The More Things Change...

In October of 1964, Ronald Reagan gave a televised speech entitled A Time For Choosing in support of then Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater.  In this speech he outlines  differences between the liberals and conservatives.  He also lays out some of the problems the country faced at that time.

"Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value."

Sound familiar?  It should, but today, the numbers are even worse.  Reagan rejected the liberal stance that  the solution to the problems was a larger, more centralized government.

"We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of it—shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?  But the reverse is true."

Watch the video of this amazing speech to see how much is the same as it was at that time.  Notice that the stakes are the same. "This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."

A few more great quotes from the speech:

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear."

"Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

Useful Occupy Idiots

Beautiful example of the useful idiots at the Occupy Wall Street mob.  No logic, no answers...just repeating the standard talking points.  Good job, Mr. Schiff.

Should Israel Be Returned to the...Turks?

There is a lot of discussion going on about what America's role should be in the so-called Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.  Are the Palestinians entitled to the land that is currently Israel because they were there before 1948 when it was given to the Jews by the United Nations?

Well, if that is the criteria, maybe we should give it to the Turks.  Before the most recent incarnation of the Israeli nation, the land of Palestine was controlled by the British, as part of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. This was put in place after World War I which saw the defeat of, among others, the Ottoman Empire...the Turks.  This land had been part of the Ottoman Empire since about 1517.  So, I would say that if anyone has claim to Israel, it would be the Turks, wouldn't you?

The vast majority of the land under the Mandate, as well as that under French control, were given to Arab peoples. Only a very small portion was given to the Jews...only about 1/6th of one percent of the land in the Middle East.

Before this, though, it was the Turks who controlled and owned this region.  Of course, before that, it was the Mamluks, the Arabs, the Persians and the Byzantines who controlled the land.  Oh, then before that there were the Romans...who gave the region the name of Palestine after the biblical enemies of the Jews, the Philistines...who were not Arab.  And, if you go back a little further, it was the land of...the Jews.

And, who really are the Palestinians?  There was historically never a country, tribe or people known as the Palestinians.  These, really were just Arabs who lived in the region who were not welcomed into the other Arab lands.  Some refer to them as the rabble or outcasts of the Arab world.  From a control or ownership standpoint, they really have no strong claim on the land.

So, where does this leave us? Who should get Israel?  The current occupants, the so-called Palestinians?  Should we give it back to the Turks maybe?  Well, in my opinion, it is the current occupants who own it.  Look, I am no Zionist.  While I am a christian, I do not believe that the Jews have some kind of divine right to the land.  I believe that God gave it to them once, but then, through disobedience, they lost it. I am, however, a supporter of Israel in the same way as I am a supporter of Great Britain, or Germany, or Japan.  They are friends and allies.

Every country and region in the world has been shaped over the centuries by wars, conquerors and political agreements of all sorts.  At one time most of Europe was controlled by the Roman Empire...then came the Normans, Vandals, Saxons, etc., etc.   How far do we have to go back in time to redress the perceived wrongs of the past? Hopefully we can become more and more "civilized" in our dealings among nations as time passes, but I'm not holding out a lot of hope.  But, until then, we need to face the facts.  We all are a product of our history, good or bad.  We are where we are today, and we must align with our friends in good times and bad for all of our mutual safety.  If we abandon friends due to international peer pressure or  growing internal political struggles, we will be left with no friends because we will not be a trustworthy ally.

Israel is our only true and stable friend in a region filled with our sworn enemies.  We must support them.

What's All The Fuss With The Fed?

There are good reasons why twice in the history of our country central banks were dismantled.  Through most of our history, Americans have been very wary of large banks and their control on government.  This short video clip of G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature From Jekyll Island, gives some of the background on the founding of the Federal Reserve.

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  ~ 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

The 10th Amendment has had renewed interest in recent times.  More and more people are rediscovering the enumerated powers granted to the Federal government and realizing that it has greatly over-stepped it's bounds.  Many are looking to this amendment as a remedy, believing that it is the key to reining in the out-of-control Federal leviathan.

The 10th Amendment, however, has no power if there is no one to enforce it.  It has been in place since the beginning of our constitutional republic, but the Federal government has not restrained itself within these very clear bounds.  Even though there are checks and balances built between the branches of the central government, the trend has been to gather more and more "undelegated" power to itself.  Expecting anything else would be naive and akin to letting the fox guard the hen house.

The founders were in no way naive on this point.  This is why they designed a system where by the States were to provide the major check on the power of the Federal government.  Over and over again, during the Constitutional Convention, the State ratifying conventions, The Federalist Papers, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the States were declared to be sovereign bodies who gave some very limited and narrow power to the central government to represent the federation of States in the dealings with the outside world.  The central, or Federal, government was in no way superior to the States.  The Constitution was, in effect, a contract defining how the States would be represented to the world,  guidelines for how they would interact with each other, and an agreed upon set of basic human rights to be held inviolate among all of the citizens of the Federation.  The signatories of this contract were the States themselves, as represented by their legislatures.

In this spirit, U. S. Senators were to be appointed by the State legislatures to act as "ambassadors of the states," as Fisher Ames, Massachusetts Constitutional convention delegate, referred to them.  They were to "be vigilant in supporting [the states'] rights against infringement by legislative or executive of the United States," according to Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman.  The Senate, though was only one house of the Congress.  The House of Representatives, sometimes referred to as "The People's House" was to be the more direct voice of the citizens of the States.  These two houses of Congress were deliberately designed to represent "opposite and rival interests" to temper the will of the people against the "tyranny of the majority," and to constrain the power of the government.

But, in 1913 the very essence of our carefully-crafted form of government was dealt a near fatal blow with the  ratification of the 17th Amendment.  State legislatures were removed from the process of choosing U.S. Senators, and therefore lost any control of this body.  This, in effect, removed the States check on the Federal government's power.  Everything was different after this.  From this point on, the Federal government began a steady march toward more and more centralized power.

The reasons given for the need for the 17th Amendment were very populist sounding.  They said that the State legislatures were corrupt and were playing politics with the appointment of Senators.   They said that special interests were having unseemly influence on the Senate.  They said that "The People" should have a more direct voice in the choice of Senators.  This all sounded good, and right to many at the time, but, C. H. Hoebeke, author of The Road to Mass Democracy points out that"

"In retrospect, the amendment failed to accomplish what was expected of it, and in most cases failed dismally. Exorbitant expenditures, alliances with well-financed lobby groups, and electioneering sleights-of-hand have continued to characterize Senate campaigns long after the constitutional nostrum was implemented. In fact, such tendencies have grown increasingly problematic. Insofar as the Senate also has participated in lavishing vast sums on federal projects of dubious value to the general welfare, and producing encyclopedic volumes of legislation that never will be read or understood by the great mass of Americans, it can hardly be the case that popular elections have strengthened the upper chamber's resistance to the advances of special interests. Ironically, those elections have not even succeeded in improving the Senate's popularity, which, according to one senior member, currently places a senator at about "the level of a used-car salesman."

The Federal government has failed to exercise real restraint on it's own power.  Even if the reasons given at the time for the 17th amendment were valid, and there is a lot of evidence they were not, the Amendment has been a failure, as Hoebeke points out above.  The States were effectively neutered by this amendment, undermining the original design of our founders.

Our system of government, as originally designed, worked much better before the Amendment, as Todd J. Zywicki, Law Professor from George Mason University, points out.

"In preserving federalism and bicameralism, the Senate did an extraordinary job before 1913. Throughout the nineteenth century, the federal government remained small and special-interest legislation was limited. The activity of the federal government was largely confined to the provision of 'public goods' such as defense and international relations."

Zywicki believes that passage of the 17th Amendment "was primarily a rebellion of emerging special interests against federalism and bicameralism, which restrained the ability of the federal government to produce legislation favorable to those interests. Changing the method of electing senators changed the rules of the game for seeking favorable legislation from the federal government, fostering the massive expansion of the federal government in the twentieth century." In other words, rather than removing the influence of special interests, it strengthen them by making it easier to lobby one small group of 100 Senators, rather than the legislatures of 50 States.

And, the result is very well stated by Thomas J. DiLorenzo in hid book, Hamilton's Curse:

"Today states are the slaves to federal 'mandates.'  They beg for federal dollars to finance the seemingly unlimited regulatory mandates emanating from Washington, D.C., covering how fast citizens may drive, when and how much alchol they may consume, how to treat drinking water, who may own firearms and where they may use them, and an endless stream of nanny-state harassment.  When a state does protest an 'unfair' and burdensome federal mandate, it is usually quickly disciplined by the mere threat of diminished federal subsidies for the politicians' favorite pork-barrel programs, usually for road construction."

So, if we are to see a return to our founding principles...if the 10th Amendment is ever to have a chance to be enforced, we must restore the rightful role of the States.  We must return to a decentralized form of power with the proper checks and balances in place.

We must repeal the 17th Amendment!

The National Debt in Perspective

There's been a lot of discussion about the national debt recently.  Everyone seems to have an opinion about the severity of the problem and the solutions that should be used.  The root cause, though, seems to be very clear… government is spending more that it brings in.

The current debt level is more than $14 Trillion.  This is a very…very large number. That’s fourteen followed by 12 zeros.  But, let’s add a little more perspective.  $14 Trillion is more than $47,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in the country, based on the most recent U.S Census data. According to numbers from the U. S. Treasury, this would be more than $131,000 for every US taxpayer. If the government stopped spending any other money, and put $100 Million-a-day toward paying off the debt, it would take more than 384 years. This doesn't even consider interest payments...You do the math.

In 2010, The US government spent more than $413 Billion on interest payments alone. This is more than was spent on The Department of Health and Human Services…The Departments of Transportation, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce…hold on, I’m almost done…The Department of Treasury, Department of Labor and the Small Business Administration …COMBINED. Just to service current debt. And, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the interest payments on the debt are projected to be $1.1 Trillion a year by 2021, a mere 10 years from now.

If the government stopped spending any other money, and put $100 Million-a-day toward paying off the debt, it would take more than 384 years.

Many people say that the amount of debt, in dollars, is not what’s important, but rather what percentage of the over-all economy, or Gross Domestic Product (GDP), it represents. Even from this perspective, though,  the debt is high. At nearly 70% of the US GDP, the debt is at its highest level since World War II. Some current projections have the debt exceeding 100% GDP by around 2025.

Regardless of your view on the seriousness of the debt...or whether you believe that the it is necessary or not...the root cause is simply that the government is spending more money than it is receiving. The difference between revenues and outlays is known as the deficit. To make up for this deficit, the US borrows money every year from many different sources, including foreign countries like China. As historian and economist, Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. says in his book Rollback, "Every year $250 billion is borrowed from China so the U.S. government can play superpower."

Government spending has been on an upward trajectory for many years…through Republican and Democratic control. While median household income has increased 27% (in inflation adjusted dollars) from 1970 to 2009, government spending increased 299% during the same time period. In 2011, the government is expected to take in about $2.15 Trillion in revenues while spending $3.77 Trillion. This is a deficit of about $1.62 Trillion.

Many different solutions to the debt problem have been proposed. Some say that we need to attack the problem from a revenue perspective. But, there is disagreement on how this should be done. Some say that taxes should be raised…but which taxes…and who should pay these taxes? Others say that lowering taxes will actually increase the revenues by boosting the economy. They point to previous tax rate cuts such as those championed by President Kennedy and President Reagan as proof.

"Every year $250 billion is borrowed from China so the U.S. government can play superpower."

Other people believe we should attack the problem from a spending standpoint. The largest block of spending is on what is generally known as Entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Entitlements together make up approximately 58% of the budget. National Defense makes up about 19%. These areas of the budget are very politically sensitive. Any proposed cuts in these areas meet with strong opposition from one group or another.

There are even those who believe that the government should spend more, believing that increased government spending will stimulate the economy and therefore increase revenues. This is the basis of the so-called Stimulus packages that have been enacted and proposed.

And, many believe that some balance between revenue and spending solutions are necessary due to the scale of the problem.

There are consequences of a large national debt. As the debt grows, so does the interest payments required to service that debt. As I mentioned before, interest payments last year alone were more than $413 Billion. When the budget continues to be in deficit, it becomes more and more difficult to pay this growing interest. In effect, the government is borrowing money to pay the interest of previous loans…never getting a chance to pay down the loans.  When Congress proposes new spending, it is actually calling for more borrowing...since we don't have enough revenues to pay for our current spending.

If the lenders’ faith that the United States can pay back the loans and interest diminishes as the debt grows, the country’s credit rating can be downgraded, as recently happened when Standard & Poor’s changed their rating of the US from triple A (AAA) to Double A plus (AA+). This can, as with individuals, effect interest rates the government has to pay and its ability to borrow.  Ultimately, if the problem gets too large, the country can fail to make necessary payments and default on its loans. This can have even worse consequences to the economy.

When Congress proposes new spending, it is actually calling for more borrowing...since we don't have enough revenues to pay for our current spending.

The scale of the debt issue is very large…almost too large to understand. There is very little agreement on what should be done, but it is a problem that must be addressed. This debt can affect all of our futures and the future of our country. I hope I have been able to offer just a little perspective to a complex issue.