Rep. Ron Paul to Chair the Monetary Policy Subcommittee

Great news for fiscal conservatives across the nation broke yesterday in the wake of headlines announcing that Texas Representative Ron Paul has been selected to chair the Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.

Rep. Paul has been the champion of economic conservatism since his first stint in the House in 1976. Notorious for limiting federal spending and voting against expansionary legislation, his fellow Congressmen have given him the nickname "Dr. No." He has written numerous books on the perils and detriments of an expanded federal core, including the bestseller End the Fed, which dictates his skeptical take on the wrongdoings of the Federal Reserve, concluding with a call to abandon the structure altogether.

Long before the financial crisis of 2008, Rep. Paul advocated for the cessation of taxpayer funding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He predicted the market crash in 2006, and actively campaigned against the subsequent bailouts. Warning against the implications of the measures taken in 2008 and 2009 to attempt to stabilize the economy, including astronomical inflation and unemployment rates unrivaled since the Great Depression, Paul again proved his competency in the monetary sector, adding to his long resume of economic qualifications for the position.

The next session of Congress will surely benefit from this sensible appointment to the subcommittee. At a time when debt and deficit are instinctively offset by more spending, Ron Paul's voice will pull in the reigns on a federal spending spree that has gone on too long and too far.

Are You Serious, Ben Bernanke?

The United States Federal Reserve - that unconstitutional provision of the extended arm of the Federal government - has long since befuddled my inner sensibilities on the reach of government interventionism. Regulating monetary policy, over-seeing banking institutions, and stabilizing the general economic condition are few of the many "responsibilities" endowed to the structure, all for the purpose of limiting the supposed free-market, laissez faire system that we so vigilantly espouse.


The economic retractions (and subsequent stimulus spending) of 2008 were not the first, in a long line of, faulty and unwarranted economic policies put in place by the Fed. In fact, one could argue that said "economic retractions" were the direct result of protocol gone awry.

In 2003 to 2004, the Fed dropped interest rates to 1%, encouraging consumer borrowing / spending. This lead to the perceived delusion that the economy was performing better than in actuality. 2004 brought about a federal spending spree, spreading its venom as far as the housing market, later encouraging "subprime" mortgage allowances and booming the already zealously over-inflated housing bubble. These (in combination with mark-to-market accounting regulations) lead to the credit crisis of 2008 that spiraled the market into a frenzy of (what seemed to be) perpetual decline.

It is important to remember that a system of capitalism is marked by a balance of healthy economic expansions and contractions. Capitalism cannot function properly, as such, when Keynesian monetary strategists encourage fiscal intervention, especially when they employ said methods inappropriately.



Think about the implications of these previously mentioned policies enacted by the Fed in 2003-2004:

• Lowering the interest rates to 1%. Under normal conditions, this would indicate a period of economic prosperity. However, the economy was already beginning to retract in late 2003; therefore, dropping the interest rates to delude borrowers was a deliberate attempt to offset further contractions.


• Printing cash. Remember the summer of 2004? Remember how high gas prices became?? And how the media (and select politicians) portrayed "greedy" oil companies the culprit? Well, oil is a commodity bought and sold in US dollars. While not immediately evident, the Federal Reserve Bank was busy pumping out hundreds of millions of dollars, again, for the supposed purpose of stimulating growth (or at least maintaining the delusion that the economy was strong). Such a bold increase in the money supply decreased the purchasing power of each dollar, driving oil costs up, and artificially inflating an already artificially-inflated bubble.
  

Printing dollars and lowering the interest rates kept the populace in the delusion of prosperity. The Fed attempted to offset what they knew was to become a retraction in the economy by artificially encouraging spending, rather than saving. But these risky policies only exacerbated the imminent economic bust, unforeseen by Americans because of the deceptiveness of the Fed.

Another string of economic blows came about in early 2008, including the sudden demise of the stock market, with broad-reaching implications into the housing market and banking institutions. The US Treasury designed relief programs to basically buy up troubled assets for the purpose of keeping said institutions afloat (mind you - institutions that had taken advantage of their shareholders and made poor, risky decisions that ultimately destroyed their corporations).

AIG, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and a string of other groups received money from the government all for the purpose of eliminating the doom to come from their insolvency. And although the Fed, under the authority of Ben Bernanke, was not necessarily implicated in the enactment of TARP, they made it perfectly clear to Congress that its enactment was the only means to saving the economy.

Bernanke appeared before Congress on September 24th, 2008 to offer his professional support in favor of enacting legislation for the purpose of stabilizing the economy. He concluded that "stabilization of our financial system is an essential precondition for economic recovery," and he "urge[d] the Congress to act quickly to address the grave threats to financial stability that we currently face." He was, of course, referencing the pending authorization of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. And after having spent the entire period discussing the "dire" condition of the economy and the exponential effects sure to follow had Congress pursued inaction, his voice was strongly heard and ultimately embraced.

At the time, buying up said "troubled assets" seemed the only plausible course of action. Surely, the failure of corporate behemoths like AIG, GM, and Bank of America would have wrought devastation unparalleled since the Great Depression. But this type of thinking was so short-sighted and apocalyptic that the general public actually bought into it. No one was asking where the government was getting this money from, or what was to happen two years down the road, when the immediate effects of the federal "loans" started to wear off.

And now Bernanke stands before Congress warning against excessive governmental spending, claiming that if the federal government continues on this course of consumption, the future of American economics is "insecure." How is it that he is allowed to cover his own reputation by encouraging policies blinded by the short-term and intended solely to reflect positively on his tenure?

It is without reservation that I condemn the actions of Ben Bernanke, and as such, the Federal Reserve itself. After encouraging expansionary fiscal policy on part of Congress while simultaneously denouncing its unchecked federal spending, on top of artificially inflating the economy to ward off the impending crash that we saw in 2008 and passing the blame to "selfish" corporate giants, it is evident that if anyone is to bear regulatory oversight, it is not the companies pitted at the core of the economic meltdown, it is the Federal Reserve itself.

From the Wise Words of Milton Friedman

No single person sums up my beliefs quite so well as the late Milton Friedman. And after listening to Obama's most recent press conference (September 10th, 2010), it has become increasingly clear that this man neither believes in freedom, nor understands the concept.

As Milton Friedman so eloquently pronounced, "a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that groups think they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

When asked point-blank why government officials were avoiding the word "stimulus" in describing recent and future efforts to artificially inflate the economy, Obama pranced around the issue for a while before announcing his fervent declaration that "everything we've been trying to do is designed to stimulate growth and additional jobs in the economy. I mean, that's our entire agenda. So I have no problem with people saying the President is trying to stimulate growth and hiring. Isn't that what I should be doing?"

Interesting question, Mr. President. Easier answer, though - NO! Since when does the executive have the power to levy governmental spending for the purpose of "stimulating" growth? And further, who gave the Federal government jurisdiction over private sector spending? The citizens of the United States should file suit over embezzlement - manipulating assets vested in their trust to serve us that are instead being used to "stimulate" growth for a select few - especially considering that said stimulation has not been shown to be effective! If anything, it is detrimental to not only long-term productivity, but also American freedom in general.

The entire press conference proved only one thing; Obama is truly misinformed in both his role as Chief Executive and the boundaries of interest of federal government. His pride must be tempered with his desire to help the American populace - a feat I truly believe he is trying to accomplish. But bolding reasserting failed policies in fact constitutes the definition of insanity.

Recession, Recession - Please Go Away!

Since December of 2007, the United States of America has been in a - brace yourself - declared Recession. We often hear this word thrown around, scattered in our newspapers and cleverly evaded by our Representatives - even facetiously employed as the proverbial "butt" of Jon Stewart's jokes.

Any school age child could tell you that we are suffering harsh economic times - but what they cannot tell you is why.

In fact, many political pundits could not even tell you what exactly a "recession" entails. Believe it or not, there is a legal definition constituting the rather simplistic component(s): a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. All that flowering nonsense about high unemployment rates, a decline in the stock market, and diminished interest rates are actually what accompany the initial drop in GDP. Persisting long enough, a recession will become a depression.

The troubles American car industry suffered in the past few years is a sufficient analogy to our general economy. Ford, for example, experienced a stark decrease in sales, shrinking profits, and accumulating debt - not unsimilar to the more general and all-encompassing national economic retractions. To marginalize the debt, employees were laid off and salaries were cut - again, just as occurred in the mainstream.

Without the "help" of federal dollars, Ford put out a fiscal report this month indicating earnings of $2.6 billion in the second quarter, with the expectation of further profits. In fact, they predict that by the end of next year, their profits will surpass their debt.

This is the 5th consecutive profitable quarter for the Ford Motor Company - a feat hardly imaginable two years prior. And while debt has surely accumulated, the company is working towards quickly paying it off.

Our federal government (and the Federal Reserve) could take a lesson from this example. Debt is not erased by more debt - it is eliminated through profits. I think it would go too far to assume that the US is bankrupt; but it is certainly headed in that direction. Spending will not, and obviously has not, set our economy back on the path to profitability. If you want to spend money, you have to have money. And the federal government has NONE. In fact, they have less than none - about $10 trillion less, in fact.

But then again, if I had hundreds of millions of blind minions paying my bills, I guess I might just increase their debt to pay for mine...

Don't forget that the largest source of revenue for the US Federal Government is your pocket. Saving is the only solution to this mess of a debt we've gotten ourselves into.

The Cato Institute Has Got it Just Right

Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute outlines the broken promises of our "generous" federal government in this piece published by the New York Post today. Finer words can not have been said on the subject, so here is the direct link:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11998

Happy reading!

So the Tea Party is Now Racist??

Recent attempts at discouraging the muster of the ever-growing Tea Party have only shone a light on how misdirected efforts by the opposition to weaken its credibility are not only outlandish, but they've also failed.

While I personally do not agree with certain aspects of the Tea Party platform, I can appreciate the general movement towards classic liberalism as the first step in a trend for limiting government. Many otherwise disillusioned political activists have been able to form something that is exciting people back into the spirit of our former, more democratic days.

Now, the NAACP has branded the organization as racist - tolerant of bigotry and discrimination. How can they possibly claim such an idea?? Because the Tea Party dispels that certain individuals should have special rights?? Because they outline that government lacks the right to favor one group over another?

Rand Paul ran into trouble of this sort when he claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violated certain aspects of the Constitution, including freedom of speech. Rather than allowing for the possibility of accepting his reasoning, the press immediately labeled him a racist.

Had they listened to his defense, they would have (hopefully) understood that the separation between private and public enterprise is the most important factor in any realm of this seemingly complex debate. For a government agency to deny that black people be allowed into their office building is an entirely different debate from a private restaurant refusing service to a table of Middle Easterners. Rand Paul was simply pointing out the fact that regardless of how he himself feels about such type of discrimination, the right to free speech is always more important.

And who is to say he is wrong? That he can acknowledge a hierarchy of rights does not mean that he is somehow less democratic - it means he has his priorities just right.

And plus, the fact that he is skeptical as to whether government can or cannot legally prohibit racism is not sufficient evidence that he himself is a racist.

And the same applies to the Tea Party.

All in all, another failed attempt to bring down the pro-liberty movement. What is so hard to accept about this way of thinking anyways? Is it the lower taxes? The lack of governmental intrusion in your personal life? The desire for peace??

I guess some people are inclined to let others take care of them. Me? I've always been a believer in self-reliability and personal efficacy. After all, who knows you better than yourself?

On the Gulf Crisis

Now deemed the worst oil spill in US history, the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico yet again solidifies the incompetency of the US federal government, and my support for limiting its role.


Milton Friedman once said that "the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem itself."


Obama glorifies himself as an honest, hard-working, dignified leader of academic merit; but his record may signify otherwise. His cries against the Bush's administration handling of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina might indicate his advocacy for the role of federal government in crisis management; yet for some reason, he is deflecting sole responsibility for the spill's clean-up unto officials other than himself.

Sure, the situations differ - where hurricane Katrina's effects claimed American lives, the oil spill has a more focused environmental impact. But the contradiction is the same.

In a recent interview with Politico, Obama rather bombastically claimed that "it is fair to say [that], if six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said that we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, big-government over regulation and wasteful spending."

As if to say that the management crisis is the fault of those weary of unnecessary government spending and regulation - that had they not stood in the way of Obama's exalted plan for big-government takeover of private industry, this catastrophe would have surely been thwarted... hmm...

One of the most damning conclusions reached after Katrina was that people actually believed that more legislation could have sooner remedied the hardship felt along the gulf shore. In fact, this was precisely wrong - it was too much bureaucratic nonsense and red tape that kept relief efforts (like the distribution of clean water) impossible. Doesn't anyone remember FEMA??

In any event, Obama's pompous reaction to the interviewer's suggestion that he is simply not doing enough speaks to his very nature. Since his inauguration, he has insisted that we stop passing blame from individual to individual, corporation to corporation; yet he insists that he cannot be held to any degree of responsibility in the Gulf situation.

Maybe it's true that the role of the executive is not suited for single-handedly solving the hardship of the spill; but if this is the truth, then Obama and his supporters owe one big apology to the Bush administration. I guess the view from the top is different, especially when you're trying to uphold the facade that you do, actually, care.

The Cost of it All

A few weeks back, my professor of Campaigns and Elections reported (as fact) that those with less political knowledge are more likely to mistrust government. Interesting...

I question this logic, not only in theory, but also in practice. This type of thinking would presume that those who are more familiar with the political system and current office-holders are more willing to offer their trust to the government. So in effect, those who see the corruption and secrecy of politicians (e.g., Rod Blogojevich, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumslfeld etc.) by some reach of the imagination are actually less intelligent.

In my personal opinion, this sentiment is precisely backwards. If I were to teach this class, I would argue that it is those with more political knowledge who are more likely to mistrust government.


It is so easy to assume that with the natural authority that any government presupposes, that what government does is in the best interest of the citizens. It is much more difficult to speak out against such an authority, calling special attention to the violations and alternative motives behind their every action.


It is imperative to democracy that we question our leaders, holding them personally responsible for the outcomes of their actions.

And here is why:

In the Milgram experiment, conducted by Stanley Milgram at Yale University, he set out to understand why Nazi soldiers had complied to Hitler's greusome and inhumane agenda. He set up his experiment with a confederate "learner" and random participant as "teacher." The teacher was to read a list of name pairs, which were then to be remembered by the learner in an effort to test the effects of punishment on learning, so far as the teacher was concerned. Everytime the learner answered incorrectly, the teacher was to administer a shock of progressively increasing voltage.


What the teacher was unaware of was the fact that this experiment was rigged; actually, the learner was not hooked up to any shock machine. Instead, he played a tape with pre-recorded responses to the increasing painful "shocks." The teacher could hear the yelps of the learner through a semi-soundproof wall, and their reactions were observed.


Time and time again, the teacher would stop administering the test and question the experimentor on the safety of the setup. As soon as it was firmly established that the experimentor was solely responsible for any harm to the learner, the teacher would more often than not administer the most lethal shock, sometimes even when the cries of the learner were no longer audible.


What the experiment exposed was that people were willing to comply with the will of an authority so long as their name was cleared of any misconduct. With the diffusion of responsibility inherent in this experiment, Milgram concluded that Nazi soldiers were deflecting their own sense of humanity on to an authoritative figure.


The lesson from this is to question authority. The participants in the Milgram experiment looked to the experimentor as a highly educated, well-to-do scientist running a study at Yale University. By nature of his status, they abandoned their own sense of morality and complied to the will of the experimentor, so long as personal responsibility was deflected to a higher authority. To say that those with less political knowledge is more likely to mistrust government completely contradicts these findings. In fact, it can be safely assumed that questioning an authoritative figure supposes individual responsibilty - something lacking in the Milgram experiment.


The experiment tolled a particularly fascinating effect on me; when I first heard of the conduct of the participants, I assumed that I myself would have complied to the will of the experimentor, so long as he claimed responsiblity for the damage. Since then, I have questioned the actions of those in authority over me.


Many would come under the false illusion that to question the actions and motivations behind governmental maneuvers is to espouse anti-patriotism - as if assuming that perhaps politicians are not always working in the best interests of the people is a far-fetched idea. But the Milgram experiment demonstrated that when we abandon our own sense of morality and intellect unto the responsibilty of an authority, we abandon our sense of being.


Milgram originally set out to understand how the Nazi soldiers could have possible committed such atrocities during WWII, and namely, the Holocaust. What he discovered was not that these young soldiers were mindless-drones, but rather, that they had handed over free-will in exchange for a remission of responsibility. This is my fear, and why rather than blindly vesting my faith in the "good intentions" of big government, I ask questions.


So, with respect to the health care overhaul, I question not only the intentions of politicians, but also the implications of establishing such a monstrosity of a bill and whether or not the benefits outweight the consequences.


The intentions of politicians are obvious (and always the same) - reelection. Previous entries of mine have established why I don't believe the health care reforms will actually help anyone. The implications, however, are far more reaching.


Inflation is always the same - printing money increases the money supply, which devalues the dollar, which eventually drives costs up. There is a healthy level of inflation for any growing economy, but it is usually around 2-3%, not upwards of 6% that we saw last September after the bailouts. On top of that is the health care bill - another billion dollar shopping-spree that our economy can't even begin to comprehend. This doesn't help anyone - this kind of inflation makes 5 years down the road very difficult, especially for the middle class.


Now bring this logic one step further - how does America fix this downward spiral of spending and debt? My prediction... by establishing a VAT tax. Nearly every other developed country employs one, mainly because their socialistic federal programs need to be funded somehow. Look at the rates of some of our "democratic friends:"


Denmark: 25%


Germany: 19%


India: 12.5%


Israel: 16%


Sweden: 25


U.K.: 17.5% (standard)


The difference, for Americans, however, is that we live under a Federal system; we pay both a federal and state income tax, a payroll tax, and state and local taxes. A federal VAT tax added to these and the US will have the highest tax rates in the world - a tough feat to accomplish considering our competition.

There are three lessons in all of this:

1. Think for yourself

2. Don't believe what you hear

3. Question authority

Being a patriot involves much more than the diligent acceptance of government's words as truth; the most patriotic people understand both intentions and implications are not afraid to speak out against the contradictory agendas of politicians, Republican and Democratic, alike. To conclude that the least politically intelligent are the most likely to mistrust government is to undermine how precious a commodity like trust can be.

This is an insult to those brave enough to think for themselves everywhere.

On Health Care Reform...

While I firmly believe that every individual should have access to some sort of health care, I certainly do not (nor will I ever) vest my faith in the governmental prescription of such.


On a fundamental level, there is an inherent contradiction in passing a federal health care bill. There exists no provision of the Constitution calling for the required coverage of its citizenry. Therefore, the passage of the Health Care Reform Bill violates the very document those "yes-voters" vowed to uphold.

Many of those in favor of this bill lay their political priorities on a moral basis. Morality certainly has a place in society, but unfortunately, federal legislature is not one. And furthermore, isn't the forced imposition of morality, by nature, immoral? Maybe it is our duty as human beings to provide care for those unable to provide care for themselves; however, coercing charity is certainly comparable to ignoring the needy all together.

On another level, many believe passing health care reform represents that government now cares. Let me be clear: government officials do not care about anything beyond being re-elected. To support health care is one thing. Of course everyone should be guaranteed access to health care. Health insurance is an entirely different discussion.

Insurance, by definition, measures risk. It is a bet that both party and insurer contractually enter, each understanding that a loss for one equals a gain for another. An insurance company bets that, for example, you will remain healthy, while you bet that you will fall ill. If you fall ill, you win and the insurance company loses. Your bet has paid off, and by preempting your illness, you have successfully measured the risk against becoming sick.

Lets look at this from another angle: life insurance. When purchasing life insurance, you bet that you will die before your premiums have paid for the face amount. The insurance company, on the other hand, looks at your medical records and enters the contract based on the bet that you will live longer (and therefore pay more) than your policy's face value. The principles of all insurance contracts are the same; in any arena, purchasing insurance is a choice, both on part of the insurer and the insured.

Say, then, that the House was voting on the passage of life insurance reforms. Would they have reached the same conclusion - that life insurance is a right, and not a privilege? Doubtful, especially considering that life insurance cannot be confused with something as precious as health care.

The health insurance industry is now being held sway to the federal government. Those in Washington can now interfere in the private sector, dictating that health insurance companies must provide care to all - regardless of preexisting conditions and changes in occupation.

If government cared about its citizens, it would instead focus on actual health care reform.

And finally, even if you disagree with what I above argued, you cannot contest the fact that government simply cannot pay for this bill. With already soaring (and constantly increasing) deficit spending, another trillion dollar bill is simply irresponsible. To anyone in favor of such reforms, remember that it is our pockets that will be suffering in the end.

If there is any bright side to the passage of the reform bill, then I only look to the words of my father when he so poignantly stated that spending a trillion dollars on (attempting) to help people is better than spending a trillion dollars on killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fair enough, but if you ask me, eliminating both sources of such spending is the best solution to maintaining freedom in America.

Censorship, By Any Other Name...

Lady Gaga's newest music video for her most recent #1 single, "Telephone" has brought an interesting array of attention to the issue surrounding what many believe to be the fine line between art and the Constitutionally obscene.

While the video is certainly intended for mature audiences only, it still baffles me that people believe they would do society a service by banning the video all together. Take a look at this interview from Fox News:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kud17cXaajo

Sandy Rios, of the Culture Campaign, goes as far as to say that this type of provocative entertainment is "poison for the minds of our kids."

First, it is necessary to point out that the video had multiple warnings against the "violent" nature of the short, even forcing it to air in the late night TV slot. This was an obvious effort by the E! network to avoid backlash as demonstrated by harsh words of Sandy Rios.

Second, regardless of whether or not people want their children to be exposed to the messages inherent in the video, banning it altogether would violate the First Amendment provision of the U.S. Constitution allowing for the freedom of speech. Lady Gaga, as an artist, has every right to express herself, no matter how gory or provocative her ideas may be.

Third, the idea of access is an important concept to consider. When early jurisprudence on obscenity began emerging, the Court determined that there were three tiers as defined under the Miller Test to evaluate whether or not a work held Constitutional protection:

1. "Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest;
2. "Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;
3. "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (413 U.S. 15, 1973).

The music video violates none of these provisions - it is not pornography, by any means, and so there is no Constitutional basis for any of Rios's claims. And to this end, the video is not forced unto anyone's TV or computer screens; it must be sought out, so viewing it is a personal choice and not in the face of the American populace.

I find it a travesty in American politics when people like Sandy Rios appear on national television advocating for the censorship of the artistic expression of a pop-icon. While she may personally find Lady Gaga's style and method of expression offensive, she is certainly out of line when implying (through her call to outlaw the video) that her personal opinion should be valued above anyone else's. Perhaps instead of worrying about her children's exposure to the harsh realities of freedom of expression, she could devote that energy to a worthwhile cause, like fighting hunger in Africa.

CPAC Controversy

Yesterday at the Conservative Political Action Committee, controversy ensued after a series of speeches over the issue of civil rights. Students for Liberty's Alexander McCobin took a stand against the traditional conservative opinion that gay couples are outside the bounds of the law. This year, CPAC invited GOProud, a pro-gay rights organization, to speak and offer their perspective on the place of gay rights in the conservative movement.

Student's for Liberty is a nonprofit organization aimed at promoting the fundamental qualities of libertarianism. They endorse limited government, free and open markets, and individual liberties. Alexander McCobin took the podium by first praising CPAC for inviting GOProud to the event. He began by pronouncing that those who believe in freedom believe it freedom unconditionally and in the full context of the word. Many attendees booed him initially, but cheers accompanied soon after.

Next to the stand was Ryan Sorba, from California Young Americans for Freedom. He angrily responded to GOProud's presence at the event, even shouting at the booing audience that "the lesbians at Smith College riot better than you!"

Take a look at these videos for yourself:

http://studentsforliberty.org/news/sfl-controversy-video/


Classic liberals alike need to come together, not disband even further. McCobin has it precisely right when he says that freedom is a collective concept - you cannot pick and choose which freedoms to support or endorse. The sentiment of returning to the conservative values of the old Republican party encompasses not only economic freedoms, but also personal freedoms - and these absolutely must include the ability to marry whosoever you desire.

A strong effort by the likes of CPAC, unfortunately interrupted by the backwards thinking prescribers of neoconservatism.

On Capitalism...

I recently stumbled upon a read by Steve Forbes called How Capitalism Will Save Us. It is an incredible book looking at the problems of our current social and economic condition with eloquent and demonstrative explanations on just how the free market and "real world" sense will save us from an ultimate and untimely demise.



The book takes a stand against the common "raps" on the notorious perils of capitalism, combating our major political and economic dilemmas with what he terms "real world" examples on how capitalism is the best solution in any situation.



For example, Forbes retorts against the rap that "capitalism is a dog-eat-dog system founded on greed and survival of the fittest" with the fact that "capitalism is the world's most humane economic system, promoting the democratic values of a free and open society: hard work, cooperation, generosity, charity, and devotion to the rule of law." He supports this claim with the classic example of the baker and the buyer. A bread maker provides a service for the client - making bread. Bread is demanded by the consumer, to which he is provided so long as just compensation is provided as due. The bread maker sells the client bread in exchange for money. Yes, the bread maker is probably only concerned with turning a profit and benefiting from the transaction, most likely self-interested in gaining from the transaction. But the consumer needs to eat; therefore, if the terms of the agreement are fair (i.e., the bread is a fair price) then the transaction occurs.



This simple demonstration exemplifies that instead of greed, this transaction is based on trust. The shopper is willing to pay, so long as he receives a benefit that fulfills his needs. Without trust, money will not be exchanged for a good or service.



And this further demonstrates the beauty of a free market. If, for example, the bread was drastically overpriced, or by some other means not up to par, the consumer has the option of bringing his business elsewhere. Trust is the essential component: without trust, a transaction will not occur - not greed which only serves self-interest through individual pursuit.



Forbes goes on to discuss why capitalism has remained so prevalent in the first place, and why it is essential to innovation. An entrepreneur will succeed by correctly fulfilling a need. Where there is need, there is a market. Take for instance, the ipod. Forbes describes an "ipod" economy which classically illustrates how innovation has revolutionized the industry yet again. People perceived a need to consolidate and make their music transportable; Steve Jobs took on the job to eventually produce one of the most recognizable and trusted MP3 players in the world. This type of innovation does not come out of the US for no apparent reason. Our free-market and pro-modernization economic climate has proved unsurpassed by any other nation of the world.

In terms of equality, capitalism seeks to promote the interests of the individual by allowing economic freedom, or the ability to spend personal funds as is desired. Other systems that define equality in economic terms posit that equality only comes from government imposing strict conditions wherein each citizen is promised a mean level of income - a guarantee into the middle class, with no prospect of extreme poverty or extreme wealth.

Capitalism rewards innovation and hard work by allowing those born into unfavorable conditions the chance to climb into the middle or upper class. Forbes asks, then, which system is more moral?

I have long been asking myself this very question, and I concur with Forbes when he deems capitalism morally superior to any other economic system. It is about freedom. As Milton Friedman described, political freedom comes only after economic freedom is first established. When people have the ability to vote with their money and choose when to spend and when to save, then people change their overarching views on freedom in general. I believe in freedom, and that crosses every aspect of my life - from how I spend my money, to what stocks I buy, to what technology I choose to consume. All these choices demonstrate not only my economic freedoms, but also my political freedoms in that no authoritarian regime can control what I do and what I believe.

Another topic I found interesting in this book is big business. As a business mogul, Steve Forbes knows well the bounties of wealth to be created through hard work and innovation. But many people perceive such an empire as greedy and only benefiting those at the top. I ask, then, how do you account for the oftentimes thousands of workers employed? Forbes says that savvy business people create opportunity for not only employees, but also consumers by building corporations satisfying a need (or many needs) of the citizenry.

Look at Steve Jobs and the Apple revolution that has swept not only the U.S., but also the entire world. Jobs took an idea and expanded on it, ultimately creating some of the most reliable and recognizable pieces of technology in the world. And it is without a doubt that Steve Jobs is not the only one benefiting in this empire - Apple now employs 40,000 people! The free market in combination with innovation and hard work creates jobs and therefore wealth - government does not.

It is no wonder that goods like ipods, personal computers, and cars all came out of the United States. Our entrepreneurial citizen base is what boomed our economy to the top in the first place. Less government restriction, less red tape and corporate regulation, and more privatization are the best answers to creating jobs, wealth, and innovation. I am proud to live under such a system, which is why I cringe at the prospect of government takeover and intervention of private industry. If a company fails, it is merely an opportunity for restructure or for other private entities to buy out and takeover corporations. Government has no place in private industry, and to think that our only solution is regulation and government takeover seriously undermines the creative thinking and innovation that occurs here so much more often than anywhere else in the world.

My Reaction to the SoTU Address

Nothing irks me more than when inherent contradiction is accompanied by arrogance. Yes, Obama can put on a strong show, speaking with the eloquence we would expect from a Harvard trained law school graduate. But is there any logic to his many talking points? Let's take a look at some of the highlights of the night:


"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted - immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed" (Obama).




OK, fair enough. Indeed, Obama entered office under an extremely dire economic situation, not to mention his acquisition of two wars unfairly waged and poorly regulated. But his next assertion implies that the efforts employed to offset a "second depression" were by some means embraced universally. Well, I recall a petition drawn up by the CATO Institute describing just the opposite:


http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

For some reason unbeknownst to me, people still believe Keynesian economics to be the only solution to economic hardship. That by some stretch of the imagination, economic busts can be offset by government pumping money into the system. Maybe this system would work, if government had the money; but what many people oversee is the fact that the money employed in the stimulus package was literally printed off. So, President Obama herein states that "one year later, the worst of the storm has passed." Maybe - at least until the effects of the massive inflation (from the "created" money pumped into the economy in the stimulus package) start to really take its toll.

He proceeds to say that "one in ten Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder" (Obama).

And all this is understood under the premise that "the worst of the storm has passed." Not only is this completely contradictory to his previous statement, but also, it seriously undermines just how bad things are. I would estimate unemployment at a rate much higher than 10% - once those who are underemployed and forced to retire at an early age are taken into account. And, once the true effects of the inflation brought by the stimulus package have been realized, these facts will only be compounded.

President Obama's next point is an attempt to unite us all under the notion that the bank bailout was "necessary." He says "we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. But when I ran for president, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular. I would do what was necessary" (Obama).

I would argue that a root canal is much more popular, and while painful at first, at least a root canal permanently fixes the problem. The bank bailout was not necessary, and it is a pompously fallacious argument to claim that the only solution to our serious economic troubles was to save the corporations at the very root of the problem (no pun intended).

It is important to remember how capitalism functions. Periods of growth are interrupted by periods of economic retraction - and this is healthy. The bailouts may have seemed necessary because of the economic reach of the banks and their investments; that if the banks failed, they would have brought down our entire economy. My only question is, why save failing companies? These banks make poor choices and bad investments, and a system of capitalism allows for mismanaged companies to fail, letting others foster and grow.

One of the most baffling conclusions realized in the aftermath of the economic meltdown is that people blame capitalism. People believe that the greedy CEOs and executives on Wall Street took advantage of those on Main Street. Maybe this is the reality of capitalism - that people easily take advantage of the system. But then why save these people - why exacerbate the already dire effects of impending failure of these companies? Because a failing company will inevitably go down - it is just a matter of time.

Capitalism was never given a chance. We pride ourselves as a nation of freedom and the free-market economy - until a natural recession occurs. Then, to save ourselves from having to limit spending, we employ government interventionism. Capitalism cannot be blamed, simply because capitalism is never allowed to function as such.

Next, the President reiterates his hopes for the growth of small businesses. Nothing new here - except he somehow claims that the stimulus package single-handedly saved countless small businesses from closing. Somehow, I doubt that those "saved" small businesses will still be in existence in the next five years, once inflation kicks in and drives the cost of labor and resources through the roof.

As far as health care goes, Obama wards off the opposition by asking for a better solution to his plan, which I can gladly offer. Actually, I have two "better" options:

• If the true issue at hand is that too many Americans are left unprotected by medical insurance, then an alternative to governmentally prescribed medicine might be tax deductions. Make all medical expenses tax deductible. At least then, innovation and the incentive to be a strong doctor is left uncompromised.
  
• Burn the health care plan. This entire plan is an outrage to American politics in general. Nowhere in the Constitution is it declared that the federal government must (or even has the right to) provide health care to the American citizens. Either first pass a Constitutional amendment providing the federal credentials for a universal health care plan as prescribed by the central government, or encourage the states to come up with their own plan (as permitted by the Tenth Amendment).

One final topic that stood out to me was nuclear weapons. He states that "at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear material around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists" (Obama).

It always baffles me that our leaders could be so pretentious as to think that we should be in control of who can and who cannot have nuclear arms. No one designated us as the police of nuclear arms in a world of sovereign nations. How pompous to think that we are the only nation capable of the rationality to determine when and how to use nuclear weapons - even as a deterrent. This is Western supremacy at its best. If I am not mistaken, in the history of nuclear weapons, no state has ever gone after another in possession of such. Is this not evidence of the deterrence of nuclear arms? How can we sit back and say that Iran cannot be allowed the opportunity to develop a program of nuclear energy for fear of retaliation against us, when they feel just as threatened right now as we would had the tables been turned, and Iran was the one in possession of nuclear arms? Furthermore, how can we begin to deter a sovereign nation from developing whatever program they so desire? This is not our right, nor is it the right of any other nation. It is ostentatious, and it is the type of reasoning that pits people against the arrogance of the West.

All in all, the speech was well delivered and pretty well received, as they all seem to be. But a deeper look into some of the President's major remarks makes me wonder if any leader will ever stick to their original platforms. Obama promised change, and all we have seen is an extreme exacerbation of Bush policies. For a professor of Constitutional Law at the premier school of economics in the country, I am astonished at how little Obama understands the Constitution. We were promised change under the pretext of hope, and as far as I can tell, all we have received is the perpetuation of the status quo.

Simplicity Applies (And What a Beautiful Thing It Is!)

I refuse to believe that simplicity is a term rendered obsolete in our increasingly complex and interconnected political atmosphere. And I say this not because I chose to see the world in black and white, or because I have a "supremacist" attitude toward individual circumstance - I say this because I understand the difference between idealism and fundamentalism.


Take, for instance, the recent decision reached in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission: that "[there is] no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers" (Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 25 2010).


After reading the opinion of the Court, I have discerned a few main points to keep in mind:


1.) Corporations are privy to the same protection of free speech under the First Amendment as any individual citizen.


2.) It is the role of the Supreme Court to determine the Constitutionality of the law.


3.) Limiting speech under any circumstance is censorship.


4.) "Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people" (Citizens United vs FEC 558 U.S. 23).


5.) "Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints... The government may not ... deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each" (Citizens United vs FEC 558 U.S. 24).



Going back to my introduction, we must first differentiate between idealism and fundamentalism, and establish an arena for each.

Idealists perceive the world under vastly hopeful premises. They believe that there is an ultimate good, and that we must work to achieve this good. In terms of the Citizens United case, idealists see the decision reached by the Court as backwards and ultimately threatening to achieving said greater good (i.e. equality).

N.B.: I am not at all convinced that equality can be achieved by governmental prescription. Ultimately, there are two opposing views on what equality truly means:

• Leftists have argued for years that equality boils down to economic terms - that diminishing the gap between the classes will by some means ensure equality, and that forcefully inducting each citizen into programs of universal health care, welfare, and social security will guarantee a "level playing-field" for all.


• Classic liberals hold that equality entails the freedom of choice first established through economic liberty, ultimately ending in personal liberty. They posit that equality is the condition of free will whereby each individual can choose for him/herself what to do, where to go, how much to spend etc.

Now, fundamentalists always base reasoning on some established charter, using values, rules, and norms set forth to determine validity. In the Citizens United case, the validity of the argument is based on the fundamental values set forth in the Constitution.

And here is where simplicity applies.

The role of the U.S. Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitutionality of the law. There is no room for personal translation of what the founding fathers could have possibly meant 200 years in the future. The Constitution is an eloquent demonstration in the beauty that comes from pure simplicity. It is vague enough to allow for change in the political climate, while simultaneously specific enough to answer any question relating to American governance.

The Supreme Court recognized (in this decision) that the issue at hand could not possibly be answered on a case by case premise. This would be highly complex. Instead, they determined that the First Amendment both sufficiently and poignantly resolves the fundamental question involved: Is money spending a provision of free speech and as such, can government limit corporate spending under Constitutional terms?

The Supreme Court ruling says yes to the former and no to the latter. Yes, corporations as private entities are to be protected under the First Amendment; yes, the monetary decisions of such private corporations should be left to the companies themselves; and no, government does not have the right to limit (or cap) how much money is spent, certainly in political campaigning, where free speech is to be protected especially.

And finally, in preparation for the GRE's, I leave you with this question:

Are shareholders:corporations :: citizens:government?

My answer is yes - and just as private companies are the conglomerate sum of their shareholders, so too is government the aggregate of its citizens. Think about this next time you hear that corporations have no rights...

Welcome to my blog...

Allow me to preface this project with the concept of freedom.... I believe in freedom. Always. You have the freedom to (or not to) read this blog. If it offends, degrades, or discomforts you in any way, you may leave.

Ok, now that that is established, let me explain what I hope to accomplish in keeping this diary of my thoughts, beliefs, and rants:

1.) That when something worth the time and effort of my day bothers me to the point of immortalizing it on the internet, I will write.

2.) That I can establish some of my philosophical and fundamental perspectives in a non-abrasive or condescending environment - when something attention-grabbing occurs in the political world, I will write.

3.) That I can incorporate the most important document to have ever existed for the American people (i.e. the United States Constitution) back into political discussion. When it is abused, contradicted, or neglected, I will write.

4.) And finally, when anything that I deem awesome or otherwise significantly inspiring crosses my path, I will write. Or post.

I hope you enjoy this page - I know I will, especially now that I have my own sphere to release some of the rage building in my system, ultimately lowering my exponentially rising blood pressure and thereby increasing my overall health and well-being.