COVID-19 in Perspective

I have been making the case that the COVID-19 Pandemic should be kept in perspective with other epidemics.  I spent some time looking at statistics and here's what I've found.

While many people are claiming that COVID-19 is particularly devastating, if you compare it to Influenza, it clearly is not even close.  I pulled the current statistics for COVID-19 here, and downloaded a table from the CDC here to get the summary in the tables below.

As these statistics show, Influenza causes way more deaths every year in the US than COVID-19 has any signs of showing so far.  In fact the COVID-19 death rate in the US is currently only about 0.15 deaths per 100,000 in population.  This compared to Influenza in just the first 10 weeks of 2020 where the rate is 1.31 per 100,000.

Additionally, if you look at death rates for Influenza in 2018, you see that these rates jumped all the way up to 4.43 per 100,000.  With 14,510 deaths that year, it was nearly as high as the current COVID-ID deaths world-wide.  I doubt that many outside the health field even remember that 2018 was a particularly bad year for the flu.

While it is relatively early in the COVID-19 cycle, the numbers seem quite low in comparison.  Remember, the 2020 Influenza  deaths are for only the first ten weeks of the year, where the COVID numbers are total for this outbreak.

We are, at the time of this writing, in week 13 of 2020.  The COVID numbers will surely go up...but so will the Influenza numbers.  According to the CDC table, the Influenza deaths start dropping off rather quickly from here...bottoming out at about week 21 - 23.  Many expect COVID-19 to follow a similar trajectory. Chart below shows Influenza deaths.  Notice the large spike in 2018.

With numbers like these, does it make sense to be taking the extreme measures we now are seeing?  Steps that by all accounts, Republican and Democrats agree, will certainly cause significant damage to the economy. Estimates are that the recession could be significantly worse than we had in 2008, with 20% unemployment, and cost over $1T in government bailouts.  What happens next year, or the year after when another bad flu season comes along?  Can we afford these kinds of actions from our overzealous politicians?

This data was easily found.  It is from reputable sources.  Don't take my word, look for yourselves.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~  Benjamin Franklin

Myths You Probably Believe

"It ain't what people know that causes trouble...it's what they know that ain't so."

It is an interesting phenomenon to me how people can hold so tightly, fiercely even, to beliefs for which they have no basis for belief to which they can point, other than they have just always believed them, or it's what they have been told, or in many cases, they just want to believe them.  Wanting something to be true, however, does not make it true.  Being told they are true also does not make them true...and when it comes to truth, unfortunately, there is no safety in numbers.  Just because "everybody knows" something to be true, also does not automatically make it so.  It has been proven over and over that "the masses" can easily be fooled.

Belief in some myths are harmless and even a little bit fun.  Believing in Bigfoot or a nocturnal, molar-collecting sprite is harmless.  But particularly disturbing to me are the myths people cling to about government...many of which I have believed myself in the past.  These myths are troubling because they are created and perpetuated by the very government system that are the topics of the myths.  The very people who wish to wield power and control over our lives have, through government controlled schools, a sycophantic press, and bold face lies spread falsehoods about their own effectiveness, good intentions and indispensability, all in an effort to create a compliant citizenry who will never question their power or actions.

My path to recovering the truth, I am a recovering Neo-Con, began with simply being open to question my own beliefs and through reading history.  I began to see that much of what I thought I knew was, in fact, distortions at best and in many cases, complete fabrications.  I saw that it is not a matter of party, Republican or Democrat, since they were just two sides of the same coin.  Both parties, on the whole, are populated by statist, central-planning power mongers.  It was not even a matter of Right and Left, for many things I once believed as a rightist neo-con, I now reject.  It is, rather, a matter of truth and fact vs. myth and lies.  It is a struggle between liberty and tyranny.

In the video below from a 1977 lecture, Milton Friedman lays out five widely believed, and never-the-less false myths about government.  Are you open to truth?  Can you get past your own closely held myths and truly consider the logic and history of his arguments?  Friedman says early in the video that "Somebody once wrote...a myth is like an air mattress.  There's nothing in it, but it's wonderfully comfortable, and deflation causes an uncomfortable jolt."  Get ready for a needed jolt concerning these five Myths That Conceal Reality:

1. The Robber Baron Myth
2. The Great Depression Myth
3. The Demand for Government Service Myth 
4. The Free Lunch Myth
5. The Robin Hood Myth.

Govt Shutdown - Report from Out Here

DAY 1:
Well, the government shut down and I looked around my neighborhood...drove through the area...Traffic lights were still working...businesses still operating...People were going about their lives as if nothing has changed. How can this be? I thought if we had a government shut down, it was the end of the world as we know it. I'll have to wait a few days...maybe weeks...and check again. I'm sure the world will have come to a crashing halt by then.

DAY 2:
Beginning of day two of the shutdown...or "Slimdown" as some are beginning to call it. Still, the lights are on...the Internet is operational (thank you Al Gore, LOL)...and life, for the VAST MAJORITY of us, continues as normal...Hmmm.

I propose that we insist that this continues for at least one month. That way, we can see the real effect of less government in our lives. At the end of that month, I suggest that we could discontinue most of what we have done without during the experimental period...permanently. And, I think, that is what government fears most and why they are so shrill in their predictions of doom...they fear you...we the people will realize that we *CAN* do with much less of them.

May I also suggest that this is the time for the State legislatures to stand up to their responsibilities.  In our Federal system, the States are *NOT* subjects of the central government in Washington...but rather sovereign entities who have entered a pact with other states to form a federation to their mutual benefits. Each State should look after the welfare of their own citizens and businesses with jealous zeal, not allowing anyone to cause them harm or limit their freedom...even the Federal government.  If the shenanigans in D.C. can truly have such a huge impact on the economy of the entire country, I stand with James Madison who declared in the Virginia Resolutions that the States "are duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil."

It is time for the States to reverse the usurpation of their sovereign powers and insist that we return to the principles of the United States Constitution which is the bedrock document on which all other Federal law rests.  If roads need built in a State...the state should not send their money to the Federal government and beg to have it returned to build the road.  Likewise, if a State's people are in need, it is for that State to see to these needs...not to allow their own treasure to be used to control them so that some central politburo can decide how best to meet the needs.

The Federal government is rotten to the core...hopelessly corrupt.  It is time for the States to stand to their feet, reclaim their power, interpose and place the checks on the Federal government that the Constitution intends.

Obama Scandals: More of the Same?

With all of the scandals swirling around the Obama administration, I keep hearing apologists appeal to the fact that others have done it before.  "JFK, Nixon, Clinton all used the the IRS against their enemies,"  they say.  "Bush started the gun walking into Mexico first," is their cry. "It was the Patriot Act under George W. Bush that began all the surveillance of communications in the first place," they rightly point out.

"Yes," I say, "and that is exactly my point!"

To me, it doesn't matter which power grabbing statist abuses his power, and therefore tramples our rights.  The point is that THEY ALL DO IT! And, I would add, they all get progressively (pun intended) worse.  If President X gets away with such-and-so...President Y sees this as precedent which allows him to expand on the issue.  Then, President Z sees that there is no real resistance to this recently fabricated power and doubles-down.

This trend has continued, with very little interruption for the last 100 years or so.  It has gone on so long that the typical, government-educated citizen believes that it is normal...proper...inevitable.  A country, once heroically and uniquely founded on the principles of individual responsibility and a limited-power, republican government, now largely believes that nothing can be accomplished in this modern world without big government.

The fact that abuse and corruption have been done in the past does not excuse or legalize it.  The Constitution is very clear on the limits of power for the central government.  It is not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that are  failing us.  Our founding documents are based on timeless principles of human nature and the nature of power.  These principles are true, regardless of the technology of the day. It is The People who have failed to insist on maintaining their rights and the rights of their fellow citizens. Too many are perfectly happy to allow "other people's" rights to be trampled when they don't agree with those people. For a recent example, consider gun rights. But these people are too ignorant...or brainwashed...or invested in their own dogma to understand that if the government can trample "other people's" rights, they can just as easily trample yours.

You cannot have a centralized, all-powerful, all-encompassing state without this kind of abuse.  Absolute power corrupts, absolutely! This is what we get when we look to government to solve all of our problems and provide for all our needs. When we turn our heads and ignore corruption and abuse, so long as we can suckle at the teat of mother government, we get the Nanny-State Overlords we must now endure. The founders knew this...even though they never foresaw cell-phones, e-mail or nuclear weapons.

“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”~ James Madison; Federalist 47.

This is why I believe the best government ever devised was the limited, decentralized form the founders gave us.  It is our only hope to avoid the erosion and eventual elimination of all of our rights.  And the only hope for the restoration of this form of government is for The People to wake from their 100-year slumber and insist that their government be run according to the law of the land, the Constitution.  We must truly hold those in office accountable for violations of their oaths to uphold this law.  And...we must be willing grow-up and stand on our own two feet without the constant aid of good ole' Uncle Sugar.

Informed Mistrust

Thanks to my friend Rich for sharing the video below.

I do not trust centralized power, and in this sentiment, I stand with the Founding Fathers who strove to define a small, limited and decentralized form of government for the United States of America.

The gun control issue is about far more than guns.  It is about whether a small group of hypocritical, ruling-elite totalitarians in Washington can nullify our basic rights at their own whim.  It is about whether we are a nation of laws, based on the bedrock of a Constitution, or are to be ruled by the "tyranny of the majority," swayed by every wind of populist frenzy which would see every "good crisis," real or manufactured, as a reason to usurp our rights.

The participation of legal gun owners in crime has been characterized, from the FBI crime statistics, as statistically insignificant.  Gun bans will make no one safer since criminals, by their nature, do not obey laws.  But, if these usurpers can in effect nullify our 10th Amendment rights, they can also nullify our 1st Amendment rights or any other they choose.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it:

The Nazis confiscated guns from the Jews.  The Soviets and the Red Chinese confiscated guns.

John Adams effectually nullified the 1st Amendment through the Sedition Act, imprisoning many.  Lincoln imprisoned tens of thousands of people for the crime of publicly disagreeing with him with no due process...you were probably never told about that.  FDR imprisoned thousands of AMERICAN CITIZENS of Japanese decent in internment camps.

No, I do not trust centralized power.  If you do, you ignore the whole of human history, and you do it at your peril and the peril of your posterity.  There are many, many examples of centralized power gone bad...and I would say none of it turning out well.  We have only lasted this long, because of the work of the founders, through the Constitution, and many others who fought to uphold it.  We are at a dangerous time, I fear...a time when too many are willing to "give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety."

So no, I do not trust them when they tell us that they don't want to take our guns.  I know from history, past and recent, that they do.

Obama Tax Hikes Will Cost Jobs

A study recently released by Earnst & Young, LLP says that if the Bush-era tax cuts for wage earners over $250,000 are allowed to expire, the country will lose 710,000 jobs while the economy declines by $200 billion.  The report's author, Robert Carroll wrote, “The higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending.”

Of course, the Democrats are rushing to dismiss the report's assumptions, methodology, and conclusions because it does not fit their tax-and-spend doctrine.   White House spokeswoman, Amy Brundage posted analysis from Jason Furman of the National Economic Council which says that the report “fallaciously assumes that the tax cuts are used to finance additional spending, ignoring the benefits of what the president actually proposed, which was to use the revenue as part of a balanced plan to reduce the deficit and stabilize the debt.”  Even if all of the revenues raised by this tax hike went to helping reduce the deficit, it is only estimated to raise enough to fund the deficit for about eight days...not eight days of government spending, mind you, just the deficit spending.

Furman claims that Obama's plan "includes $2.50 of spending cuts for every $1.00 of revenue."  What in the history of Obama, or the Democrats...or the Republicans, for that matter...would lead anyone to believe that they won't continue to increase spending?  This president has presided over the largest accumulation of national debt in the history of the country, by far.  Debt has increased by more than $5 TRILLION in less than four years.  This claim is eerily familiar to when the Democratically controlled Congress promised President George H. W. Bush three dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar of tax hikes. Bush famously capitulated, breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.  What he got was not spending cuts, but...you know what's coming, don't you...that's right, increased spending. 

Frum says that the study "leaves out the President’s proposed new tax cuts for business hiring and investment."  This is proposed, of course, and not actual, enacted tax cuts. Obama's cuts will, supposedly provide a "10 percent tax credit for business hiring and wage increases and allowing immediate write-offs of new investment through the end of 2012."  So, with these cuts, Obama is trying once again to micromanage the economy.  Businesses do not hire because they get tax credits for doing so; they hire when demand for their products and/or services is high enough to justify adding head count.  In prolonged downturns of the economy, businesses are even more hesitant to hire, due to the uncertainties of the market.  Instead, they make due with the employees they have working more and more overtime before hiring.  This is why hiring is always a lagging indicator for economic recovery.

In a May article on the NPR web site, columnist Fred Barnes said there are problems with, what he calls
"Obama's phantom tax breaks." Here's what he said:

"There are three big problems here. The first is that his 17 tax cuts have had little if any impact on small businesses or the economy. Basically, they failed. Second, his new cuts are much like the earlier ones. They're temporary, narrow, and not what small business owners are asking for, which are fewer regulations and a permanent cut in the personal income tax rate or at least no hike in that rate. Third, they have no chance of being enacted in 2012."

Frum continues by saying that even the Earnst & Young report acknowledges "that the short-run impact of extending the high-income tax cuts will be proportionately less than the impact of the middle-income cuts, noting that a 'disproportionate share of the tax change is likely to be channeled through savings for taxpayers facing the top tax rates as compared to other taxpayers.'  As I have been prone to saying a lot lately, SO WHAT?  This is just basically saying that raising taxes on the middle-income earners is also a bad idea.  It does not negate the claims that there will be job loss and economic downturn.

The main reason for the job loss seems to be that a large number of small businesses file at an individual rate rather than a corporate rate.  Obama claims that he will be giving "tax cuts for 97 percent of all small-business owners in America." and his proposal "isn’t about taxing job creators, this is about helping job creators.”  But, the businesses under $250,000 a year are not job creators.  These are mostly small, one or two person shops...consultants and freelancers.  The Heritage Foundation calculated that "the average American with $250,000 or more in income can expect an average $24,888 tax increase next year under Obama’s proposed policies."  Looking at Treasury Department data they determined that "1.2 million small businesses both had employees and earned more than $200,000 in 2007. So the President is putting about 1.2 million jobs—perhaps even more—at risk with this tax hike." 

Obama is a big-government socialist.  He claims that, in his words, "It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs leads to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs."  He believes that not raising taxes on Americans is spending by the government.  And so far, all of his policies that are supposedly aimed at fixing the economy through big-government solutions have been complete failures.  So please excuse me if I might tend to accept the conclusions of the Earnst & Young report over anything this failed president or his minions might offer as evidence supporting their plans.   Expecting more of the same to work this time is the very definition of insanity.

Obama Care and the Death of a Republic

Today's Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obama Care, is a huge disappointment for anyone who cares for the Constitution and the rule of law.  This law was shoved through Congress against the will of a strong majority of the people in this country.  It gives unprecedented power to the central government to control the lives of individual citizens.   This has been done over the objections of several States.  It also gives the central government control over approximately one-seventh of the economy...in effect socializing a  whole segment of the private industry.

One of the most troublesome aspects of this law, the so-called "individual mandate," which forces individual citizens to purchase health insurance, whether they want to or not, under the penalty of being fined, was held to be constitutional under Congress' taxing power.  Chief Justice Roberts found, in writing the majority opinion, that "In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."  This flies directly in the face the wording of the act and of what was continually claimed by Obama and his minions.  He claimed that the individual mandate was "absolutely not" a tax.

Rather than interpreting the law, as is the mandate of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts and the other assenting members have legislated from the bench.  The mandate language in the law did not call for a tax, but rather a penalty.  Roberts and the others changed the law by judicial fiat.  In writing for the dissenting members,  Justice Kennedy explains that, "In a few cases, this Court has held that a 'tax' imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act adopt[s] the criteria of 'wrongdoing' and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax."  But that's what the majority clearly did in this case...they interpreted a penalty as a tax.

Justice Kennedy, also explained:

"As for the constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare: The Court has long since expanded that beyond (what Madison thought it meant) taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, see United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65–66 (1936). Thus, we now have sizable federal Departments devoted to subjects not mentioned among Congress’ enumerated powers, and only marginally related to commerce: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The principal practical obstacle that prevents Congress from using the tax-and-spend power to assume all the general-welfare responsibilities traditionally exercised by the States is the sheer impossibility of managing a Federal Government large enough to administer such a system."

"The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying nonconsenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have beenenacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative."

The truly frightening part of this decision is that it sets precedent that will likely allow the central government to control any activity or sector of the economy they wish through their seemingly unlimited power to tax. Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La. had it right when he spoke on the steps of the Supreme Court after the ruling,  “They basically have said Congress has no limit to its taxing power. This is the largest tax increase on the poor and the middle class in the history of this country . . . it was sold to the American people as a mandate and not a tax.”


The short-term solution is to vote Obama and all of his central planning, socialist cronies out of office and push the new president and Congress for a total repeal of this bad law.  But this is not enough.  The problem is systemic...the government given to us by the founders has rotted to the core.  The central government can not be trusted to act on the principles of the founding and the original intent of our bedrock legal document, the Constitution.  Neither can Supreme Court be counted on to take up the cause.  As I wrote in a previous post:

Where are the checks and balances that safe guard our liberty? The Supreme Court? This is only a small group of politically appointed lawyers, with tenure for life, who have a history of rubber stamping government expansion. No, the only real hope is to return to America's founding principles, and it is The People who must demand the changes necessary.

Notice that throughout this post, I have referred to the "central government" rather than the Federal government.  I do this with a purpose.  The founding fathers provided us with a federal republic form of government.  It was a republic in that ultimate power originated from "the People."  It was federal in that there was a small body that was to represent the interests of the federation of the sovereign United States of America.  This central government was to be very limited in scope and power and, derived it's power from the States and the People.  The chief check on the power of the Federal government was to be the sovereign States.  With this ruling, and many before it, we no longer have a federal form of government in practice, we have a national one with the States now being subservient to the central body.  This is why I will no longer refer to this body as federal.  There are no sovereign States, and soon, if we don't make a change, there will be no republic.

Because the central government has become so corrupted, we cannot hope to restore it from within.  We must return to the principles of federalism.  The States must retake their rightful role as the check against usurpation and aggression by the central government.  To do this, we must repeal the Seventeenth Amendment (see these post for more information on this topic: Repeal the 17th Amendment ; Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!).  The states must then nullify unconstitutional laws and rollback the central government to it's rightful scope.  Without these steps, the republic is truly dead.

See the following posts for background on Federalism:

Balance of Power

The Utility of Federalism

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 1

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 2

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 3

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 4

Eroding Rights

We the People have largely fallen asleep at the wheel over the last hundred years or more.  Instead of driving the ship of state to serve our interests as citizens, we have allowed government at all levels to supplant the People's interests with their own.

At almost every turn, the government has been allowed torture and twist the Constitution to accrue more and more power to themselves.  Though the Constitution and the records left behind by those who ratified it is very clear that the powers of the Federal are very few and narrow, the power mongers in government seem to be able to find almost any power they wish to wield in this foundational document.  They have done this in the past by twisting and reinterpreting the word used and ignoring the clear "original intent."

In recent years, however, the statist usurpers have made more and more direct assaults on our power and rights.  Where they once at least made an attempt to cover their power grabs with heady, legalistic explanations about how they really do have constitutional authority to do x or y, Now, they simply laugh and scoff at the mere question of constitutionality.

To help overcome the last vestiges of resistance, the statists have begun to target the Constitution directly through the amendment process.  Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and 26 other democrats and a one RINO have introduced the populist sounding People's Rights Amendment to the Constitution.  In this amendment, McGovern attempts to precisely define the "words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution..."It goes on to say that these words do not apply to "corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state."

Okay...so far, nothing earthshaking, right?  We all know that corporations are not people.  I don't think anyone was believing that they were.  It is the next part that is the problem: "such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution."  In other words...government can do to corporations whatever they want to do because they are not "people."

In an article dated May 4, 2012, columnist George Will points out that the "proposed amendment is intended to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which affirmed the right of persons to associate in corporate entities for the purpose of unrestricted collective speech independent of candidates’ campaigns."  The problem they had with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case is that the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not allow government to restrict independent political spending by corporations or unions, as required by the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. In writing for the majority opinion on this case, Justice Kennedy points out that "[t]he First Amendment provides that 'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.'"

He continued:

"The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—eitherto expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30days of a primary election and 60 days of a general elec-tion. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship." [emphasis added]

The so-called People's Rights Amendment, then, is an attempt to circumvent that nasty First Amendment restriction on Congress's power to control speech...one of our most cherished rights on the Left and the Right.  In his article, Will rightly point's out that this amendment would increase "the power of incumbent legislators — to write laws regulating, rationing or even proscribing speech in elections that determine the composition of the legislature and the rest of the government."  While they try to portray this amendment as a tool needed for election reform, it is in fact a naked power grab.

Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While corporations and other organizations are not people, they are made up of people...citizens who have implicit freedom of speech rights.  They also have a right to freely assemble into groups to address government.  This is also known as freedom of association, which the SCOTUS held in NAACP v. Alabama (357 U.S. 449) that:

"It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech...it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny."

This type of aggression...and that is truly what this is...toward our rights as citizens can not stand, and should not go unanswered.  Representative McGovern, Leader Pelosi and all of the other sponsors of this amendment should be censured...they should be soundly defeated in their next elections...and possibly recalled.  This is not simply a partisan maneuvering on their part.  This amendment would greatly restrict everyone's rights, no matter where they stand on the political spectrum.  And, it could easily lead to further aggression.  No, this is not a Right or a Left issue.  This is truly an American issue...and these usurpers are clearly UNAMERICAN.

D or R...Government Keeps Growing

Jack Hunter nailed it again.  This is what I'm talking about...and why I'm not very hopeful that the next Republican president will really offer much in the way of solutions.

The chart on the left illustrates what Mr. Hunter is saying in the video below...namely that government grows no matter who is president.  It also doesn't matter who runs Congress.  It always grows.

This is why we must look to the States to reign in the out-of-control Federal government by nullifying any Federal law that is beyond the Constitutional power of the central government.  We must also ween the States from the Federal teat...refusing to take Federal money as a bribe to knuckle under to Federal usurpation of State power.

Don't get me wrong....we must defeat Obama!  He is on the verge of the single largest peace-time power grab in the history of the country.  He must be booted out.  But, the Republican party has become the "just not quite as big government as the other guys" party.  They are still big government...still power mongers.

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment!

Enforce the Tenth Amendment!

Related Posts:

Budget Cuts Across the Board!

Budget Cuts - No Sacred Cows:
Why Feed the Pig?
Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

Treaties and Ambassadors of the States

"[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and and which shall establish by law: but the Congress may by law vest appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." ~ The Constitution of the United States; Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

If you have any doubt about the Founding Father's intention concerning the role of the the States in our Federal government, ask yourself why the Constitution specifically spells out that the President must have the "advice and consent" of the Senate for making treaties, appointing ambassadors and the other issues spelled out in Article II...and not the House.

As you're considering this, remember that the Senate, as originally designed...before the Seventeenth Amendment...was appointed by the legislators of the States.  They were to act "in the quality of ambassadors of the states," according to Massachusetts ratifying convention member, Fisher Ames.  The reason for this is that the country was designed not as a monolithic nation, but as a federation of sovereign States...thus the term United States, and the term Federal government.  Any treaties, ambassadors, Supreme Court judges, etc., directly affects and represents these sovereign states.  The State governments, therefore, were to have a direct input to these issues through their ambassadors to the central government...THEIR Senators.

Additionally, according to Article II, Section 1, "Each State shall appoint, in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct, an number of electors" to choose the President of the United States.  This is the so-called Electoral College.  As James Madison explains in Federalist 39, "The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters.  The votes allotted to them are in compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and co-equal societies; partly as unequal as unequal members of the same society."

So, the States were to elect the President, through the electoral process, and provide advice and consent, through their "Ambassador/Senators" to any treaties and most appointments that the President makes.  The Senators were to provide a check on the power of the federal executive and "afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."

Here is more from Fisher Ames:

Fisher Ames

"The state governments are essential parts of the system.... The senators represent the sovereignty of the states; in the other house, individuals are represented.... They are in the quality of ambassadors of the states, and it will not be denied that some permanency in their office is necessary to a discharge of their duty. Now, if they were chosen yearly, how could they perform their trust? If they would be brought by that means more immediately under the influence of the people, then they will represent the state legislatures less, and become the representatives of individuals. This belongs to the other house. The absurdity of this, and its repugnancy to the federal principles of the Constitution, will appear more fully, by supposing that they are to be chosen by the people at large. If there is any force in the objection to this article, this would be proper. But whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachments of the federal government? A consolidation of the states would ensue, which, it is conceded, would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this very article, so much condemned, is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against a consolidation. The state governments represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests, of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."　

The Federal government has greatly overstepped it's constitutional bounds.  The office of the President has almost become the royal dictatorship that the founders sought to avoid.  The States must, if our republic is to survive, stand up and re-establish their role as a check on the power of the Federal government.

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment!

Enforce the Tenth Amendment!

Related Links:

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!
Balance of Power

Power and Corruption

Just a brief thought:

If the maxim "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" was true in 1887 when Lord Acton first penned it, how much more is the corruption today when the potential for power is so much greater? It is even more important today to keep power decentralized, as the Founding Fathers intended, than it was in the beginning of our republic.

Were The Anti-Federalists Right?

In a great series on PJTV called Freedom's Charter, Scott Ott has succinctly laid out the original intent of the scope of our Federal Government, and where it all went wrong in a chapter called Madison Was Wrong (see below).

Remember, in the original debates on the constitution, there were those who wanted a very limited Federal government (The Federalists), and those who wanted an even more limited Federal government (The Anti-Federalists).  The Anti-Federalists argued that there were not enough restrictions and checks on the power of the central, Federal government as proposed by the Federalists.  They believed such a central government could and would eventually usurp the authority of the States.

It seems the Anti-Federalists may have been right.  But, is the reason lack of checks built into the constitution?  Or, is it that the States have ceded their authority and failed in their role to limit the central power?  Ott gets right to the point:

"In the first quarter of 2009, for the first time in history, the Federal government became the largest source of income for State governments.  James Madison's generation feared Federal bullies with bullets.  They apparently didn't anticipate that tyranny could stroll in on a green carpet of cash...welcomed by the passively subdued States that had created the Federal Government."

RelatedPosts:

Balance of Power:

The Utility of Federalism:

The Federalism Series - A Primer

Why Feed the Pig:

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

Serfdom? ... Or Worse?

This video by Stefan Molyneaux of Freedomain Radio puts our national debt and the oligarchical Federal Government in grim focus.  It asks the important question, "Where is your government going to get the money to pay off its creditors?"  The answer is chilling..."Governments have only one asset that they can use as collateral. Your leaders are selling you."



For text of video, CLICK HERE.

The Keynesian Perpetual Motion Machine

Trigger and Freewheel - October 17, 2011

The search for the elusive Perpetual Motion Machine has persisted through history.  Such an apparatus could continue to run by it's own power once it was started, without the requirement of any additional outside energy.  Though many have claimed that they have invented such an apparatus over the centuries, it is not possible.  If it were, we would all be driving electric cars that charge themselves as they travel along the road.

I won't go into the detailed physics about why Perpetual Motion is not possible, because frankly, I'm not a physicist and don't play one on the Internet.  If you want the details, I'm sure you can find more than you want to know from a quick search on your favorite search engine.  But, for a simplistic view of the subject, let's look a the diagram below which provides a classic depiction of a Perpetual Motion Machine.  The idea here is that once the center wheel is started spinning in a clockwise direction, the arms attached to the wheel will swing out and the force of the weights attached at the ends will force the wheel to continue to move.  As the wheel turns, new arms will continue to swing out and drive the wheel.  Sounds plausible...if you only think about it for about 30 seconds.  The problem is that the force of the weights going IN must be overcome coming back OUT as they are dragged back up the other side.  Add the friction of the axle and other issues, and the machine eventually comes to a halt if no additional energy is used to keep it going.

"Okay," you say, "how does that apply to Keynesian economics?"  Well, let's look at this machine as the economy.  Politicians who extol the virtues of Keynesian-based monetary policy believe, among other things, that they can boost the economy by adding so-called Stimulus money into the economy.  But, they forget that government does not create the wealth that they put IN to the machine at the top of the cycle, they only take it OUT of the economy in the form of taxes, fees and tariffs.  Add the frictional drag from the bloated bureaucracy of the government itself, and the wheel soon slows and comes again to a stop.

The government solution to the slowing wheel is to add more Stimulus going IN...but where do they get the money?  Well, they can raise taxes...but the public will only stand for so much of that before they revolt and vote them from office.  So, for the past several decades, they have hid their source and done something even worse...they have borrowed the money.  This new borrowed money comes with the added frictional drag of interest.  Coming back OUT, the machine not only have to support the continued turning of the wheel and the drag of bureaucracy, but now the added debt service.  So any new government Stimulus has less and less of a positive effect on the motion of the economic machine.

Now I hear you saying, "How is that any different from the so-called Free Enterprise System?"  A very good question...you are a smart one.  While government only pulls wealth out of the economy, or borrows it, the Free Enterprise System creates new wealth.  This new wealth is created by taking the raw materials of business and, through ingenuity and hard work, turns them into products and services that are more valuable than their component parts.  This new wealth is the on-going new energy that the Free Market adds IN to the system to keep the machine turning.  Companies who create wealth have a vested interest in reducing the drag so they can take more profit OUT of the machine.  This profit allows their companies to grow and increase the new wealth they can add IN again.

Only the Free Enterprise System has demonstrated the on-going ability to continue to add the needed new energy to keep the economic wheel turning.  The failures of the economy have never been failures of Free Enterprise, but rather the failures of government.  When government adds drag to the machine through higher taxes or unreasonable regulation, it slows the wheel and reduces the profit companies can take OUT...thus reducing the new wealth they can add back IN. 

Yes, this is a simplistic analogy, but an accurate one.  The Keynesian models have been debunked over and over through the years.  One of the shining examples that Keynesians have held up as the success of their policies, FDR's New Deal, has come under scrutiny in recent years.  In fact, economists from UCLA have recently released the results of a four-year study of the FDR policies and their effect on the Great Depression.  Rather than saving us from the Great Depression, as Keynesians have always claimed, UCLA research found that  while the economy had been "poised for a beautiful recovery," that recovery was "stalled" by FDR's "misguided policies."  The study concludes that the FDR actions "thwarted economic recovery for seven long years."  One of the study's authors, Harold L. Cole, stated that their "work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

Bringing things up to the present, The Washington Times reported that "The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy."  So, since this was basically a failure, Obama wants to do more of the same...Typical.

There is no such thing as a Perpetual Motion Machine...or a successful government-driven economy.  Any one who believes there is, are a lot like the spoiled teenager in the comic at the top of the page who thinks it works as long as "someone" continues to pay the bill.

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."

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.

Competing Money

Friedrich A. Hayek, famous economist and author of The Road To Serfdom, said the following concerning money in an interview:

"Oh, I am absolutely convinced that no government is capable of...politically or intellectually...of providing the exact amount of money that is needed for economic development. And, I should be all in favor...in fact, I'm convinced we shall never have decent money in name before we take from government the monopoly of issuing money and allow competing institutions...of course under different names...not issue the the same money, but competing monies...and let people decide which kind of money they prefer to use."

This may seem pretty radical.  Many people think that if the government doesn't control the issue of money,  poverty and anarchy will ensue.  But, we already have competing monies on a global basis and it all works fine. The markets decide, based on many factors, what the exchange rate is between the Dollar and the Yen...or between the Yuan.   In fact, when the European Union decided that they needed to consolidate their monies into a single currency, the Euro, it helped some countries and hurt others...so less currency competition is not necessarily best.

A century ago we had competing monies in this country. As Lawrence H. White writes on the Library of Economics and Liberty, "Much more competition in money has existed in the past. Under 'free banking' systems, private banks competitively issued their own paper currency notes, called 'bank notes,' that were redeemable for underlying 'real,' or 'basic,' monies like gold or silver. And competition among those basic monies pitted gold against silver and copper."

But, some will say, we had to get to a single currency to stop the cycle of bank panics and boom and bust.  The way we attempted to do this  is to give the Federal Reserve a government-granted monopoly on creating money.  And how has that worked?  Well, as Dr. Thomas E Woods Jr. points out in his book Rollback, "Since the Fed opened it's doors in 1914 following the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in December 1913, the dollar has lost more than 95 percent of its value, after having held its value in tact from the beginning of the republic until the creation of the Fed."  That is not a very good track record of itself, but what about the Fed's stabilization of the economy?  As you might guess, this also isn't necessarily the case.  "Some recent research finds the two periods (pre- and post-Fed) to be approximately equal in volatility," says Woods, "and some finds the post-Fed period in fact to be more volatile, once faulty data are corrected for."  So, taken as a whole, the Federal Reserve, and its monopoly on money creation, has been a over-all negative.

Many economists believe that we should return to "hard money" in the United States, and indeed across the world.  Hard money is a currency that is based on something with an intrinsic value, such as gold or silver.  What we have now is known as "fiat money."  Investopia defines fiat money as, "Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith."  Investopia further explains that, "Because fiat money is not linked to physical reserves, it risks becoming worthless due to hyperinflation. If people lose faith in a nation's paper currency, the money will no longer hold any value."  If the markets lose faith in the paper money you get what we have now, a greatly devalued dollar and lowered credit ratings.

Since fiat money is not based on any real assets, the government monopoly is free to just print more to finance their increasing lust for power.  They don't really care if it devalues, they can just print more.  It's "monopoly money" anyway, so to speak.  What do they care?  But we should care.  Every time they devalue our money by printing more, the value of your savings and investments go down, your purchasing power goes down and the over all economy declines as corporate investments and purchasing power also suffers.

So, government has had its monopoly for 97 years now and have done a terrible job at it.  The only real solution for monopoly is...wait for it...COMPETITION!  Imagine that.  And the market and States are beginning to take matters into their own hands.  Dan Armstrong of ConnectMidichigan.com reports that "New types of money are popping up across Mid-Michigan and supporters say, it's not counterfeit, but rather a competing currency."  The International Business Times reports that "Utah just became the first US state to recognize gold as legal tender. Its Legal Tender Act of 2011 allows U.S. minted gold and silver coins to be recognized as legal tender in the value that reflects the market price for gold and silver."  Minnesota, North Carolina South Carolina, Idaho and Georgia are also considering similar  legislation.  I believe this is a good sign that the States are willing to do what is necessary for the welfare of their own people.  Competition is good.

Hayek said, "Abolishing the government monopoly on issuing money would deprive governments of persuing monetary policies...that's what I want to see."  And, so do I.