PoliticalAction.com Blog

Nothing else needs said!

Texas Straight Talk – A weekly column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges”. Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

Similarly, Obama’s “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.

To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President’s agenda.

When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term – corporatism – forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.

Texas Straight Talk – A weekly column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

Last week marked the one year anniversary of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, or the stimulus bill, passing into law. While the debate over its success has been focused on whether or not it is stimulating the economy and on various questionable uses of funds, in my estimation this legislation is accomplishing exactly what it was intended to accomplish – grow the government.

Those of us concerned about the ever increasing level of government debt gasped at the astonishing $787 billion cost estimates for this bill. True to form it has actually cost 10 percent more at $862 billion. We heard over and over that government could not sit around and do nothing while people lost their jobs and houses. The administration claimed that unemployment would not go above 8 percent if the stimulus bill passed. Now, a year later, the government estimates that unemployment is over 10 percent. The real number is closer to 20 percent. It appears that those promises were total fabrications in order to close the deal.

In any case, the American people know that more government spending obviously equals more government. If the goal was to strengthen the private sector, Congress would have allowed businesses and individuals to keep more of their own money through meaningful tax cuts. Outrageously, the administration claims that they did “cut taxes” by reducing withholding, and that they have stimulated the private economy by increasing the amount of money in every worker’s paycheck. What they fail to mention is they did not change the total amount of taxes due. This means that all that money not withheld from paychecks will add up to a big unpleasant surprise when returns are filed this year. Many tax preparers are already seeing shocked taxpayers having to come up with big checks to the government when they normally expect a refund. Stimulus, indeed!

The administration also claims that thousands of jobs have been created or saved by this massive spending bill, but these are just more government jobs, and counterproductive in the long run. Funding for the public sector necessarily comes at the expense of an overtaxed private economy. But, it makes sense that government would seek to expand its payroll since every new bureaucrat becomes a likely advocate for big government, when an increasing number of Americans are demanding the opposite. But the more the burden, the closer the government parasite comes to killing its host.

Rather than learning the lessons of the past year, the administration is moving full-speed ahead to do even more economic damage. With the stimulus bill set as a precedent and victory declared, another “jobs” bill is in the works. And, in order to address the unavoidable issues of our massive deficit, the administration has named a bi-partisan commission to find ways to decrease it. Tax increases on the middle class are notoriously back “on the table”, exposing that campaign promise as another instance of merely saying what the people wanted to hear. If the obvious solution to our spending problems was seriously put forth, that is, getting back to the constitutional limitations of government, I would be shocked. More likely, this will be a tactic to increase taxes and spending in a way that passes the political buck.

Ron Paul on CNBC’s Squwak Box Part 1 – Feb 22

Run, Ron, Run!

Part 1

Part 2

Texas Straight Talk – A Weekly Column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

Last week, the House approved another increase in the national debt ceiling. This means the government can borrow $1.9 trillion more to stay afloat and avoid default. It has been little more than a year since the last debt limit increase, and graphs showing the debt limit over time show a steep, almost vertical trend. It is not likely to be very long before this new ceiling is met and the government is back on the brink between default and borrowing us further into oblivion. Congressional leaders and the administration acknowledge that the debt limit will need to be increased again next year. They are crossing their fingers that the forecasts are correct and they will not need another increase sooner, even before the 2010 midterm elections.

Continually increasing the debt is one of the logical outcomes of Keynesianism, since more government spending is always their answer. It is claimed that government must not stop spending when the economy is so fragile. Government must act. Yet, when times are good, government also increases in size and scope, because we can afford it, it is claimed. There is never a good time to rein in government spending according to Keynesian economists and the proponents of big government.

Free market Austrian economists on the other hand know that times are bad because of the size and scope of government. The economy is fragile because of the overwhelming stranglehold of bureaucracy and taxation of Washington. Any jobs Washington might create through these endless spending programs are paid for through more taxation and debt put on the productive sectors of the economy. Just as insidious is the hidden tax of inflation caused by the Fed and its ever-expanding credit bubble. When the Fed steps in with its solutions, it only devalues the dollars in everyone’s pocket while encouraging more reckless waste on Wall Street. All of this leads to a worsening economy, not an improved one.

And so the downward spiral continues. The worse things get, the more politicians want to spend. The more they spend, the heavier the debt load becomes and the more we have to spend just to maintain our interest payments. As our debt load becomes unsustainable, the alarm of our creditors increases. It is becoming so serious that our credit rating, as a nation, could be downgraded. If this happens, interest on the national debt will increase even more, leading to even higher taxes on Americans and inevitably, price inflation.

Still, Washington is full of talk of more regulation, more taxation and more spending. The Senate is still struggling to pass a massive regulatory increase on the financial sector, even as the stock market suffers more shockwaves. Pay-as-you-go rules give the appearance of fiscal responsibility, but in truth these rules are only used as a justification to raise taxes. Spending programs like healthcare reform, increased military spending, and a recent doubling of destructive foreign aid are viewed by Washington as necessary and reasonable, instead of foolishness we absolutely cannot afford.

The people understand this, which is why there is so much anger directed at politicians. Washington needs to change its thinking and adopt some common sense priorities. The Constitution gives some excellent limitations that would get us back on the right path if we would simply abide by them. The framers of the Constitution understood that only the ingenuity of the American people, free from government interference, could get us through hard times, yet Washington seems bent only on prolonging the agony.

Texas Straight Talk – A weekly column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

Last week politicians in Washington made a few things clear about how they really feel about the state of the union. First, they are beginning to hear the growing discontent with the size and scope of government and the broken promises that keep piling up. Certain events in Massachusetts recently made that statement loud, clear and unavoidable. In the face of those events, the powers that be made the determination that some populist rhetoric was in order, and the idea of a spending freeze in Washington was proposed, albeit with several caveats. These caveats to the proposed spending freeze ensure that we are not at any real risk of actually doing anything about spending.

First of all is timing. It wouldn’t go into effect until 2011, which allows plenty of time to increase spending levels quite a bit before they are frozen. If the administration really understood and cared about our spending problems they would not freeze spending a year from now, but cut spending immediately and significantly. But, spending cuts almost never happen in Washington, and they are not likely now or a year from now – if the politicians have anything to say about it.

The second caveat is the huge areas of the budget that are shielded from this freeze. The entire State Department budget is exempt, as are all entitlements, all military industrial spending and almost all foreign aid. Fully 7/8 of federal spending is excluded from this freeze, and some areas to be frozen were actually set to decrease, which means a freeze actually guarantees a higher level of spending.

Especially insulting is the idea that in spite of our own fiscal problems at home, taxpayer dollars will continue to be sent overseas in the form of foreign aid where it often does more harm than good. When need is demonstrated to Americans and they can afford it, they can be counted on for a tremendous outpouring of private, voluntary charity to worthy aid organizations, as we recently saw in Haiti. By contrast, government-to-government aid is taken from the poor by force and too often enriches the corrupt. It is counterproductive and wasteful. But the idea of eliminating, freezing, or reducing foreign aid is not up for serious debate any time soon.

The third caveat is what is included in the freeze that would make it politically impossible to pass Congress, for example air traffic controllers salaries, education, farm subsidies and national parks.

I do not necessarily want a cut in spending in this country – I just want to change who does the spending. The spending should be done by the people who earn the money, if they choose, and on what they choose, without any government interference. That is what makes the economy work. Politicians should stick to the very limited roles given them by the constitution instead of allocating such a sizeable portion of our capital and intervening through regulations and tax policy. But because politicians have disregarded the constitution, and the people have no idea what rule they will break next, there is already a very real spending freeze underway in this economy, by the people. If government would stick only to what it was authorized to do, and leave the rest to the people, most of these problems would resolve themselves.

HeeHee!

It all started in the 1920’s with Yellow Journalism.

William Randolph Hearst, who arrived on the scene in 1887, was already in control of the headlines on a day-to-day basis because of his efficient business practice within the industry. He was able to produce his Newspapers at next to nothing by manufacturing the tree pulp used and controlling the channel of production down to his papers, the San Francisco Examiner, and eventually the New York Journal (Which became a leading Newspaper).

He teamed up with Henry Dupont to manufacture the ink used in the New York Journal and the partnership began to grow.

ALONG CAME HEMP

Hemp grows 4 times faster than the timber used for tree pulp by Hearst.

Hemp grows annually and can be grown more times

Hemp produces a better quality paper.

Hemp can be grown in any region of the United States.

Since Hemp grew so fast and it grew in every region, Hearst could not stop the middle class farmer from decentralizing the industry. Hearst knew that he could not provide the intellectual property to keep Hemp from destroying his industry and replacing it with middle class producers

In other words he was afraid of the free market. He was afraid of us… he had to stop it!

Dupont and Hearst knew then that not many Americans understood the difference between Hemp and Cannabis. So they used it against the Americans by claiming Cannabis will make you rape and kill your sister if smoked, illustrating the dangers of inhaling by using grim reapers in their newspapers with joints. And people believed it!

Time and Time again they would use this propaganda through the New York Journal, claiming that Mexicans bringing Marijuana across the border would sleep with White Wives and take White Jobs. They were also saying this about Black Americans who took up smoking and started the Jazz movement.

Dupont’s banker was Andrew Mellon, Mellon bank of Pittsburgh (5th largest bank at the time). Andrew Mellon had a Nephew, Harry Anslinger. Andrew Mellon financially backed Anslinger and threw all of his weight into convincing the U.S. treasury that Marijuana is dangerous and it should be heavily regulated by way of taxation and prohibition.

The treasury could use a program that would generate that much income for the government so in June of 1930 the treasury gave birth to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Ansligner hated Mexicans, Blacks, and Cannabis. He was on a mission to eliminate all of them. Immediately Ansliger waged war on Cannabis regurgitating claims made by Hearst in his Newspapers. (Success stories followed in the New York Journal).

Then, in 1937 Anslinger approached congress with intent to fully regulate all Cannabis. The entire meeting was comprised of Ansliger making emotional outbursts and attempting to offer evidence, all of which was newspaper clippings out of Hearst’s Newspapers.

With the exception of one congressman, all agreed and the act passed, Marijuana became criminal giving birth to the Drug War.

Not to mention Hearst, Dupont, and Mellon were all filthy rich now and had their hands in official pockets.

But the story doesn’t stop here. Andrew Mellon had to study the enemy, He saw what happened with Alcohol Prohibition and he knew it wouldn’t be long before the public caught on.

Mr. Mellon then financed Pharmaceutical companies through government grants and private equity to try to create a synthetic substitute for the over 60 different medicinal properties Cannabis contains. (They have yet to accomplish this goal)

If you look into the history you will find that fossil fuels would have never existed if it wasn’t for this intervention in the market place.

CANNABIS CAN SUPPLY THE ENTIRE NATION WITH ENERGY ON ONLY 1% OF U.S. LAND. ALL CARBON CLEAN.

(AND REMEMBER IT GROWS EVERYWHERE)

This is where the Federal Reserve comes in. The Federal Reserve System does not want to see the decentralization of resources towards localism because if that were to happen the Fed would lose a stronghold on the liquidity pools it artificially creates. It would also mean they couldn’t use the Carbon Tax to consolidate wealth across the world.

With Cannabis being legal and having over 25,000 uses there would be no way to compete against local and more sustainable banks.

So, the Federal Reserve uses banks like the Mellon to fund the DEA and keep money flowing and keep marijuana illegal. The Fed knows that with Cannabis being legal our GDP would boom but not in favor of large monopolies like the FED, but quite the contrary.

This is why I always say… the day we legalize it is the day we end the FED!

January 25, 2010

Dear Pennsylvania Subscriber,

After a full year of rope-a-done and refusing to have his Federal Reserve audited, Ben Bernanke is on the ropes and could be knocked out for re-nomination.

Campaign for Liberty activists are in the lead insisting “No Audit, No Bernanke.” Please immediately call Senator Bob Casey and Senator Arlen Specter at the numbers below and tell them (again, if you’ve already called) “No Audit, No Bernanke.”

Here’s what’s going on:

Campaign for Liberty launced a nationwide fight against a bailout for Bernanke last week. Now we are following it up with phones, email and banner ads targeting over a dozen swing-vote senators.

The Senate is boiling over with outrage about the Fed’s abuse of the TARP program, bailouts, and money supply, as well as its refusal to submit to a full and complete audit.

Now is the time to deal the knockout blow!

Please call your senators at the numbers below and join in the fight:

Senator Bob Casey: 202-224-6324
Senator Arlen Specter: 202-224-4254

Tell them that Ben Bernanke must not be confirmed without an up or down roll call vote for Audit the Fed on the Senate floor.

This fight is really coming to a head, and the decision could will likely come in the next few days. Please call now.

In liberty,

John Tate

P.S. Thanks to the efforts of patriots like you, Ben Bernanke’s days of secrecy at the Federal Reserve may be numbered!

That’s because his confirmation is being held up until the Senate votes on Audit the Fed. Please call your senators at the numbers above and tell them plain and simple: “No Audit, No Bernanke.”