Sunday, January 31, 2010
"The new debt limit is bad news because whenever Congress raises the limit, then it is just a matter of time before they come close to it and have to raise it again. It is called runaway tsunami spending.
"The new debt limit is also bad news because it represents an additional $5,000 for every man, woman and child living in this country. This is on top of the $40,000 of debt the government had already committed for each of us. Sooner or later, it will have to be repaid, or eventually the state of our union will be bankrupt. Unlike some big banks and General Motors, the U.S. is not too big to fail. Uncle Sam does not have a bailout 'sugar daddy.'
"More federal debt is driving down the value of our U.S. dollar, thus, reducing our spending power as consumers domestically and in the global marketplace.
"More federal debt and the uncertainty of what the Democrat-controlled Congress will do about the existing tax rates that will expire at the end of this year keeps businesses in a state of stop. As long as that remains, the economy will remain in a state of stalled."
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record.
Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.
From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.
With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.
In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
As with all matters of investment, everything is clear in hindsight. Had you bought gold mutual funds earlier this year, they might have appreciated more than 100 percent. Gold has risen $60 since March 2001 to the latest spot price of $326.
Why wasn't it obvious? The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves. These are all conditions that make gold particularly attractive.
Or perhaps it is not so obvious why this is true. It's been three decades since the dollar's tie to gold was completely severed, to the hosannas of mainstream economists. There is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It's just another asset the government keeps to itself.
The dollar, and all our money, is nothing more and nothing less than what it looks like: a cut piece of linen paper with fancy printing on it. You can exchange it for other currency at a fixed rate and for any good or service at a flexible rate. But there is no established exchange rate between the dollar and gold, either at home or internationally.
The supply of money is not limited by the amount of gold. Gold is just another good for which the dollar can be exchanged, and in that sense is legally no different from a gallon of milk, a tank of gas, or an hour of babysitting services.
Why, then, do people turn to gold in times like these? What is gold used for? Yes, there are industrial uses and there are consumer uses in jewelry and the like. But recessions and inflations don't cause people to want to wear more jewelry or stock up on industrial metal. The investor demand ultimately reflects consumer demand for gold. But that still leaves us with the question of why the consumer demand exists in the first place. Why gold and not sugar or wheat or something else?
There is no getting away from it: investor markets have memories of the days when gold was money. In fact, in the whole history of civilization, gold has served as the basic money of all people wherever it's been available. Other precious metals have been valued and coined, but gold always emerged on top in the great competition for what constitutes the most valuable commodity of all.
There is nothing intrinsic about gold that makes it money. It has certain properties that lend itself to monetary use, like portability, divisibility, scarcity, durability, and uniformity. But these are just descriptors of certain qualities of the metal, not explanations as to why it became money. Gold became money for only one reason: because that's what the markets chose.
Why isn't gold money now? Because governments destroyed the gold standard. Why? Because they regarded it as too inflexible. To be sure, monetary inflexibility is the friend of free markets. Without the ability to create money out of nothing, governments tend to run tight financial ships. Banks are more careful about the lending when they can't rely on a lender of last resort with access to a money-creation machine like the Fed.
A fixed money stock means that overall prices are generally more stable. The problems of inflation and business cycles disappear entirely. Under the gold standard, in fact, increased market productivity causes prices to generally decline over time as the purchasing power of money increases.
In 1967, Alan Greenspan once wrote an article called Gold and Economic Freedom. He wrote that:
"An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense – perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire – that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other. . . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights."
He was right. Gold and freedom go together. Gold money is both the result of freedom and its leading protector. When money is as good as gold, the government cannot manipulate the supply for its own purposes. Just as the rule of law puts limits on the despotic use of police power, a gold standard puts extreme limits on the government's ability to spend, borrow, and otherwise create crazy unworkable programs. It is forced to raise its revenue through taxation, not inflation, and generally keep its house in order.
Without the gold standard, government is free to work with the Fed to inflate the currency without limit. Even in our own times, we've seen governments do that and thereby spread mass misery.
Now, all governments are stupid but not all are so stupid as to pull stunts like this. Most of the time, governments are pleased to inflate their currencies so long as they don't have to pay the price in the form of mass bankruptcies, falling exchange rates, and inflation.
In the real world, of course, there is a lag time between cause and effect. The Fed has been inflating the currency at very high levels for longer than a year. The consequences of this disastrous policy are showing up only recently in the form of a falling dollar and higher gold prices. And so what does the Fed do? It is pulling back now. For the first time in nearly ten years, some measures of money (M2 and MZM) are showing a falling money stock, which is likely to prompt a second dip in the continuing recession.
Greenspan now finds himself on the horns of a very serious dilemma. If he continues to pull back on money, the economy could tip into a serious recession. This is especially a danger given rising protectionism, which mirrors the events of the early 1930s. On the other hand, a continuation of the loose policy he has pursued for a year endangers the value of the dollar overseas.
How much easier matters were when we didn't have to rely on the wisdom of exalted monetary central planners like Greenspan. Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself. The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity.
We don't have that system now for the country or the world, but individuals are showing their preferences once again. By driving up the price of gold, prompting gold producers to become profitable again, the people are expressing their lack of confidence in their leaders. They have decided to protect themselves and not trust the state. That is the hidden message behind the new luster of gold.
Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted. There was a time when Greenspan was nostalgic for such a system. Investors of the world have come to embrace this view even as Greenspan has completely abandoned it.
What keeps the gold standard from becoming a reality again is the love of big government and war. If we ever fall in love with freedom again, the gold standard will once more become a hot issue in public debate.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
I need your help. Didn't the Democrats take control of Congress in 2005 after the 2004 elections? Does this mean that they have had control of Congress for the past five years? Isn't it Congress job to write legislation and approve the budget? If this is true, how can Obama and Democrats blame Bush, who, as President, only have the power to propose budgets, sign legislation that is passed by Congress or veto such legislation?
"This is a story of millions of dollars that created an incestuous money trail being used to radicalize the Chicago education system and turn it into the socialist model used by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
:This is also a story about how a father tried to use his power and money to rehabilitate his son, felon-on-the-run and unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and turn him into the socialist prince of Chicago. Tom Ayers enabled his son, Bill, to continue his addiction to communist causes by helping him raise millions of dollars through relationships among Chicago's corporate and philanthropic community for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
"Tom Ayers used those connections and his political power so his son could help his newly hired employee, Barack
"We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global
"The incoherent State of the Union address this week only reinforced what is becoming painfully obvious to any observer--President Obama's proposals are more confusing than clarifying, they pretend to do something big but don't achieve it, and they seem desperately out of touch with the average American.
"How else can one explain that following his involvement in the campaign, he helped lose a Senate seat in Massachusetts that had belonged to his party since before his own birth?
"'But,' you may argue, 'the State of the Union was last week, what about his accomplishment since?'"
"Obama spent a record $744 million on his campaign but has disclosed donors for only $485 million of his windfall. Many of those donors are subject to questions about exceeding campaign donation limits and being legitimate donors. His campaign spent $312 million on Broadcast Media (versus $63 million by the McCain Campaign) while groups like ACORN received funding and abused voter registration processes. Obama further refuses to disclose information about his own citizenship, employment, health and education while claiming policies of transparency.
"In addition to the $259 million with undisclosed donors, studies of the reports filed with the FEC, by the Obama Campaign, through the 2008 Year End Report, show the following irregularities in their submissions:
• $1.8 million — Contributions over the $4,600 limit (1,608 contributors)
• $26 million — Contributions over the $2,300 per campaign limit, reallocated without contributor affirmation.
• $4 million — Contributors with Foreign Addresses (4,158 contributors)
"Details have been submitted to the FEC as complaint MUR6142 and are posted at:
"And while holding these funds, the campaign reports year end cash on hand of $15.5 million. Is the Obama Campaign spending money that is not legally theirs?"
Obama called this meeting not to get inputs from the Republicans, but to ACT like he is getting inputs from the Republicans. Recall his smug reminder to Republicans, “I won!”
Obama is taking a page from The Art of War and is attempting to dismiss his loss, and use his opponents win against them. The “never let them see you sweat” approach.
If Obama really wanted this meeting to occur for the right reasons, he would have done it within his first week of his presidency, not a year! The Great Uniter essentially told Republicans to go stick their thumbs up their butts, while he legislated left of Trotsky!
Thankfully the grassroots stepped in to protect the Republicans or Republicans would have rolled over like trained seals. Our job apparently is not finished.
Obama cares about two things: (1) His hide and (2) the destruction of America as we have all known it.
The subtlety of the video is that Republicans are acting as if this was some magical meeting with the messiah. I know they appear tough in the video, however don’t believe the hype. Most of these guys are career politicians, and easily beguiled. Like the majority of politicians, they are hedging their bets…just in case Obama regains his popularity. Watch it again, and note the wishy-washy language.
Most have forgotten Scott Brown and are already preparing to “reach across the aisle,” and it’s not to choke a Regressive? Well I say, you take the Limbaugh approach, and make sure his policies don’t work. Because any slight revival is good for Obama, not America. Improvement would only further Obama’s Communist agenda.
Obama just got his boney ass kicked in MA, and by a freaking nude model, and Republicans are ready to spoon with these Regressive Democrat traitors. Republicans are dusting off the same old tired ineffective tactics that have been tried over and over, all to impress an America who is sick of Obama and his band of thieves, and the lack of true differences between the Parties.
What better time than now for Republicans to say, “See, I told you Democrats are this frickin’ crazy!”
America is also tired of professional bureaucrats who have been in government way too long, and who believe the people’s seats are their seats!
Due to Republican failings, God had to end Kennedy’s reign over MA, and the grassroots had to smoke Dodd. For other Liberals too stupid to smell the grass clippings, know this…the new Conservative America ain’t Astroturf!
I believe most Americans are like me, that is, tired of backing a group of losers. Losers negotiate, winners gloat! Winners talk in 3rd-person, like boxers who have just kicked the crap out of the loser, long since dispatched to his dressing room or better yet…the hospital. No paparazzi for the loser, unless he dies!
Meanwhile the loser’s girlfriend stands ringside ready to boink, guess who…the winner!
The Republicans should not consider compromise with Obama for anything. You don’t win in a Liberal enclave like MA and negotiate from a position of compromise. Republicans should deal with Obama like political heavyweight champions, showcasing their new championship belt that has at its center Obama’s well-kicked balls.
One speech does not a successful administration make. Obama still has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. All Obama needs is a little push…into the grave!
America has rejected Obama’s policies, and resoundingly so. The policies that need to come forward now should be Republican…period!
Obama would love to co-sponsor some token legislation with built-in scapegoats! He would be happy to take credit for the good, or in the event of failure feed America a few evil Republicans…the other white meat!
Republicans need to recall what Obama said during the election. Then they need to look at his actions. Because Obama words are as empty as a Liberal’s skull!
It’s time for Obama to have a humbling. It’s long overdue. And it’s time for the world to witness the exceptionalism of America again.
Finally, it’s time for Republicans shift tactics; engage in the fight that the grassroots have waged over the past year. In case Republicans aren’t aware…we’re WINNING!
That’s my rant!
"There are many unanswered questions regarding these disturbing incidents.
• What happened to Obama’s Passport data?
• Was the data in his file changed?
• Who is covering up this story?
• Why was Mr. Leiutenant Quarles Harris murdered at point-blank range with multiple gunshot wounds?
• Who wanted to silence him?
• What did Obama and his minions know about any of this?
• What, if anything, did Obama and his campaign have to gain with Mr. Harris out of the way?
• Why did Obama give an interview to ABC News (see video at -28 secs.) shortly after his data was accessed curiously stating, “We need to get to the bottom of this, not because I have any particular concerns…”. Why raise an issue only to strike it down if it's not an issue unless you're hiding something? Methinks the then-Senator doth protesteth too much!
• Why would Obama volunteer he didn’t “have any particular concerns” when at that point there were no issues regarding his birth certificate or Pakistan travel? (At that point the lack of a birth certificate was not a known issue, nor had Obama yet disclosed his 1981 travel to Pakistan.)
• What has happened to the other people involved in this Passport case? The others who were involved with the State Dep’t breach?
"To be clear, we are NOT implying or asserting in any manner that Mr. Obama or his minions had anything to do with the 'hit' made on Mr. Harris, but, it is clear that Obama conceivably had much to gain with Mr. Harris out of the way, since Harris allegedly knew the true status of Obama's citizenship and was cooperating with the Bush DOJ. After all, Obama's campaign has spent approximately $1 million to fight against the release of his birth certificate showing his citizenship. Why? What's he hiding? It seems to us that a rational, reasonable person who wishes to be the Leader of the Free World would readily and gladly provide a legitimate birth certificate. Why did he first release an arguably forged 'Certificate of Live Birth' (not a birth certificate) to the leftwing Daily Kos website even before he published it on his own campaign website? Where are the investigative journalists to follow up on this?? NYTimes, Wash Post, Woodward, Bernstein, ABC News, MSNBC? Anybody listening? For the sake of our nation, I dare mainstream journalists to pursue this story!"
During his State-of-the-Union address Wednesday night, President Obama spoke about a deficit of trust between the American people and political leaders. New Rasmussen Reports polling on the president’s speech shows just how deep that trust deficit has become.
The president in the speech declared that his administration has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He even chided Republicans for not applauding on that point. However, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that taxes have been cut for 95% of Americans. Most (53%) say it has not happened, and 26% are not sure. Other polling shows that nearly half the nation’s voters expect their own taxes to go up during the Obama years.
The president also asserted that “after two years of recession, the economy is growing again.” Just 35% of voters believe that statement is true, while 50% say it is false.
Obama claimed that steps taken by his team are responsible for putting two million people to work “who would otherwise be unemployed.” Just 27% of voters say that statement is true. Fifty-one percent (51%) say it’s false.
"Why -- with youth unemployment in our nation's cities running at close to 30 percent -- was there no mention of the idea of lowering the minimum wage, which now stands at $7.25, up from $6.55 as of last July 24? Surely the president must realize that if you (the government in this case) make it more expensive for employers to hire unskilled workers, they will hire fewer of them.
"Ditto, obviously, with Obamacare. If the government wants to force all employers to provide health insurance and then wants to enforce mandates that will drive up the cost of that insurance, it must expect companies to get by with fewer hires and to contract out more work to temporary workers or outside contractors.
"And then of course there is the Obama-backed initiative that would allow unions to gain exclusive bargaining rights at more companies without the need for a secret ballot. This too would be guaranteed to drive up the cost of labor. But Mr. Obama did not use his state-of-the-union address to dump this singularly ill-advised idea. Nor did he talk about the role that unions have played in bankrupting the U.S. domestic auto industry -- and thereby destroying tens of thousands of jobs and putting a like number on government life support.
"The president reveals some of his worst instincts -- bordering really on the bizarre -- in the area of international commerce. Mr. Obama's call for an all-out effort to double the nation's exports in five years is probably the worst idea since Jimmy Carter called for energy independence back in 1979."
"CBO estimated the costs of increasing the number of troops in and around Afghanistan from about 70,000 at the end of fiscal year 2009 to about 100,000 by July 2010, averaging 85,000 personnel for fiscal year 2010, according to CBO director Douglas Elemendorf."