enough to avoid defaulting on its bonds? My answer is this: Not yet.
The prospect of rising yields is not yet felt in the minds of those in government. The prospect of a budget out of control due to a huge and rising bond interest payment obligation hasn’t yet hit home among government officials. They can’t see the tidal wave. They don’t believe it’s coming. The Fed’s purchase program is obscuring their vision. The slow economy is helping to hold down bond yields for the moment. The foreign central banks, as a group, are still supporting the U.S. bond market. People who are afraid of going back into stocks are still supporting the U.S. debt market.
Furthermore, the two parties are both enamored of big government. Nearly all politicians are sensitive to public demands for free lunches. That is one reason why the fiscal gap is so huge in the first place. America did not exactly fall all over itself in trying to stop a prescription drug benefit. Consequently, the government is postponing actions to close the fiscal gap.
One fine day, there will be a discontinuity. There will be a many-sigma event. There will be a fiscal earthquake or a market earthquake or some combination of both. This will not be a pleasant experience for Americans, but those in government have little reason to fear it. They can label it a crisis, as if we do not already have a crisis. They can use such a "crisis" as the excuse for more radical government action. The government can demand even more power or simply exercise it, even if the results are to make matters worse for Americans.
For governments, crises are opportunities, a fact well known among analysts of government. This fact is one reason why governments postpone taking actions to remedy what appear to the rest of us to be bad situations.
Unfortunately, the fact that governments batten on crises and see them as opportunities is not well known among the general population which still looks to government to handle crises.
Since the insolvency of the U.S. is a fact and a fact that implies hard times ahead for anyone who depends on government, it is prudent to take measures to make oneself as independent of government as one possibly can.
January 10, 2011
Michael S. Rozeff is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline and the free e-book Essays on American Empire.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
What does $1Trillion look like?
$1 Million, $100 Million, $1Billion are amounts that are thrown around like it is pocket change. Then you try to comprehend that our Country is $14 Trillion in debt, which is virtually impossible to wrap one's mind around.
Well, here is a link that illustrates that.
Well, here is a link that illustrates that.
Larry the Cable Guy Offers Real Solutions
Everyone concentrates on the problems we're having in Our Country lately: Illegal immigration, hurricane recovery, alligators attacking people in Florida . . . .
Not me -- I concentrate on solutions for the problems -- it's a win-win situation.
* Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border.
* Send the dirt to New Orleans to raise the level of the levees.
* Put the Florida alligators in the moat along the Mexican border.
Larry the Cable Guy
New House Rules
"The new Congress adopted a rule that permits members to use electronic devices on the floor of the House. So let the sexting begin."
Jimmy Kimmel
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Larry the Cable Guy Offers Real Solution
1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments
COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.
THE CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq ...why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.
THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this -- you cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians, it creates a hostile work environment.
Leno Reports, You Decide
"Outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave a speech and handed the gavel to John Boehner. Very emotional moment for Pelosi, but she managed to keep a stiff upper lip, a tightly stretched forehead, and unnaturally arched eyebrows."
Jay Leno
Cradles and Safety Nets
by Gary North
Rock a bye baby in the treetop,
When the wind blows the cradle will rock,
When the bough breaks the cradle will fall,
And down will come baby, cradle and all.
 |
| Gary North |
Politicians know that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. They want to get mothers away from the cradles as early as possible. Mothers, who think they have better things to do than rock cradles, agree. They hand over their children to a series of strangers whom the government has certified as professional cradle-rockers.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Libertarian Party condemns shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords
For Immediate Release
Saturday, January 8, 2011
WASHINGTON - Mark Hinkle, Chair of the Libertarian Party, issued a statement condemning the shooting of Congressional Representative Gabrielle Giffords, and others in Tucson, Arizona. According to reports, federal Judge John Roll and five others were killed in the shooting, and several others were seriously wounded.
“The Libertarian Party condemns the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and others today. We are saddened by the loss of life, the suffering of those who survived the shooting, and the grief and sorrow of their family and friends.
“This shooting was wrong, and is the kind of abhorrent political violence that threatens our freedoms.
"The Libertarian Party opposes the initiation of force and violence whether it is politically motivated or for other reasons. To become a member of the Libertarian Party, people are required to sign a statement certifying that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
“Regardless of the motives and other circumstances surrounding the killing, the Libertarian Party maintains its steadfast defense of the Second Amendment and the uncompromising right to gun ownership. In a free society, citizens should be free to arm and protect themselves, their families, and their property. Sadly, because of restrictions placed on responsible gun owners by all levels of government, many people avoid carrying weapons that could be used to stop mass shootings.
“Our condolences go out to the victims and their families. We wish them a speedy and full recovery.”
Saturday, January 8, 2011
WASHINGTON - Mark Hinkle, Chair of the Libertarian Party, issued a statement condemning the shooting of Congressional Representative Gabrielle Giffords, and others in Tucson, Arizona. According to reports, federal Judge John Roll and five others were killed in the shooting, and several others were seriously wounded.
“The Libertarian Party condemns the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and others today. We are saddened by the loss of life, the suffering of those who survived the shooting, and the grief and sorrow of their family and friends.
“This shooting was wrong, and is the kind of abhorrent political violence that threatens our freedoms.
"The Libertarian Party opposes the initiation of force and violence whether it is politically motivated or for other reasons. To become a member of the Libertarian Party, people are required to sign a statement certifying that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
“Regardless of the motives and other circumstances surrounding the killing, the Libertarian Party maintains its steadfast defense of the Second Amendment and the uncompromising right to gun ownership. In a free society, citizens should be free to arm and protect themselves, their families, and their property. Sadly, because of restrictions placed on responsible gun owners by all levels of government, many people avoid carrying weapons that could be used to stop mass shootings.
“Our condolences go out to the victims and their families. We wish them a speedy and full recovery.”
Leno Reports, You Decide
"In his first speech as Speaker, Boehner thanked his loved ones – tobacco lobbyists, the oil companies, the CEOs."
Jay Leno
Beware Bipartisan School Reform
If everybody on the Hill is happy, Americans probably shouldn't be.
Katherine Mangu-Ward
We are in for a season of grisly partisan bloodletting—or at least some pretty fierce jello wrestling—over health care, budgets, and pork, if the coverage of the opening days of the 112th Congress is any indication of things to come. But when it comes to education policy, politicians and pundits are inexplicably full of sunny optimism.
Patient zero in this epidemic of cheer is Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post this week expressing the hope that people on both sides of the aisle will “do something together for our children that will build America's future, strengthen our economy and reflect well on us all.”
Set off by Duncan, the rest of the political news pack followed with stories about how this year’s anticipated rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—re-christened No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001—is going to be totally bipartisan and awesome. But any touted bipartisan action by Congress should be regarded with suspicion—the more touting there is, the more suspicion is merited—and education reauthorization is no exception.
Katherine Mangu-Ward
We are in for a season of grisly partisan bloodletting—or at least some pretty fierce jello wrestling—over health care, budgets, and pork, if the coverage of the opening days of the 112th Congress is any indication of things to come. But when it comes to education policy, politicians and pundits are inexplicably full of sunny optimism.
Patient zero in this epidemic of cheer is Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post this week expressing the hope that people on both sides of the aisle will “do something together for our children that will build America's future, strengthen our economy and reflect well on us all.”
Set off by Duncan, the rest of the political news pack followed with stories about how this year’s anticipated rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—re-christened No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001—is going to be totally bipartisan and awesome. But any touted bipartisan action by Congress should be regarded with suspicion—the more touting there is, the more suspicion is merited—and education reauthorization is no exception.
Deep thoughts from Jimmy Fallon
"An escaped prisoner in Alaska was on the run for six hours before he was finally caught near Sarah Palin's hometown of Wasilla. When I think of safe places to run, I think 'the woods near Sarah Palin's house.'"
Jimmy Fallon
A Few Words In Defense of the N-Word, in the Novels of Mark Twain
by Mikhail Lyubansky
Well, here's a piece I never imagined myself writing: A defense of a white man's use of the N-word.
I want to start with a little back-story: I don't use the N-word. Not ever. But I used to, not so long ago. I used it in the context of talking about racism in my psychology of race and ethnicity course and only when quoting the written words of scholars and prominent historical figures. I stopped (about 5 years ago) after several students told me that hearing the word, even in this context, was painful for them. I stopped because it was clear to me that the students were sincere and because I thought I could teach the content just as well by saying "N-word".
I haven't questioned this choice since then, but ever since the Huck Finn story broke, I've been doing just that. See, all of the students who complained that hearing "nigger" in class was painful were white and so it seems is the vast proportion of people who a) kept Huckleberry Finn off the school curriculum and b) like the idea of a "cleaner" version of Mark Twain's novel.
Now I don't want to over-stress this point. The feelings and needs of white people matter too. It's why I switched to using "N-word" in my class. But the source of the discomfort is not irrelevant either. For one, it suggests whose needs are being considered and served by the given act. As far as I can tell, the new (edited) edition of Huck Finn is primarily designed to serve the needs of white conservatives. This too is okay, as long as we acknowledge that this is what's happening and not pretend that this is some kind of racially progressive act that will improve the lives of people of color.
It's more complicated than that, of course. In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, law professor Paul Butler (who is Black) wrote
Well, here's a piece I never imagined myself writing: A defense of a white man's use of the N-word.
I want to start with a little back-story: I don't use the N-word. Not ever. But I used to, not so long ago. I used it in the context of talking about racism in my psychology of race and ethnicity course and only when quoting the written words of scholars and prominent historical figures. I stopped (about 5 years ago) after several students told me that hearing the word, even in this context, was painful for them. I stopped because it was clear to me that the students were sincere and because I thought I could teach the content just as well by saying "N-word".
I haven't questioned this choice since then, but ever since the Huck Finn story broke, I've been doing just that. See, all of the students who complained that hearing "nigger" in class was painful were white and so it seems is the vast proportion of people who a) kept Huckleberry Finn off the school curriculum and b) like the idea of a "cleaner" version of Mark Twain's novel.
Now I don't want to over-stress this point. The feelings and needs of white people matter too. It's why I switched to using "N-word" in my class. But the source of the discomfort is not irrelevant either. For one, it suggests whose needs are being considered and served by the given act. As far as I can tell, the new (edited) edition of Huck Finn is primarily designed to serve the needs of white conservatives. This too is okay, as long as we acknowledge that this is what's happening and not pretend that this is some kind of racially progressive act that will improve the lives of people of color.
It's more complicated than that, of course. In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, law professor Paul Butler (who is Black) wrote
"I suffered through Huckleberry Finn in high school, with the white kids going out of their way to say "Nigger Jim" and the teacher's tortured explanation that Twain's "nigger" didn't really mean n-word, or meant it ironically, or historically, or symbolically. Whatever."No doubt Butler's experiences were not unusual for either his time or today, and I wouldn't wish them on anyone. Student racial insensitivity and teacher discomfort with both our country's racist past and contemporary racial inequity are serious problems requiring thoughtful strategies. I just happen to think that the strategy of removing racially objectionable content cannot possibly be effective in anything other than eliminating discomfort, and I am becoming increasingly convinced that, from an educational standpoint, the elimination of discomfort is counterproductive.
Copyright © 2011 OpEd News
Friday, January 7, 2011
In Depth Political Analysis
"They now say that our national debt will have to be paid off by our children. So thank God for Kate Gosselin and the Octomom."
–
Jay Leno
Prohibitionists: Leave Us Alone!
The government has no business attacking caffeinated alcoholic drinks
By John Stossel
Sometimes I drink Scotch and then, to wake myself up, I drink coffee. So what? Many people consume mixtures of caffeine and alcohol in drinks like rum and Coke. Again, so what?
But recently some college kids started drinking pre-mixed combos of alcohol and caffeine with names like Four Loko and Moonshot '69. Moonshot '69 is a pilsner beer with less than a coffee cup's worth of caffeine. Until recently, Four Loko contained 12 percent alcohol—about the same as wine—and as much caffeine as a cup of coffee. A few students, after drinking Four Loko, landed in the hospital with alcohol poisoning. Naturally, hysterical news reports followed.
A new bogeyman was born: caffeinated alcoholic beverages.
As night follows day, the Food and Drug Administration in November ordered beverage companies to lose the caffeine or shut down. The FDA called caffeine an "unsafe food additive." Phusion Products says it will now produce only noncaffeinated Four Loko. Moonshot '69 is off the market for now, which is bad news for Rhonda Kallman, who founded the company that makes it, New Century Brewing.
"There is nothing new about adults combining caffeine and alcohol," Kallman writes on her company website. "Who hasn't enjoyed a rum and Coke, Irish coffee, Kahlua or espresso martini? ... Moonshot '69 is a beer for beer drinkers that has been enjoyed by craft-beer lovers since 2004."
Her online petition states: "We the undersigned support the right of responsible adults to choose the beer of their choice. We support Moonshot69 and the rights of craft brewers across the country to produce new and innovative offerings for the beer drinking public. ... We call on the federal government to adhere to responsible regulation of alcoholic beverages that allows adults to enjoy the beer of their choice."
Unfortunately, Kallman tries to separate her product from higher-alcohol FDA targets, but Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine argues that the FDA has no business limiting the sale of any of the alcohol/caffeine combos.
"This has been going on for as long as there have been colleges and universities," he said. "You can go back to the Middle Ages, and booze and students go together like, I guess, beer and caffeine.
Aren't some drinks more dangerous than others?
"I don't think so. But when we raised the drinking age to 21 ... we told young people ... you can vote, you can enter a contract, you can go to war, you can die for your country, but if you want to drink and you're going to college, you better go off campus into a basement apartment somewhere and chug like there's no tomorrow because you don't know when you're going to be able to get drunk again."
He points out that by forbidding pre-21 adults from drinking openly around their elders, we deny them the chance to be exposed to responsible drinking.
About the ban on caffeinated alcoholic drinks, he added, "You can't minimize the overreach by the FDA."
Read more Reason by Stossel
By John Stossel
Sometimes I drink Scotch and then, to wake myself up, I drink coffee. So what? Many people consume mixtures of caffeine and alcohol in drinks like rum and Coke. Again, so what?
But recently some college kids started drinking pre-mixed combos of alcohol and caffeine with names like Four Loko and Moonshot '69. Moonshot '69 is a pilsner beer with less than a coffee cup's worth of caffeine. Until recently, Four Loko contained 12 percent alcohol—about the same as wine—and as much caffeine as a cup of coffee. A few students, after drinking Four Loko, landed in the hospital with alcohol poisoning. Naturally, hysterical news reports followed.
A new bogeyman was born: caffeinated alcoholic beverages.
As night follows day, the Food and Drug Administration in November ordered beverage companies to lose the caffeine or shut down. The FDA called caffeine an "unsafe food additive." Phusion Products says it will now produce only noncaffeinated Four Loko. Moonshot '69 is off the market for now, which is bad news for Rhonda Kallman, who founded the company that makes it, New Century Brewing.
"There is nothing new about adults combining caffeine and alcohol," Kallman writes on her company website. "Who hasn't enjoyed a rum and Coke, Irish coffee, Kahlua or espresso martini? ... Moonshot '69 is a beer for beer drinkers that has been enjoyed by craft-beer lovers since 2004."
Her online petition states: "We the undersigned support the right of responsible adults to choose the beer of their choice. We support Moonshot69 and the rights of craft brewers across the country to produce new and innovative offerings for the beer drinking public. ... We call on the federal government to adhere to responsible regulation of alcoholic beverages that allows adults to enjoy the beer of their choice."
Unfortunately, Kallman tries to separate her product from higher-alcohol FDA targets, but Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine argues that the FDA has no business limiting the sale of any of the alcohol/caffeine combos.
"This has been going on for as long as there have been colleges and universities," he said. "You can go back to the Middle Ages, and booze and students go together like, I guess, beer and caffeine.
Aren't some drinks more dangerous than others?
"I don't think so. But when we raised the drinking age to 21 ... we told young people ... you can vote, you can enter a contract, you can go to war, you can die for your country, but if you want to drink and you're going to college, you better go off campus into a basement apartment somewhere and chug like there's no tomorrow because you don't know when you're going to be able to get drunk again."
He points out that by forbidding pre-21 adults from drinking openly around their elders, we deny them the chance to be exposed to responsible drinking.
About the ban on caffeinated alcoholic drinks, he added, "You can't minimize the overreach by the FDA."
Read more Reason by Stossel
In Depth Political Analysis
"Why is it no human being can withstand more than two years as a presidential press secretary? There must be an organ somewhere in the body that can only filter two years worth of heavy duty bullsh*t."
–
Jon Stewarton Robert Gibbs' retirement
Thursday, January 6, 2011
In Depth Political Analysis
"Congress was broadcast live on Facebook for the first time in history. Now you can waste time and not get work done by watching Congress waste time and not get work done."
–
Jimmy Fallon
Interesting Analysis
"
This weekend in Arkansas, thousands of dead birds dropped out of the sky and there were 100,000 dead fish in the rivers. Also, McDonald's is having a special on Chicken McNuggets and Filet of Fish."
–
Jay Leno
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
In Depth Political Analysis
"Airports are considering dumping TSA and hiring their own security. You see these TSA guys just standing around with their thumbs up our asses."
Jay Leno
Economic Catastrophe
There is a saying that "forewarned is forearmed." It is my contention, and has been for some time, that our national fiscal direction can only end one way; in disaster. Debt, spending, quantitative easing (printing money), trade imbalances, unfunded liabilities, pensions and a host of other issues are, in the words of most politicians and economic experts, unsustainable. The question is, what happens when it actually ceases to be sustained?
In other countries like Chile, Zimbabwe and Germany after World War 1 where these fiscal policies have been followed, hyperinflation was the result, which is the total collapse of the currency and, by extension, the economy. Inflation is already rearing its ugly head as we head toward $5 a gallon gas and other commodities, like food, rise to a degree that really puts a pinch on most consumers. If the Federal reserve finally starts to recognize the inflationary pressure we are under, interest rates will rise, suppressing even more economic activity and sending housing down even farther.
The decisions that have brought us here have been made, and will continue to be made, at the national level, primarily by unelected officials we have no control over. Debt, unfunded liabilities and the creation of gobs of fiat money have pushed us over the edge, we are only awaiting the inevitable collapse of an unsustainable system.
In an attempt to educate the community about these issues and encourage preparation for what’s coming, I have developed a seminar titled "Surviving the Coming Economic Catastrophe" which I will be presenting at the West Side Community Center in Bivalve on Wednesday January 19 at 7PM. I would like to personally invite you to come and educate yourself about our current fiscal situation, its causes and coming consequences, what we can do as individuals and communities to prepare and what we must do to come out on the other side of this coming crisis reestablishing our freedom as Americans and ensuring that our best days are still ahead.
Michael Calpino
Monday, January 3, 2011
An Iraq War Veteran’s Quest for the True Meaning of Liberty and Patriotism
by Andrew Mason
Going into high school in 2001, I had no idea what the future held for me. Then 9/11 happened. I had the Bushian mentality (being raised in a staunch Republican household) of "let’s go get some," and since he had said that I could either be "either with the terrorists or against the terrorists," I wanted to be against the terrorists like every other American. My motivation and will to live were at their highest they had ever been after I enlisted in the Marine Corps. I thought to myself, "I am going to make a difference in this world. I am going to fight for our freedom!" I graduated from high school a semester early in January of 2005 to attend Marine Corps Basic Training. I deployed twice to the killing fields of Iraq, and I was completely oblivious to the fact that the war was based on total lies. I had friends who were maimed and murdered all in the name of nothing genuinely patriotic. I wish more of them were able to read the articles at lewrockwell.com and campaignforliberty.com before they made the fateful choice of enlisting.
I barely made it out of my first deployment alive, after a few close calls with IEDS and mortars (I was a M1A1 tank driver and later a gunner), which in turn lead to the collapse of my morality. I guess it is a little difficult to keep your morals when you witness the carnage most of us have faced there, like children running out in the streets getting their heads blown off, and suicide bombers blowing themselves up and killing my mentors. I came back from the war a soulless degenerate. I started hating Muslims for what I thought they stood for from my experience in the Middle East. While on my post deployment leave I would drive past the local mosque and look with pure disgust. I would think to myself, "Look at all of these terrorists," as I held a death grip on my steering wheel. It is amazing what war and war propaganda does to the mind. Man, was I wrong.
At that point, my morality had sunk into the abyss. I started drinking heavily to help numb my hatred towards life itself, which helped pass the time until my next deployment to Iraq. My next deployment consisted of wondering around the desert aimlessly looking for "bad guys." This was kind of a metaphor for what was going on in my mind. I felt completely lost about everything, and I thought to myself, "What the hell are we doing here?" I was discharged, somehow honorably, in 2009 and I still felt completely lost. I moved back to Ohio with my family, and I started praying like my parents always told me I should. I thought I might go into law enforcement like many veterans do, so I moved to Southern California to scope out a potential career.
After a few months of praying and cleaning up my act, I started finding answers. I was living in San Diego, where I was going to school at the time, and I wanted to work in the security industry for some extra cash. I was speaking to a Vietnam veteran who was giving a class for those who wish to get into the security industry, and he completely opened my eyes to a fact that had not been brought to my attention in the Marines. He said to all of us, "The reason the U.S. has so many enemies is because we create them by not minding our own business." Right then and there it was like the veil of deceit had been ripped from my eyes. I went home and started searching for all things related to foreign policy, which is how I found Ron Paul on YouTube. I watched Dr. Paul’s famous "What If?" speech, and I could not help but become furious. It was not because the Congressman offended me, but because he had enlightened me about just how wrong I was. I knew, as soon as I was done watching his speech, it was not a "What If" speech but a "What Is!" speech. After watching the "What Is!" speech, I was led to Web sites like campaignforliberty.com, antiwar.com, and lewrockwell.com. I started to become even more outraged after realizing that I had been lied to my entire life by my government, the media, and my history teachers. I really took a hit in the face while watching our former fearless leader President Bush jokingly say in front of the elite media "Those weapons of mass destruction gotta be somewhere." I wonder if the thought of my fellow veterans blood-curdling screams or the children of the Middle East getting blown to smithereens in the name of protecting us from those non-existent weapons ever crossed his mind. Probably not, just like the real sounds of war haven’t entered the mind of our current chicken-hawk-in-chief, Barack Obama.
Veterans Day is no longer a holiday I will celebrate, unlike most Americans who thank our service members for "defending our freedom." I can only hope that someday all of the flag-wavers and veterans marching in the parades realize that the people of the United States have been manipulated into every war of the past hundred years, and are continuously being bombarded with propaganda to continue the wars today. Will my fellow Marines ever come to know that Major General Smedley Butler is not just the name of a war hero whose words we had to memorize by heart? Will they ever come to realize, as General Butler realized, that we are and were nothing but "musclemen" for the criminal corporate and banking cartels, and servants for the Corporatists who are perpetuating the destruction of the very idea they claim to be fighting for. I have come to this realization.
I wrote this article to give some truth to the concluding statement in Mark Crovelli’s article "Kiss Honor and Morality Goodbye in the U.S. Armed Forces." In his concluding statement, Mr. Crovelli said, "May God protect us all from this group of people whose allegiance is to secrecy, immoral war, and lying politicians, instead of to defending the people of the United States." I believe that some sort of divine intervention, in combination with a good conscience, has indeed shown me the light towards real morality and real patriotism through articles like the ones found at this Web site and other liberty-loving websites. Furthermore, I see that many more veterans have and will come to see the light of truth. My goal is to help highlight the fact that they, like myself, have sworn to "uphold and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic," and that our greatest threat comes from the state itself; not the Middle East. As long we continue to educate all of those who are and were serving in the military about the constant stream of lies our government spews, they will join the true patriots and the actual fight for the restoration of liberty.
January 3, 2011
Andrew Mason is a former corporal in the U.S.M.C.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Going into high school in 2001, I had no idea what the future held for me. Then 9/11 happened. I had the Bushian mentality (being raised in a staunch Republican household) of "let’s go get some," and since he had said that I could either be "either with the terrorists or against the terrorists," I wanted to be against the terrorists like every other American. My motivation and will to live were at their highest they had ever been after I enlisted in the Marine Corps. I thought to myself, "I am going to make a difference in this world. I am going to fight for our freedom!" I graduated from high school a semester early in January of 2005 to attend Marine Corps Basic Training. I deployed twice to the killing fields of Iraq, and I was completely oblivious to the fact that the war was based on total lies. I had friends who were maimed and murdered all in the name of nothing genuinely patriotic. I wish more of them were able to read the articles at lewrockwell.com and campaignforliberty.com before they made the fateful choice of enlisting.
I barely made it out of my first deployment alive, after a few close calls with IEDS and mortars (I was a M1A1 tank driver and later a gunner), which in turn lead to the collapse of my morality. I guess it is a little difficult to keep your morals when you witness the carnage most of us have faced there, like children running out in the streets getting their heads blown off, and suicide bombers blowing themselves up and killing my mentors. I came back from the war a soulless degenerate. I started hating Muslims for what I thought they stood for from my experience in the Middle East. While on my post deployment leave I would drive past the local mosque and look with pure disgust. I would think to myself, "Look at all of these terrorists," as I held a death grip on my steering wheel. It is amazing what war and war propaganda does to the mind. Man, was I wrong.
At that point, my morality had sunk into the abyss. I started drinking heavily to help numb my hatred towards life itself, which helped pass the time until my next deployment to Iraq. My next deployment consisted of wondering around the desert aimlessly looking for "bad guys." This was kind of a metaphor for what was going on in my mind. I felt completely lost about everything, and I thought to myself, "What the hell are we doing here?" I was discharged, somehow honorably, in 2009 and I still felt completely lost. I moved back to Ohio with my family, and I started praying like my parents always told me I should. I thought I might go into law enforcement like many veterans do, so I moved to Southern California to scope out a potential career.
After a few months of praying and cleaning up my act, I started finding answers. I was living in San Diego, where I was going to school at the time, and I wanted to work in the security industry for some extra cash. I was speaking to a Vietnam veteran who was giving a class for those who wish to get into the security industry, and he completely opened my eyes to a fact that had not been brought to my attention in the Marines. He said to all of us, "The reason the U.S. has so many enemies is because we create them by not minding our own business." Right then and there it was like the veil of deceit had been ripped from my eyes. I went home and started searching for all things related to foreign policy, which is how I found Ron Paul on YouTube. I watched Dr. Paul’s famous "What If?" speech, and I could not help but become furious. It was not because the Congressman offended me, but because he had enlightened me about just how wrong I was. I knew, as soon as I was done watching his speech, it was not a "What If" speech but a "What Is!" speech. After watching the "What Is!" speech, I was led to Web sites like campaignforliberty.com, antiwar.com, and lewrockwell.com. I started to become even more outraged after realizing that I had been lied to my entire life by my government, the media, and my history teachers. I really took a hit in the face while watching our former fearless leader President Bush jokingly say in front of the elite media "Those weapons of mass destruction gotta be somewhere." I wonder if the thought of my fellow veterans blood-curdling screams or the children of the Middle East getting blown to smithereens in the name of protecting us from those non-existent weapons ever crossed his mind. Probably not, just like the real sounds of war haven’t entered the mind of our current chicken-hawk-in-chief, Barack Obama.
Veterans Day is no longer a holiday I will celebrate, unlike most Americans who thank our service members for "defending our freedom." I can only hope that someday all of the flag-wavers and veterans marching in the parades realize that the people of the United States have been manipulated into every war of the past hundred years, and are continuously being bombarded with propaganda to continue the wars today. Will my fellow Marines ever come to know that Major General Smedley Butler is not just the name of a war hero whose words we had to memorize by heart? Will they ever come to realize, as General Butler realized, that we are and were nothing but "musclemen" for the criminal corporate and banking cartels, and servants for the Corporatists who are perpetuating the destruction of the very idea they claim to be fighting for. I have come to this realization.
I wrote this article to give some truth to the concluding statement in Mark Crovelli’s article "Kiss Honor and Morality Goodbye in the U.S. Armed Forces." In his concluding statement, Mr. Crovelli said, "May God protect us all from this group of people whose allegiance is to secrecy, immoral war, and lying politicians, instead of to defending the people of the United States." I believe that some sort of divine intervention, in combination with a good conscience, has indeed shown me the light towards real morality and real patriotism through articles like the ones found at this Web site and other liberty-loving websites. Furthermore, I see that many more veterans have and will come to see the light of truth. My goal is to help highlight the fact that they, like myself, have sworn to "uphold and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic," and that our greatest threat comes from the state itself; not the Middle East. As long we continue to educate all of those who are and were serving in the military about the constant stream of lies our government spews, they will join the true patriots and the actual fight for the restoration of liberty.
January 3, 2011
Andrew Mason is a former corporal in the U.S.M.C.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
The Year's Best political Insight - by Jimmy Kimmel
''Today, by the way, is our president, President Obama's, one-year anniversary in office. I looked it up. Traditionally on the first anniversary, you give paper, so, I got him his birth certificate.''
 |
| Jimmy Kimmel |
''John McCain said that there will be no cooperation from Republicans for the rest of the year. So that should be good for the country. What a shame to see all that cooperating end, you know? This is like the coyote announcing he's no longer cooperating with the road runner.''
''BP's company newsletter has an article that says most Gulf residents aren't upset with BP because their cleanup crews have boosted the local economy. BP taking credit for boosting the economy in the Gulf is like al Qaeda taking credit for creating jobs in airport security.''
''According to the New York Post, Tiger Woods has hired former President Bush's press secretary Ari Fleischer to help with his public relations campaign. Is George Bush's guy really the one you want in charge of your approval rating? If it was up to me, I'd hire Clinton's guy.''
''Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush traveled to Haiti this week to talk about the country's long-term recovery plan. It was a departure for President Bush. It's unusual for him to visit a disaster of this scope and magnitude that wasn't his fault.''
The Year's Best Political Insight - Conan O'Brien
 |
| Conan O'Brien |
"Today President Obama met with a group of top CEOs to discuss creating new jobs. They said they'd see what they could do and then all went back to China."
"Iran began holding talks with the six world powers. Participants were the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France, and Oprah."
"President Obama has set aside over 180 million acres of land for polar bears. When Sarah Palin heard about it, she said, 'Todd, get my gun.'"
"President Obama held a ceremony at the White House to celebrate the first night of Hanukkah. In response, Republicans said, 'It's even worse than we thought. He's a Jewish Muslim.'"
The Year's Best Political Insight - Jimmy Fallon
 |
| Jimmy Fallon |
"FedEx said that it shipped 16 million packages today on its busiest day of the year. That's right, they handled 16 million packages. Or as the TSA calls that, 'kind of a slow day.'"
"Joe Biden accidentally revealed the location of the Vice President's top secret bunker. The guy can't help it. But he did apologize. He said, 'I am so sorry for the mistake. The launch code is 85334. It will never happen again. It will never happen again. My Gmail password is robot23. What am I doing? The house key is under the plant near the doorstep.'"
"On his last show, Larry King told Bill Clinton they were both members of the Zipper Club because they both had open heart surgery. Clinton was, "Uh, yeah, that's why I'm a member of the Zipper Club..."
''During his acceptance speech, newly elected Senator Scott Brown told the crowd that his two daughters are both available. Man, so many great American speeches, right? 'Four score and seven years ago,' 'Ask not what your country can do for you,' 'I have a dream,' and now, 'My daughters are both available.'''
The Man Who 'Invented' Global Warming
by James Delingpole
Daily Telegraph
I’m in Ireland this week and am not yet sure how close I’ll be to the internet. So to tide you over just in case here is a fascinating essay from Ishmael2009 (not his real name) on Sir Crispin Tickell is one of the chief architects of Man Made Global Warming’s towering cathedral of half truths, exaggeration, hysteria and Neo-Malthusian lunacy. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the mighty Ishmael2009…..
Sir Crispin Charles Cervantes Tickell is one of the most influential people behind the idea of man-made global warming. Yet you could easily be forgiven for having never heard of him.
Tickell, you see, is a diplomat and a scion of the British establishment, and as such works largely behind the scenes, like a real-life Sir Humphrey. His CV bulges with numerous honorary doctorates, chairmanships and directorships around the world, including the European arm of Pachauri’s TERI organization (1). After starting as a bright young thing with the civil service, he spent two years at Harvard, where he addressed himself to the up and coming subject of climate change, the result of which was his 1977 book Climactic Change and World Affairs, a work that detailed the threat posed to Western civilization by possible changes in the world climate. It made his name, and on his return Tickell was made Chef de Cabinet to the President of the European Commission and afterwards advisor to the Thatcher government, where he was instrumental in persuading leading politicians to put global warming on the political agenda (11).
Daily Telegraph
I’m in Ireland this week and am not yet sure how close I’ll be to the internet. So to tide you over just in case here is a fascinating essay from Ishmael2009 (not his real name) on Sir Crispin Tickell is one of the chief architects of Man Made Global Warming’s towering cathedral of half truths, exaggeration, hysteria and Neo-Malthusian lunacy. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the mighty Ishmael2009…..
Our Man at the Climate Summit: Essay on Sir Crispin Tickell
Sir Crispin Charles Cervantes Tickell is one of the most influential people behind the idea of man-made global warming. Yet you could easily be forgiven for having never heard of him.
Tickell, you see, is a diplomat and a scion of the British establishment, and as such works largely behind the scenes, like a real-life Sir Humphrey. His CV bulges with numerous honorary doctorates, chairmanships and directorships around the world, including the European arm of Pachauri’s TERI organization (1). After starting as a bright young thing with the civil service, he spent two years at Harvard, where he addressed himself to the up and coming subject of climate change, the result of which was his 1977 book Climactic Change and World Affairs, a work that detailed the threat posed to Western civilization by possible changes in the world climate. It made his name, and on his return Tickell was made Chef de Cabinet to the President of the European Commission and afterwards advisor to the Thatcher government, where he was instrumental in persuading leading politicians to put global warming on the political agenda (11).
The Best and Worst of Joe Biden
 |
| Vice-President Joe Biden |
On GOP complaints that the health care bill is 2,022 pages long: ''Put yourself in their spot. Just ask Sarah. That's a hell of a lot to write on the palm of your hand.''
''You all know St. Patrick is credited with banishing snakes from Ireland. But you guys know the truth, sometimes. There were never any snakes in Ireland. St. Patrick just made that up. Which explains why he's the patron saint of FOX News.''
On the recovery act: ''Republicans keep saying it hasn't created a single job. Well, tell that to Senator Scott Brown.''
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking."
"This is a big f*&%$@g deal!" Caught on an open mic congratulating President Barack Obama during the health care signing ceremony, Washington, D.C., March 23, 2010"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened." Apparently unaware that FDR wasn't president when the stock market crashed in 1929 and that only experimental TV sets were in use at that time, interview with Katie Couric, Sept. 22, 2008
"Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me."
"If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there's still a 30% chance we're going to get it wrong."
A great campaign slogan
"Vote for the man who promises least; he'll be the least disappointing."
Bernard Baruch
Friday, December 31, 2010
The Year's Best Political Insight - Craig Ferguson
''There is a new bill in the Senate that is upsetting a lot of people. This bill would give the President the power to shut off the Internet. Al Gore is strongly opposed to it. Not because he invented the Internet. Because he did. But because he just signed up for Match.com.''
Craig Ferguson
"Larry King has been married more times than Henry the Eighth. We used to have that rhyme to keep track of them. 'Divorced, beheaded, died. Divorced, beheaded, survived.' With Larry I think it goes, 'Divorced, beheaded, divorced, escaped. Zombie, lesbian, disappeared, inflatable.'"
"Democrats are calling Christine O'Donnell 'the Sarah Palin of the East.' Really? She's a loud, emotionally unstable woman from Delaware. That's not Sarah Palin, that's Joe Biden."
The Year's Best Political Insight - by Jay Leno
Jay Leno
''I have been thinking about the healthcare problem and how to pay for healthcare. If you took all the money the Republicans have spent trying to stop healthcare and all the money Democrats have spent trying to get healthcare, we could afford healthcare.''
''Of course, a lot of right wingers are very upset about this because they believe this health care bill will cost a lot of money. You know what I think? Just pretend it's another unnecessary war. You'll feel better about it already.''''Well, folks, Sarah Palin has admitted she tried marijuana several years ago, but she did not like it. She said it distorted her perceptions, impaired her thinking, and she's hoping that the effects will eventually wear off.''
''In Austin, Texas, President Obama told an audience, 'If you want to go forward you put your car in 'D.' If you want to go backward, you put your car in 'R.'' But you know something? Either way, the economy is still F'd.''
''On Monday, British Petroleum promised to pay all necessary cleanup costs for this oil spill. And they said they will do it, no matter how much they have to raise gas prices.''
''What a week in Washington. They passed health care, they're talking about immigration reform, it looks like they've ended 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and they're legalizing marijuana. Let me tell you something, if you're a gay drug dealer from Mexico who snuck across the border for free health care so you could join the Navy, this is the greatest year of your life.''
The Obamacare Fraud
The law will penalize doctors to pay patients and penalize patients to pay doctors.
Shikha Dalmia
December 31, 2010
There are a great many things wrong with Obamacare, but the biggest is perhaps one that neither party is paying any attention to: It is one huge entrapment scheme that will turn patients and providers into criminals.
The most blatant example of this is in the “doc fix” that Congress passed with major bipartisan support earlier this month, saving doctors from a nearly 23 percent cut in Medicare reimbursement that they would have otherwise faced this year. Congress has been passing this fix every year since 1997, but this time, in an effort to offset its $20 billion price tag, it has included a little twist to squeeze working families called “exchange recapture subsidy.” Under this provision, the government will go after low-wage families to return any excess subsidies they get under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
When the government hands out subsidies, it will use a household’s income in the previous year as the basis for guessing what the household is qualified to get in the current year. But if the household’s income grows midyear, the subsidy recapture provision will require it to repay anywhere from $600 to $3,500, compared to the $450 that the law originally called for.
This will make it very hazardous for poor working families to get ahead. In the original law, the loss of subsidy with rising income already meant absurdly high effective marginal tax rates—the implicit tax on every additional dollar of income earned. How high? The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon puts them at 229 percent for families of four who increase their earnings by an amount equal to 5 percent of the federal poverty level or $1,100. In other words, a family that added this amount to an income of $44,700 would actually see its total income fall by $1,419 due to the loss of subsidies.
Shikha Dalmia
December 31, 2010
There are a great many things wrong with Obamacare, but the biggest is perhaps one that neither party is paying any attention to: It is one huge entrapment scheme that will turn patients and providers into criminals.
The most blatant example of this is in the “doc fix” that Congress passed with major bipartisan support earlier this month, saving doctors from a nearly 23 percent cut in Medicare reimbursement that they would have otherwise faced this year. Congress has been passing this fix every year since 1997, but this time, in an effort to offset its $20 billion price tag, it has included a little twist to squeeze working families called “exchange recapture subsidy.” Under this provision, the government will go after low-wage families to return any excess subsidies they get under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
When the government hands out subsidies, it will use a household’s income in the previous year as the basis for guessing what the household is qualified to get in the current year. But if the household’s income grows midyear, the subsidy recapture provision will require it to repay anywhere from $600 to $3,500, compared to the $450 that the law originally called for.
This will make it very hazardous for poor working families to get ahead. In the original law, the loss of subsidy with rising income already meant absurdly high effective marginal tax rates—the implicit tax on every additional dollar of income earned. How high? The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon puts them at 229 percent for families of four who increase their earnings by an amount equal to 5 percent of the federal poverty level or $1,100. In other words, a family that added this amount to an income of $44,700 would actually see its total income fall by $1,419 due to the loss of subsidies.
Social Security Is Not 'Insurance'
by Ron Paul
 |
| Congressman Ron Paul |
But millions of Americans now realize that the status quo is an illusion that will not last even another 10 or 20 years. The federal government cannot continue to spend a trillion dollars more than it collects in revenue each year, because we are running out of creditors. Fiscal reality is setting in, and the consequences may be grim even if Congress finds the courage to take decisive action now.
Courage begins with a commitment to see things as they are, rather than how we wish they were. When it comes to Social Security, we must understand that the system does not represent an old age pension, an “insurance” program, or even a forced savings program. It simply represents an enormous transfer payment, with younger workers paying taxes to fund benefits. There is no Social Security trust fund, and you don’t have an “account.” Whether you win or lose the Social Security lottery is a function of when you happened to be born and how long you live to collect benefits. Of course young people today have every reason to believe they will never collect those benefits.
Yes, Virginia, There Is a Ron Paul
by Darren McPhilimy
Dear Editor: I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Ron Paul. Papa says "If you see it in The Sun it's so." Please tell me the truth; is there a Ron Paul?
Virginia O'Hanlon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia,
Your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Ron Paul. He exists as certainly as peace and freedom and prosperity exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Ron Paul! We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which liberty fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Ron Paul! You might as well not believe in the Constitution! The media might hire polling firms that conceal Ron Paul's true level of support among the people, but what would that prove? Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
No Ron Paul! Thank God, he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the hearts of free men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the line above should read, "Papa says, 'If you see it at LRC it's so.'"
Regards,
Darren McPhilimy
Tarentum, PA
Darren McPhilimy [send him mail] began publishing on the Internet in 1996. His latest effort is the blog CrockettAlmanac.com.
Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Dear Editor: I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Ron Paul. Papa says "If you see it in The Sun it's so." Please tell me the truth; is there a Ron Paul?
Virginia O'Hanlon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia,
Your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Ron Paul. He exists as certainly as peace and freedom and prosperity exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Ron Paul! We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which liberty fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Ron Paul! You might as well not believe in the Constitution! The media might hire polling firms that conceal Ron Paul's true level of support among the people, but what would that prove? Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
No Ron Paul! Thank God, he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the hearts of free men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the line above should read, "Papa says, 'If you see it at LRC it's so.'"
Regards,
Darren McPhilimy
Tarentum, PA
Darren McPhilimy [send him mail] began publishing on the Internet in 1996. His latest effort is the blog CrockettAlmanac.com.
Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Stumbling and Bumbling Toward Truth?
Musing About How I Found Libertarianism
by Wilton D. Alston
This essay originally appeared in the book, Why Liberty, compiled by Marc Guttman.
I really should have given this essay a better name. After all, it is about my journey toward libertarianism and therefore (hopefully) truth. It would have made sense to use something like "my journey toward the light" or something equally regal. Here’s the thing though. My journey toward libertarianism has been anything but smooth or regal. As a black person it seems to me that even though we have embraced any number of political/philosophical approaches, libertarianism is among the rarer. As such, my finding and embracing libertarian theory involves equal measures of luck and courage. Perhaps that is why I was asked to contribute this story! Either way, I feel honored and happy to do so. It is my firm belief that I am onto something that represents the best of logic, reason, and truth. However, I did not always think so.
Growing up in a small town in North Carolina, named Hallsboro, I had no contact with any people who called themselves "libertarians." As far back as I can remember, my folks and all my relatives voted Democratic, at least as far as I could tell. In fact, I don’t even remember when I first heard the term, "third-party candidate" but it was probably in college. In the portion of the South where I grew up, it seemed pretty clear which party was out to help you and which party was out to get you, particularly if you were a black person. Still though, certain things about my childhood – the fact that my paternal grandfather was a share cropper; the fact that my maternal grandfather owned a lot of land; and the fact that my father always seemed to be working – all had an effect on me. In retrospect, it was a combination of these effects that made me open to libertarianism even before I knew what it was.
Two instances in particular stand out in my mind as providing seeds of libertarianism that did not germinate until much later in life. The first such instance involved a phone survey that I answered while my parents were out. After all the normal demographic questions, the lady on the phone began to query me about my parent’s jobs and lifestyle. At some point she asked, "And what does your dad do for work?" At that exact moment my father was off on a job laying brick at some location. In fact, during almost any down time he could usually be found out doing something that would result in additional income for the family. To this very day he has at least two hustles that he uses to generate income. He was the original example of someone having multiple income streams in my eyes. So I said to her, "he’s a bricklayer."
Later, my folks and I were eating dinner and I recalled the story for them. When I got to the part about my dad being a bricklayer, my folks both laughed and corrected me. My dad, and my mom, were schoolteachers and had been so for years. I knew that, but somehow it escaped in that moment on the phone. My dad’s practice – always looking for an additional way to make money – rubbed off on me. To this day, I am always looking for a way to generate additional income. In fact, that point of view led me to experiences I will recount later – experiences that further forged my libertarian leanings.
Read the rest at Lew Rockwell
by Wilton D. Alston
This essay originally appeared in the book, Why Liberty, compiled by Marc Guttman.
I really should have given this essay a better name. After all, it is about my journey toward libertarianism and therefore (hopefully) truth. It would have made sense to use something like "my journey toward the light" or something equally regal. Here’s the thing though. My journey toward libertarianism has been anything but smooth or regal. As a black person it seems to me that even though we have embraced any number of political/philosophical approaches, libertarianism is among the rarer. As such, my finding and embracing libertarian theory involves equal measures of luck and courage. Perhaps that is why I was asked to contribute this story! Either way, I feel honored and happy to do so. It is my firm belief that I am onto something that represents the best of logic, reason, and truth. However, I did not always think so.
Growing up in a small town in North Carolina, named Hallsboro, I had no contact with any people who called themselves "libertarians." As far back as I can remember, my folks and all my relatives voted Democratic, at least as far as I could tell. In fact, I don’t even remember when I first heard the term, "third-party candidate" but it was probably in college. In the portion of the South where I grew up, it seemed pretty clear which party was out to help you and which party was out to get you, particularly if you were a black person. Still though, certain things about my childhood – the fact that my paternal grandfather was a share cropper; the fact that my maternal grandfather owned a lot of land; and the fact that my father always seemed to be working – all had an effect on me. In retrospect, it was a combination of these effects that made me open to libertarianism even before I knew what it was.
Two instances in particular stand out in my mind as providing seeds of libertarianism that did not germinate until much later in life. The first such instance involved a phone survey that I answered while my parents were out. After all the normal demographic questions, the lady on the phone began to query me about my parent’s jobs and lifestyle. At some point she asked, "And what does your dad do for work?" At that exact moment my father was off on a job laying brick at some location. In fact, during almost any down time he could usually be found out doing something that would result in additional income for the family. To this very day he has at least two hustles that he uses to generate income. He was the original example of someone having multiple income streams in my eyes. So I said to her, "he’s a bricklayer."
Later, my folks and I were eating dinner and I recalled the story for them. When I got to the part about my dad being a bricklayer, my folks both laughed and corrected me. My dad, and my mom, were schoolteachers and had been so for years. I knew that, but somehow it escaped in that moment on the phone. My dad’s practice – always looking for an additional way to make money – rubbed off on me. To this day, I am always looking for a way to generate additional income. In fact, that point of view led me to experiences I will recount later – experiences that further forged my libertarian leanings.
Read the rest at Lew Rockwell
Monday, December 27, 2010
Less We Can
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." – Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791.
In this day and age we are seeing the effects of too much government. Governments that believe they must regulate every minute detail of our lives, our business transactions, what we can and cannot do on our properties, what we can eat or how it is made. It is simply staggering to see the amount of government intrusion into our basic freedoms.
The more we expand government powers and regulations, the more money it costs to run the government because they will need to hire more people to carry out and enforce the new regulations. All of these new expenses require money so the government will either raise taxes or borrow money so that the next generation will pay for it.
Or they will impose massive fees which will stifle economic growth and restrict the ability of the business community to effectively and efficiently serve the community.
The best and most effective way for government to serve, is to simply get out of the way. Less regulation, less taxes will create more prosperity and more opportunity. Less government will produce more liberty - both economically and personally. I adhere to the Jeffersonian view of government that "the government that governs least, governs best."
I say, Less We Can!
Muir Boda
Candidate for Salisbury City Council
www.boda4salisbury.com
Pearls of Wisdom from Vice-President Joe Biden
Vice-President of the United States of America - Joe Biden, to Missouri state Sen. Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair, Columbia, Missouri, Sept. 12, 2008.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Headlines .... Just In Time
Attorneys Issue CIA Cease And Desist Order Upon Creation Of The WikiLeaks Task Force Citing Ownership Of "WTF" Branding By Obama Administration.
Dems Propose New Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy That Allows Congress To Never Find Out What Is In Bills After Voting For Them.
Dems Propose New Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy That Allows Congress To Never Find Out What Is In Bills After Voting For Them.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Christmas Debt
"
Happy birthday to Chinese President Hu Jintao. President Obama was going to get him a present, but it's a little weird buying someone a gift with their own money."
–Jimmy Fallon
DADT Insight
"
John McCain was opposed to repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' though he admitted that he probably served with gay soldiers during the Civil War."
–David Letterman
In Depth Political Analysis
"Vice President Joe Biden said there has been no 'substantive damage' to the United States by Julian Assange in the whole WikiLeaks scandal. He says it has been embarrassing, but you can't prosecute people for embarrassing the United States. If that were true, Joe Biden would be serving life in prison."
–Jay Leno
Homeland Security Update
"Security officials say that al-Qaida once considered spreading poison through salad bars across the U.S. But they abandoned the plan after Sizzler beat them to it."
Jimmy Fallon
In Depth Political Analysis
"Imagining Donald Trump flying on Jet Blue is like trying to imagine Sarah Palin flying on Air Force One."
–David Letterman
Bad Government
"To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying."Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794), Member of Continental Congress, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Senator
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Sobran
 |
| Joseph Sobran |
"The chances of your being harmed by terrorists are mathematically minute. The chance of your being robbed by your own government? That’s easy: 100 per cent."
$2 Trillion Debt Crisis Threatens to Bring Down 100 US Cities
Overdrawn American cities could face financial collapse in 2011, defaulting on hundreds of billions of dollars of borrowings and derailing the US economic recovery. Nor are European cities safe – Florence, Barcelona, Madrid, Venice: all are in trouble
More than 100 American cities could go bust next year as the debt crisis that has taken down banks and countries threatens next to spark a municipal meltdown, a leading analyst has warned.
Meredith Whitney, the US research analyst who correctly predicted the global credit crunch, described local and state debt as the biggest problem facing the US economy, and one that could derail its recovery.
"Next to housing this is the single most important issue in the US and certainly the biggest threat to the US economy," Whitney told the CBS 60 Minutes programme on Sunday night.
"There's not a doubt on my mind that you will see a spate of municipal bond defaults. You can see fifty to a hundred sizeable defaults – more. This will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of defaults."
New Jersey governor Chris Christie summarised the problem succinctly: "We spent too much on everything. We spent money we didn't have. We borrowed money just crazily. The credit card's maxed out, and it's over. We now have to get to the business of climbing out of the hole. We've been digging it for a decade or more. We've got to climb now, and a climb is harder."
American cities and states have debts in total of as much as $2tn. In Europe, local and regional government borrowing is expected to reach a historical peak of nearly €1.3tn (£1.1tn) this year.
Cities from Detroit to Madrid are struggling to pay creditors, including providers of basic services such as street cleaning. Last week, Moody's ratings agency warned about a possible downgrade for the cities of Florence and Barcelona and cut the rating of the Basque country in northern Spain. Lisbon was downgraded by rival agency Standard & Poor's earlier this year, while the borrowings of Naples and Budapest are on the brink of junk status. Istanbul's debt has already been downgraded to junk.
Whitney's intervention is likely to raise the profile of the issue of municipal debt. While she was an analyst at Oppenheimer, the New York investment bank, in October 2007 she wrote a damning report on Citigroup, then the world's largest bank, predicting it would cut its dividend. She was criticised for being too pessimistic but was vindicated when the bank was forced to seek government support a year later. She has since set up her own advisory firm and is rated one of the most influential women in American business.
US states have spent nearly half a trillion dollars more than they have collected in taxes, and face a $1tn hole in their pension funds, said the CBS programme, apocalyptically titled The Day of Reckoning.
Detroit is cutting police, lighting, road repairs and cleaning services affecting as much as 20% of the population. The city, which has been on the skids for almost two decades with the decline of the US auto industry, does not generate enough wealth to maintain services for its 900,000 inhabitants.
The nearby state of Illinois has spent twice as much money as it has collected and is about six months behind on creditor payments. The University of Illinois alone is owed $400m, the CBS programme said. The state has a 21% chances of default, more than any other, according to CMA Datavision, a derivatives information provider.
Copyright © 2010 The Guardian
More than 100 American cities could go bust next year as the debt crisis that has taken down banks and countries threatens next to spark a municipal meltdown, a leading analyst has warned.
Meredith Whitney, the US research analyst who correctly predicted the global credit crunch, described local and state debt as the biggest problem facing the US economy, and one that could derail its recovery.
"Next to housing this is the single most important issue in the US and certainly the biggest threat to the US economy," Whitney told the CBS 60 Minutes programme on Sunday night.
"There's not a doubt on my mind that you will see a spate of municipal bond defaults. You can see fifty to a hundred sizeable defaults – more. This will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of defaults."
New Jersey governor Chris Christie summarised the problem succinctly: "We spent too much on everything. We spent money we didn't have. We borrowed money just crazily. The credit card's maxed out, and it's over. We now have to get to the business of climbing out of the hole. We've been digging it for a decade or more. We've got to climb now, and a climb is harder."
American cities and states have debts in total of as much as $2tn. In Europe, local and regional government borrowing is expected to reach a historical peak of nearly €1.3tn (£1.1tn) this year.
Cities from Detroit to Madrid are struggling to pay creditors, including providers of basic services such as street cleaning. Last week, Moody's ratings agency warned about a possible downgrade for the cities of Florence and Barcelona and cut the rating of the Basque country in northern Spain. Lisbon was downgraded by rival agency Standard & Poor's earlier this year, while the borrowings of Naples and Budapest are on the brink of junk status. Istanbul's debt has already been downgraded to junk.
Whitney's intervention is likely to raise the profile of the issue of municipal debt. While she was an analyst at Oppenheimer, the New York investment bank, in October 2007 she wrote a damning report on Citigroup, then the world's largest bank, predicting it would cut its dividend. She was criticised for being too pessimistic but was vindicated when the bank was forced to seek government support a year later. She has since set up her own advisory firm and is rated one of the most influential women in American business.
US states have spent nearly half a trillion dollars more than they have collected in taxes, and face a $1tn hole in their pension funds, said the CBS programme, apocalyptically titled The Day of Reckoning.
Detroit is cutting police, lighting, road repairs and cleaning services affecting as much as 20% of the population. The city, which has been on the skids for almost two decades with the decline of the US auto industry, does not generate enough wealth to maintain services for its 900,000 inhabitants.
The nearby state of Illinois has spent twice as much money as it has collected and is about six months behind on creditor payments. The University of Illinois alone is owed $400m, the CBS programme said. The state has a 21% chances of default, more than any other, according to CMA Datavision, a derivatives information provider.
Copyright © 2010 The Guardian
Distorting the Tax Policy Debate
Letting You Keep Your Own Money
That is hardly a government subsidy.
George Orwell warned us about the use of “meaningless words” in politics, words that are endlessly repeated by sloganeering politicians until they have no meaning at all. Meaningless words certainly were on display during last week’s congressional debate over the latest tax bill.
Over and over again we heard trite, empty phrases like “tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%,” “tax giveaways,” “tax earmarks,” and “borrowing money to give to millionaires.” Time and time again the same falsehoods were presented as fact, and reported as such by a credulous media.
But all of these clichés about taxes are based on the presumption that government has a right to all of your income, and so government “gives” you something when it allows you to keep a portion of that income. To this mindset, tax cuts represent a “cost” to government. After all, they argue, money that really ought to go to the most noble of purposes – wealth redistribution via taxation – is being kept by greedy people and corporations who just don’t want to pay their fair share.
Far too many Americans truly believe that tax cuts represent a government giveaway, indistinguishable from an outright subsidy or entitlement payment. To combat this mindset, we need to be clear with our language.
That is hardly a government subsidy.
|
| by Ron Paul |
Over and over again we heard trite, empty phrases like “tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%,” “tax giveaways,” “tax earmarks,” and “borrowing money to give to millionaires.” Time and time again the same falsehoods were presented as fact, and reported as such by a credulous media.
But all of these clichés about taxes are based on the presumption that government has a right to all of your income, and so government “gives” you something when it allows you to keep a portion of that income. To this mindset, tax cuts represent a “cost” to government. After all, they argue, money that really ought to go to the most noble of purposes – wealth redistribution via taxation – is being kept by greedy people and corporations who just don’t want to pay their fair share.
Far too many Americans truly believe that tax cuts represent a government giveaway, indistinguishable from an outright subsidy or entitlement payment. To combat this mindset, we need to be clear with our language.
Great Political Insight
"Congress has voted to extend the Bush tax cuts. Is it me, or is George W. Bush getting more done now than when he was in office?"
Jay Leno
Government officials afraid of a full-body scan of their words should resign, says LP Chair
WASHINGTON - While Democratic and Republican politicians outdo each other with calls for the prosecution and even execution of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange for providing information to various news media, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle says that free speech and freedom of the press must be supported unconditionally. Hinkle released the following statement today:
The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:
1.1 Expression and Communication. We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology.
1.5 Crime and Justice. Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to them selves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace.
"In 1787, as the U.S. Constitution was being written, Thomas Jefferson wrote, 'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.' His recognition of the critical need for a free press led him and others to demand a Bill of Rights, where freedom of speech and freedom of the press were listed in the very first amendment to the Constitution.
LNC Chair Mark Hinkle
"In 2010, Democratic and Republican politicians alike are trying to destroy this precious liberty. The Obama Administration, which has already invoked the 'state secrets' claim in court more than any administration in history, has arrested Army Private Bradley Manning, alleging that he copied and leaked various documents, and is holding him in solitary confinement pending a military trial. Meanwhile, Republican presidential hopefuls are falling over themselves seeing who can sound the toughest. Mike Huckabee says that anything less than execution of the leaker is too kind. Newt Gingrich wants Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, declared an 'enemy combatant' so that he can be denied all due process. And Sarah Palin wants Assange hunted down like Osama bin Laden (perhaps missing the irony that bin Laden has not been caught).
"Even more ominously, companies which provided various services to WikiLeaks suddenly decided to end their relationship after receiving pressure from Washington. Amazon, PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard all suddenly felt that the activities of WikiLeaks, well-known to them for years, were illegal, absent any actual charges being filed for the violation of any law. When government officials start pressuring businesses in order to silence critics, tyranny isn't far off.
"Publishing documents provided by a government agent is not a crime. Embarrassing public officials is not a crime. Regardless of the degree to which the released documents are helpful or harmful, Assange and WikiLeaks are exercising their rights, and American politicians and government agents should stop threatening and harassing them.
"Freedom of the press is not a luxury, and the prospect of a government able to silence dissent and prevent the press from communicating unfavorable information about the behavior of government employees should frighten anyone who loves liberty. It is understandable that government officials who are lying to the public and covering up misdeeds want to keep their actions secret, just as a criminal doesn't want the police to find out about his crime. As Steven Greenhut of the Pacific Research Institute notes, 'If it weren't for anonymous sources and leaked information, the journalism business would serve as a press-release service for officialdom.'
"Private Manning deserves the presumption of innocence, due process, a speedy and fair trial, and decent treatment while in prison. If Manning revealed information which did not damage national security or result in harm to others, but instead revealed evidence of incompetence, corruption, or other illegal activities, then he should be able to raise that as a defense at any trial. Just as when Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers in 1971 and had his subsequent prosecution dismissed by the courts, an important principle is that information which is being kept secret to protect wrongdoing is not in fact legally and properly classified. A jury should be able to judge both the facts and the law, and to acquit Manning if the jury finds his actions to be justified.
"Two years ago, candidate Barack Obama praised the long tradition of information leaks by defending those who revealed Bush-era covert actions. 'We only know these crimes took place because insiders blew the whistle at great personal risk.... Government whistle-blowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal.' Obama appears to have forgotten this statement, just as he has forgotten many other statements and promises he made while campaigning.
"Only a month ago, we were told by the Transportation Safety Administration that they should have the power to strip or grope us if we want to exercise our right of travel. In my view, any government official too embarrassed to handle a full-body scan of their words and actions should resign."
The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:
1.1 Expression and Communication. We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology.
1.5 Crime and Justice. Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to them selves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
In-Depth Political Analysis
|
| Jimmy Fallon |
"On his last show, Larry King told Bill Clinton they were both members of the Zipper Club because they both had open heart surgery. Clinton was, "Uh, yeah, that's why I'm a member of the Zipper Club..."
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Entitlements
It seems that wherever the Welfare State is involved, the moral precept, "Thou shalt not steal," becomes altered to say: "Thou shalt not steal, except for what thou deemest to be a worthy cause, where thou thinkest that thou canst use the loot for a better purpose than wouldst the victim of the theft."
– F. A. Harper
Regulation
He who regulates everything by laws, is more likely to arouse vices than reform them.
– Spinoza
Karl Marx's View on Capitalism
There is only one way to kill capitalism – by taxes, taxes, and more taxes.
– Karl Marx
Interesting Quotes
''I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies or don't care, but that is not the case with BP. We care about the small people.''
—BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg, speaking to reporters in Washington, June 16, 2010
—BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg, speaking to reporters in Washington, June 16, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
In the news....
"Larry King has been married more times than Henry the Eighth. We used to have that rhyme to keep track of them. 'Divorced, beheaded, died. Divorced, beheaded, survived.' With Larry I think it goes, 'Divorced, beheaded, divorced, escaped. Zombie, lesbian, disappeared, inflatable.'"
–Craig Ferguson
Great Libertarian Quotes
When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all.
Justice William O. Douglas
Great Political Insight
"Two feet of snow in the Midwest. But the good news is, these are the first shovel-ready jobs Obama has come up with since becoming president."
–Jay Leno
In the news....
"Today President Obama met with a group of top CEOs to discuss creating new jobs. They said they'd see what they could do and then all went back to China."
–Conan O'Brien
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Pearls of Wisdom from Vice-President Joe Biden
Vice-President of the United States of America - Joe Biden
Friday, December 17, 2010
Libertarians Must Never Warm to the Warfare State
by Murray N. Rothbard
Libertarian Review, August 1977, pp. 10–12
 |
| Murray N. Rothbard |
Let us examine some of the articles in Reason's July issue to see what they are all about. First, one John Kizer attacks Thomas Szasz's libertarian denunciation of involuntary mental hospitalization. Kizer analogizes that just as the unconscious victim of an auto wreck can be justifiably "involuntarily" treated by a doctor, a treatment that will be really voluntary after the patient wakes up, so too can the schizophrenic or paranoiac be involuntarily – "really" voluntarily – treated.
Except that the schizophrenic and paranoiac are awake and conscious, thank you, and are clearly not assenting! And, should an opponent of medical therapy wake up from his accident and demand out, his demand, however odd, must be granted. But what of the similar demand of the mental patient? At any rate, whether sound or unsound, the point is that Mr. Kizer's article is explicitly antilibertarian.
Then there is the crazed article from Canada, by one A. Michael Keerma, which Red-baits to an extent that would not even be tolerated by National Review or Human Events. First, there is the ludicrous charge that the Parti Québécois and Québec Premier René Lévesque are Communists run by the Soviet KGB. There is not even a coming to grips in the Keerman article with the libertarian view that secession is a per se libertarian act, being the dismantling of a State into constituent parts. But just when I thought that Keerma would be calling for an all-out defense of the Canadian nation-state against the Québec separatists, I find that the author's Red-baiting has boxed him into a peculiar corner. For, according to Keerma, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is himself a Communist and KGB tool.
It is incredible that this sort of drivel can appear in a responsible magazine. The truth is that neither Trudeau nor Lévesque is a Communist or a Soviet agent; they are simply, like nearly every other politician in the "free world," moderate socialists, which is bad enough, but hardly a call for the United States to become embattled, in Keerma's words, in "a war to determine the fate of the free world." Or are we to nuke Britain, run by moderate-socialist Callaghan?
Audit the Fed in 2011
by Ron Paul
Since the announcement last week that I will chair the congressional subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve, the media response has been overwhelming. The groundswell of opposition to Fed actions among ordinary citizens is reflected not only in the rhetoric coming out of Capitol Hill, but also in the tremendous interest shown by the financial press. The demand for transparency is growing, whether the political and financial establishment likes it or not. The Fed is losing its vaunted status as an institution that somehow is above politics and public scrutiny. Fed transparency will be the cornerstone of my efforts as subcommittee chairman.
Thanks to public pressure earlier this year, Congress did pass legislation that requires the Fed to disclose some information about its bailout of select industries and companies following the 2008 financial crisis. So two weeks ago the Fed released data concerning more than $3 trillion of assistance it offered to banks through its bailout facilities. After reviewing this data, however, we are left with many more questions about the Fed's “lending.”
In the “Term Securities Lending Facility,” the Fed was supposed to have loaned against AAA-rated securities – yet over half of the collateral put up by banks to obtain loans had no listed credit rating. Should we assume that the Fed accepted absolute junk-rated securities as collateral for loans? Presumably these securities were so bad that they wouldn’t even publicize their credit rating. So why should our central bank, backed up by your taxes, accept such collateral?
On another note, of the $1.25 trillion purchased under the Fed’s “Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program,” only $877 billion in purchases have been publicized. What happened to the remaining $400 billion?
These kinds of limited disclosures by the Fed only underscore the need for a full and complete audit of the Fed’s financial books. This audit should be done by an independent third party, in the same manner that public companies are audited. The Fed should make public its balance sheet, income statement, and perhaps most importantly its cash flow statement. It also should publicize the notes explaining those financial statements.
We seem to forget sometimes that Congress created the Fed – it is a government-created banking monopoly, and its top decision-makers are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If the Fed does not perform satisfactorily in the eyes of these politicians and their constituents, the Chairman and Governors may not be re-nominated.
In theory, Congress could even repeal the Federal Reserve Act altogether since it has the authority to do so. Obviously Congress is within its authority to audit an organization it created by statute, and it is time to assume that responsibility.
With 320 Members of Congress cosponsoring my legislation to fully audit the Fed in the 111th Congress, my hope is that we can build on our broad bipartisan coalition in 2011 and continue the push for greater Fed transparency going forward.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas
 |
| Ron Paul |
Thanks to public pressure earlier this year, Congress did pass legislation that requires the Fed to disclose some information about its bailout of select industries and companies following the 2008 financial crisis. So two weeks ago the Fed released data concerning more than $3 trillion of assistance it offered to banks through its bailout facilities. After reviewing this data, however, we are left with many more questions about the Fed's “lending.”
In the “Term Securities Lending Facility,” the Fed was supposed to have loaned against AAA-rated securities – yet over half of the collateral put up by banks to obtain loans had no listed credit rating. Should we assume that the Fed accepted absolute junk-rated securities as collateral for loans? Presumably these securities were so bad that they wouldn’t even publicize their credit rating. So why should our central bank, backed up by your taxes, accept such collateral?
On another note, of the $1.25 trillion purchased under the Fed’s “Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program,” only $877 billion in purchases have been publicized. What happened to the remaining $400 billion?
These kinds of limited disclosures by the Fed only underscore the need for a full and complete audit of the Fed’s financial books. This audit should be done by an independent third party, in the same manner that public companies are audited. The Fed should make public its balance sheet, income statement, and perhaps most importantly its cash flow statement. It also should publicize the notes explaining those financial statements.
We seem to forget sometimes that Congress created the Fed – it is a government-created banking monopoly, and its top decision-makers are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If the Fed does not perform satisfactorily in the eyes of these politicians and their constituents, the Chairman and Governors may not be re-nominated.
In theory, Congress could even repeal the Federal Reserve Act altogether since it has the authority to do so. Obviously Congress is within its authority to audit an organization it created by statute, and it is time to assume that responsibility.
With 320 Members of Congress cosponsoring my legislation to fully audit the Fed in the 111th Congress, my hope is that we can build on our broad bipartisan coalition in 2011 and continue the push for greater Fed transparency going forward.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)