National Health Insurance

"National Health Insurance means combining the efficiency of the Postal Service with the compassion of the I.R.S. … and the cost accounting of the Pentagon." 

Louis Sullivan/Connie Horner quoted by Novak in Forbes

Who's in charge?



Mike Calpino

 This week we, the United States, committed ourselves to another war. We began enforcing a ‘no fly’ zone in an effort to help the rebellion, led primarily by terrorists, against a brutal dictator. And why have we decided to become engaged in this conflict? Because the United Nations said so.


Once upon a time we were a sovereign nation who would only commit blood and treasure when it was in our best interest. We adhered to a law, called the constitution, that said that only the representatives of the people, the congress, could make that commitment, and it could only be paid for if that body approved and could convince the people to buy bonds or pay taxes to support it. Not any more. Now we have a president who has no clue what to do until the United Nations, an unelected, anti-American body, tells him that it would be a good idea to put our brave men and women in harm’s way and expend billions of dollars of the Fed’s freshly printed dollars. Really? When did "we the people" choose to give up our national sovereignty and allow the United Nations determine where and how our military and tax dollars are used? I don’t remember that vote, do you?
There are two things wrong with our latest "intervention" that concern me. One is the above mentioned subservience to the United Nations. That is an organization we should have pulled out of a long time ago. In fact, it was set up in a way to put us at a disadvantage in any attempt gain support for any action we may believe is in our best interest. It is a waste of our money and everyone else’s. It is corrupt from top to bottom, it is comprised primarily of dictators and thugs and even our supposed ‘friends’ only vote with us half the time. It puts countries like Libya and Iran on the Human Rights Council and its blue helmeted soldiers often engage in the same atrocious activities they are supposed to prevent. We may complain about the stupidity and corruption in our government but the UN takes it to a whole new level. Knowing that most nations see the UN simply as a tool to bleed us of billions of dollars, humiliate us and keep us from acting in our best interests through supposed ‘international' condemnation, the last governmental body we should be taking direction from is the United Nations. I’d withdrawal from that worthless organization, pull the plug on all funding, give them six months to move out of New York and use that building for something useful, rent it out to some greedy capitalists, perhaps.

Fed and Inflation

by Congressman Ron Paul



Congressman Ron Paul

 Last week, the subcommittee which I chair held a hearing on monetary policy and rising prices. Whether we consider food, gasoline, or clothing, the cost of living is increasing significantly. True inflation is defined as an increase in the money supply. All other things being equal, an increase in the money supply leads to a rise in prices. Inflation’s destructive effects have ruined societies from the Roman Empire to Weimar Germany to modern-day Zimbabwe.


Blame for the most recent round of price increases has been laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve's program of credit expansion for the past three years. The current program, known as QE2, sought to purchase a total of $900 billion in US Treasury debt over a period of 8 months. Roughly $110 billion of newly created money is flooding into commodity markets each month.

The price of cotton is up more than 170% over the past year, oil is up over 40%, and many categories of food staples are seeing double-digit price growth. This means that food, clothing, and gasoline will become increasingly expensive over the coming year. American families, many of whom already live paycheck to paycheck, increasingly will be forced by these rising prices into unwilling tradeoffs: purchasing ground beef rather than steak, drinking water rather than milk, and choosing canned vegetables over fresh in order to keep food on the table and pay the heating bill. Frugality can be a good thing, but only when it is by choice and not forced upon the citizenry by the Fed's ruinous monetary policy.
While the Fed takes credit for the increase in the stock markets, it claims no responsibility for the increases in food and commodity prices. Most economists fail to understand that inflation is at its root a monetary phenomenon. There may be other factors that contribute to price increases, such as famine, flooding, or global unrest, but those effects are transient. Consistently citing only these factors, while never acknowledging the effects of monetary policy, is a cop-out.

The unelected policymakers at the Fed are also the last to feel the effects of inflation. In fact, they benefit from it, as does the government as a whole. Those who receive this new money first, such as government employees, contractors, and bankers are able to use it before price increases occur, while those further down the totem pole suffer price increases before they see any wage increases. By continually reducing the purchasing power of the dollar, the Fed's monetary policy also punishes savings and thrift. After all, why save rapidly depreciating dollars?


Unfortunately, those policymakers who exercise the most power over the economy are also the least likely to understand the effects of their policies. Chairman Bernanke and other members of the Federal Open Market Committee were convinced in mid-2008 that the economy would rebound and continue to grow through 2009, even though it was clear to many observers that we were in the midst of a severe economic crisis. Even Greenspan was known for downplaying the importance of the growing housing bubble just as it was reaching its zenith. It remains impossible for even the brilliant minds at the Fed to achieve both the depth and breadth of knowledge necessary to enact central economic planning without eventually bringing the country to economic ruin. Our witnesses delved deeply into these issues and explained this phenomenon in very logical, simple terms. The American people increasingly understand what is going on with our money. I only hope the Fed is listening.

A Step In Right Direction for Ballot Access

Good news for ballot access: Maryland Court of Appeals okays "imperfect signatures", meaning a doctor's signature would qualify on a petition.

Here is a link that gives a little detail.

And the Baltimore Sun covered it on their blog.

A small, respectful correction to the Baltimmore Sun is that the Maryland Libertarian Party turned in nearly 15,000 signatures.

Thoughts from Jefferson

"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills."  

Thomas Jefferson

Religion

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." 

Thomas Jefferson (1781)

FDR on Unions

Buying Friends Creates More Enemies

by Ron Paul

Last week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and I had the opportunity to raise some of my concerns regarding US foreign policy and the costs of our interventionism around the world.


Many observers claim that the recent overthrow of governments in northern Africa and the Middle East will result in more liberty for individuals across those regions. I sincerely hope this proves to be true, but history is replete with revolutions that began as a cry for freedom against oppressive governments but ended badly. There are no guarantees that Egyptians, Tunisians, or others will be better off after these heralded regime changes.



We do know, however, that these conflicts in Africa and the Middle East can be made worse if the U.S. government attempts to intervene and support certain candidates or factions. Such intervention would not further US interests or win us new friends, but in fact would undermine the legitimacy of any government that may emerge after the end of old regimes. Just as we would resent and reject any political force that came to power here with the sponsorship of a foreign government, Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, and others are not likely to take kindly to what they view as one US puppet being replaced by another US puppet. It is ironic, but the US government’s endless promotion of “democracy” overseas actually distorts and undermines democracy in targeted nations. The involvement of a foreign power often undermines true self-determination.


Radicals who understand this may use rising resentment and anti-Americanism as leverage to gain power, thus defeating the stated purpose of US involvement in the first place. I have never understood how the US government justifies subsidizing a newspaper or political party abroad in the name of promoting independence and pluralism. It makes no sense.



Unfortunately it seems to me that the administration has learned nothing from recent events in the Mediterranean region. Secretary Clinton emphasized several times at the committee hearing that “nothing is off the table” with regard to a US response to internal civil unrest in Libya. Since when is it our obligation to use political pressure or even military force to solve every problem overseas? Washington is currently buzzing with talk of “no-fly zones” and even a land invasion of Libya to aid rebel groups seeking to overthrow the Gadaffi regime. Some military leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have rightly warned the more enthusiastic interventionists that such military operations can be enormously costly both financially and in lives.


The costs of trying to run the world are unsustainable, and we simply don’t have the money. Morally, it is inexcusable for the US to pick sides in such conflicts overseas, no matter how odious either side may be. Financially, it is no longer possible. The 2012 budget request from the administration for “international affairs,” which is code for “foreign aid,” is two and a half times larger than it was just nine years ago! As our economy shrinks at home, our obligations increase abroad. As our infrastructure crumbles at home, we continue to spend billions expanding infrastructure in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. If the interventionists have their way, no doubt we will be soon pay to reconstruct the infrastructure we destroy in a Libyan military operation. It does not take a genius to see that we are going broke, but Washington remains in denial and intent on business as usual. I fear that if we continue this way we may soon be out of business altogether.

Recession

"Due to the recession, there are now 15,000 fewer lawyers in the U.S. No one ever talks about the good things that come from a recession."

Jay Leno

Truth

"It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." 

Charles A. Beard

Oil Prices

Truth

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."  

Ayn Rand

Tyranny

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

C. S. Lewis

History

"[On ancient Athens]: In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again."  

Edward Gibbon

No-Fly Won't Fly Constitutionally

by Ron Paul

Last week we once again heard numerous voices calling for intervention in Libya. Most say the US should establish a “no-fly” zone over Libya, pretending that it is a benign, virtually cost-free action, and the least we could do to assist those trying to oust the Gaddafi regime. Let us be clear about one thing: for the US to establish a “no fly” zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. Establishing any kind of military presence in the sovereign territory of Libya will require committing troops to engage in combat against the Libyan air force, as well as anti-aircraft systems. The administration has stated that nothing is off the table as they discuss US responses to the unrest. This sort of talk is alarming on so many levels. Does this mean a nuclear strike is on the table? Apparently so.

In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. Frankly, it is not up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up “no-fly” zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution. Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked – not by Gaddafi, and not by the rebels. This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.


Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don’t have the money for more military interventions overseas. We don’t have the money for our current military interventions overseas. We have to rely on the Fed’s printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars. That alone should put an end to any discussion about getting involved in Libya’s civil war.Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d’état in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business. How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. These are terrible reasons to put our soldiers’ lives at risk.

Truth

"America was born of revolt, flourished on dissent, became great through experimentation."  

Henry Steele Commager

A Message From Dr. Richard Davis

I read this week that the Dorchester GOP is organizing a fund-raising program for the Harriet Tubman Memorial. As a Libertarian I applaud and support this for several reasons.

1. It is a libertarian approach to do this with private, voluntary contributions from people who actually support the memorial, rather than asking for tax dollars taken from those who may or may not support the idea.
2. Whatever else it has or has not done since then, the GOP was the original party seeking the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of slaves in this country.
3. Harriet Tubman is a great role model for libertarians; she valued freedom for herself and others above her own safety, and was willing to break laws she knew to be unjust to achieve that freedom. Rather than seek redress from an unsympathetic government, she acted independently toward that freedom. While the law of the time viewed her activities as theft, which is against libertarian principle, it could only define them as theft by denying the humanity of those freed. I think libertarians would accept individual human freedom as superseding this view of theft. 
4. Both of the major political parties have their roots in the idea of human freedom, however much this seems forgotten today. I support the Libertarian party because it is trying to bring us back to these roots, and I support any effort that has that effect on either party or both.
5. Both major parties have such talent for partisan fundraising, I would like to see some of that talent used for more productive purpose, rather than adding to an already overwhelming national debt.
6. If Dorchester County wishes to claim the heritage of Harriet Tubman, then the people of the county should step up and make this memorial their own project. The county government is already terribly short of funds, but to be true to the legacy of Harriet Tubman, this ought to be a true grass-roots effort. I would not refuse contributions from freedom-lovers elsewhere, but this should be a project of and for Dorchester County from the start. 

I will be looking forward to supporting these activities as they develop.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Davis

Truth

"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." 

Thomas Jefferson

To the Shores of Tripoli!

If we had listened to the interventionists, we would have been at war with Libya long ago.

by Matt Welch

It is reasonable to conclude that if John McCain had won the presidency, the United States military would be at this moment engaging in war with Libya, by enforcing a no-fly zone over the embattled country and probably arming the anti-Qadaffi rebels. After all, that's what the Arizona Senator has been advocating for the past two weeks.

But in fact an alternative-universe McCain presidency could have put us on war footing with Libya as early as January 2001, had he beaten George W. Bush in the Republican primaries back in the days of federal budget surpluses. After all, it was McCain during the 2000 campaign who was advocating pro-active regime change in Tripoli, asserting during one presidential debate that he would "revise our policies concerning these rogue states—Iraq, Libya, North Korea—those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them," and then "institute a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback.' I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically-elected governments."

And as he made clear in his original speech unveiling this radical doctrine of pre-emptive pro-democracy war, President McCain would have backed these revolutionary operations with the full power of the U.S. military. "If you commit to supporting these forces, accept the seriousness of the obligation," he cautioned. "Don't abandon them to the mercies of tyrants whenever they meet with reversals as the administration did in the north of Iraq....The world's only superpower should never give its word insincerely. We should never make idle threats."

Read More Reason...

LP Chair: The problem in Wisconsin is not unions but government

For Immediate Release
Thursday, March 10, 2011

WASHINGTON - While Republicans and Democrats battle in Wisconsin over a bill to reduce the collective bargaining power of state employee unions as a means of balancing their budget, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle points out that the problem lies with government control of activities it has no business running.

Hinkle comments, "Libertarians are neither pro-union nor anti-union. We believe that the right of association and freedom of contract allows any group of people to choose to bargain collectively rather than individually. Naturally, we oppose violence and threats of such, but unions per se can play a major role in a free society. The problem is that the battle between the Wisconsin state government and state employees isn't even remotely a free market.

"Government monopolizes many services that could and should be provided in the voluntary sector by profit-making and/or non-profit organizations. This also gives them a 'monopsony' as virtually the only potential employer for workers in these fields. Once someone has trained to be a teacher or prison guard, they are essentially at the mercy of government for their employment in that field. Blaming them for wanting collective bargaining representation would be comparable to siding with the Polish government against the union Solidarity headed by Lech Walesa that freed Poland in 1989 from Soviet rule. The problem is with the employer: the government."

Hinkle considers the education budget to be the best example of a solution only Libertarians have offered:

"Far and away the largest part of the budget of the State of Wisconsin, once aid to local governments is allocated to underlying expenditures, is in the category of education. This is true of virtually all state and local governments, so it is the best example of how freedom can provide a solution. Unfortunately, government expenditures for education are driven by political considerations rather than the needs of the students. The result is outrageous costs that are not primarily for the most important ingredient in education: the teacher.