Want Change? Be A Weapon of Mass Dissent - Read "The President"
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Paul, Mitchell Again Block Congressional Pay Raise
Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul and Congressman Harry Mitchell have again stopped the increase in pay that Members of Congress automatically get every year unless it is voted down.
Their efforts to block the pay raise for 2010 was successful last year, and today their bill to block the pay raise for 2011 passed overwhelmingly in the House after passing the Senate last week.
“We should not be padding our pocketbooks when our constituents are still tightening their belts and losing their jobs,” stated Congressman Paul. “As well, we could continue with this symbolic first step and stop increasing taxes, expanding the federal budget, and spreading our military so thin. These additional measures would do much to begin our economic recovery.”
----------------
On Tuesday, Congressman Paul took to the House floor in support of a bill to stop automatic pay raises for Congress. Dr. Paul also discussed the benefits of freezing other areas of government.
Their efforts to block the pay raise for 2010 was successful last year, and today their bill to block the pay raise for 2011 passed overwhelmingly in the House after passing the Senate last week.
“We should not be padding our pocketbooks when our constituents are still tightening their belts and losing their jobs,” stated Congressman Paul. “As well, we could continue with this symbolic first step and stop increasing taxes, expanding the federal budget, and spreading our military so thin. These additional measures would do much to begin our economic recovery.”
----------------
On Tuesday, Congressman Paul took to the House floor in support of a bill to stop automatic pay raises for Congress. Dr. Paul also discussed the benefits of freezing other areas of government.
Socialism vs Corporatism - Essay by Congressman Ron Paul
Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.
Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.
A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges”. Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.
Similarly, Obama's “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.
To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President’s agenda.
When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term – corporatism - forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.
Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.
Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.
A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges”. Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.
Similarly, Obama's “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.
To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President’s agenda.
When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term – corporatism - forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.
Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Ron Paul addresses House in opposition to Iran Sanctions, Divestment and March to War.
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement on Motion to Instruct Conferees on HR 2194, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act
April 22, 2010
Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct House conferees on HR 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, and I rise in strong opposition again to the underlying bill and to its Senate version as well. I object to this entire push for war on Iran, however it is disguised. Listening to the debate on the Floor on this motion and the underlying bill it feels as if we are back in 2002 all over again: the same falsehoods and distortions used to push the United States into a disastrous and unnecessary one trillion dollar war on Iraq are being trotted out again to lead us to what will likely be an even more disastrous and costly war on Iran. The parallels are astonishing.
We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about reports that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the United States. Where have we heard this bombast before? Anyone remember the claims that Iraqi drones were going to fly over the United States and attack us? These "drones" ended up being pure propaganda -- the UN chief weapons inspector concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ever developed unpiloted drones for use on enemy targets. Of course by then the propagandists had gotten their war so the truth did not matter much.
We hear war advocates on the floor today arguing that we cannot afford to sit around and wait for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon. Where have we heard this before? Anyone remember then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's oft-repeated quip about Iraq: that we cannot wait for the smoking gun to appear as a mushroom cloud.
We need to see all this for what it is: Propaganda to speed us to war against Iran for the benefit of special interests.
Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of that treaty. Iran is not capable of enriching uranium to the necessary level to manufacture nuclear weapons. According to the entire US Intelligence Community, Iran is not currently working on a nuclear weapons program. These are facts, and to point them out does not make one a supporter or fan of the Iranian regime. Those pushing war on Iran will ignore or distort these facts to serve their agenda, though, so it is important and necessary to point them out.
Some of my well-intentioned colleagues may be tempted to vote for sanctions on Iran because they view this as a way to avoid war on Iran. I will ask them whether the sanctions on Iraq satisfied those pushing for war at that time. Or whether the application of ever-stronger sanctions in fact helped war advocates make their case for war on Iraq: as each round of new sanctions failed to "work" -- to change the regime -- war became the only remaining regime-change option.
This legislation, whether the House or Senate version, will lead us to war on Iran. The sanctions in this bill, and the blockade of Iran necessary to fully enforce them, are in themselves acts of war according to international law. A vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote for war against Iran. I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to turn back from this unnecessary and counterproductive march to war.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Ron Paul on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews
On Thursday, Congressman Paul appeared on MSNBC's Hardball to discuss the tea parties and why more government intervention will not solve the challenges facing our nation.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
RP on Fox Business' Imus in the Morning - Keynesianism vs. Limited Government
On Tuesday, Congressman Paul was interviewed on Fox Business' Imus
in the Morning concerning the Constitution, Keynesian economics,
and how far we've come from the limited government created by the
Founders.
Part I.
Part II
in the Morning concerning the Constitution, Keynesian economics,
and how far we've come from the limited government created by the
Founders.
Part I.
Part II
RP: End Insanity Of The War on Drugs—Start With Decriminalizing Marijuana at The Federal Level
Congressman Paul wrote a op-ed for CNBC
End Insanity Of The War on Drugs—Start With
http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267220/
End Insanity Of The War on Drugs—Start With
Decriminalizing Marijuana at The Federal Level
http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267220/
Monday, April 19, 2010
End the Mandate- Essay by Ron Paul
Last week I introduced a very important piece of legislation that I hope will gain as much or more support as my Audit the Fed bill. HR 4995, the End the Mandate Act will repeal provisions of the newly passed health insurance reform bill that give the government the power to force Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance.
The whole bill is rotten, but this provision especially is a blatant violation of the Constitution. Defenders claim the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate “interstate commerce” gives it the power to do this. However, as Judge Andrew Napolitano and other distinguished legal scholars and commentators have pointed out, even the broadest definition of “regulating interstate commerce” cannot reasonably encompass forcing Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing health insurance. Not only is it unconstitutional; it is a violation of the basic freedom to make our own decisions regarding how best to meet the health care needs of ourselves and our families.
The new law requires Americans to have what is defined as “minimum essential coverage.” Some people may claim that the requirement to have “minimal essential coverage” does not impose an unreasonable burden on Americans. There are two problems with this claim. First, the very imposition of a health insurance mandate, no matter how “minimal,” violates the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded.
Second, the mandate is unlikely to remain “minimal” for long. The experience of states that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes it more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely respond by increasing subsidies for more and more Americans, adding astronomically to our debt burden. An insurance mandate undermines the entire principle of what insurance is supposed to measure – risk.
Another likely response to rising costs is the imposition of price controls on medical treatments, and limits on what procedures and treatments mandatory insurance will have to reimburse. This is happening in other countries where government is intrinsically involved in these decisions and people suffer and die because of it.
This will only increase the bottom line of the very insurers the legislation was supposed to control. Meanwhile, alternate methods of healthcare delivery and financing, such as concierge doctors, alternative medicine, or physician owned hospitals will be greatly harmed, if not put out of business altogether, when the entire country is forced into the insurance model. It will be difficult for families to come up with extra money to pay for alternate healthcare of their choice when their budget has been squeezed by this mandate to buy insurance. This will in turn reduce competition for healthcare dollars. Health insurers, like many other corporations in other industries, have now used the legislative process anti-competitively to corner the healthcare market. Instead of calling this socialized medicine, we should call it corporatized medicine, since the reform is to force us all into being customers of these corporations, whether we like it or not.
Congress made a grave error by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance. The mandate violates fundamental principles of individual liberty, and will lead to further government involvement in health care. It is time for legislation that fights back for the freedom of the people on this issue. It is time to End the Mandate.
The whole bill is rotten, but this provision especially is a blatant violation of the Constitution. Defenders claim the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate “interstate commerce” gives it the power to do this. However, as Judge Andrew Napolitano and other distinguished legal scholars and commentators have pointed out, even the broadest definition of “regulating interstate commerce” cannot reasonably encompass forcing Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing health insurance. Not only is it unconstitutional; it is a violation of the basic freedom to make our own decisions regarding how best to meet the health care needs of ourselves and our families.
The new law requires Americans to have what is defined as “minimum essential coverage.” Some people may claim that the requirement to have “minimal essential coverage” does not impose an unreasonable burden on Americans. There are two problems with this claim. First, the very imposition of a health insurance mandate, no matter how “minimal,” violates the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded.
Second, the mandate is unlikely to remain “minimal” for long. The experience of states that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes it more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely respond by increasing subsidies for more and more Americans, adding astronomically to our debt burden. An insurance mandate undermines the entire principle of what insurance is supposed to measure – risk.
Another likely response to rising costs is the imposition of price controls on medical treatments, and limits on what procedures and treatments mandatory insurance will have to reimburse. This is happening in other countries where government is intrinsically involved in these decisions and people suffer and die because of it.
This will only increase the bottom line of the very insurers the legislation was supposed to control. Meanwhile, alternate methods of healthcare delivery and financing, such as concierge doctors, alternative medicine, or physician owned hospitals will be greatly harmed, if not put out of business altogether, when the entire country is forced into the insurance model. It will be difficult for families to come up with extra money to pay for alternate healthcare of their choice when their budget has been squeezed by this mandate to buy insurance. This will in turn reduce competition for healthcare dollars. Health insurers, like many other corporations in other industries, have now used the legislative process anti-competitively to corner the healthcare market. Instead of calling this socialized medicine, we should call it corporatized medicine, since the reform is to force us all into being customers of these corporations, whether we like it or not.
Congress made a grave error by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance. The mandate violates fundamental principles of individual liberty, and will lead to further government involvement in health care. It is time for legislation that fights back for the freedom of the people on this issue. It is time to End the Mandate.
Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul Spar Over 9/11 in Kentucky
The Atlantic Reports:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/rudy-giuliani-ron-paul-spar-over-9-11-in-kentucky/39174/
NPR Reports:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/04/19/126113730/giuliani-backs-grayson-in-kentucky--ron-paul-says-it-s-a-carryover-from-2008
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/rudy-giuliani-ron-paul-spar-over-9-11-in-kentucky/39174/
NPR Reports:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/04/19/126113730/giuliani-backs-grayson-in-kentucky--ron-paul-says-it-s-a-carryover-from-2008
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Ron Paul; Substance and values you can trust in The Constitution and the principals of Liberty
"Who is Ron Paul?.... Substance and values you can trust in The Constitution and the principals of Liberty".
Greg Chamberlain
Greg Chamberlain
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Ron Paul's Consistent Argument for Limited Government
On Thursday, Congressman Paul appeared on MSNBC to discuss the tea parties, deficits, inflation, and the role of government.
Ron Paul vs Ben Bernanke at JEC Hearing 4/14/10
Congressman Paul questions Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke at a Joint Economic Committee hearing.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Ron Paul on Fox Business about Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Poll: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%
Posted by Greg Chamberlain
Rasmussen Reports conducted a 2012 Presidential Election Poll based on if the election were held today and found Barack Obama would earn 42% or the votes and Ron Paul would earn 41%. Please see http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41
Ron Paul was on Fox News to discuss the poll, corporatism, and his limited government message.
Rasmussen Reports conducted a 2012 Presidential Election Poll based on if the election were held today and found Barack Obama would earn 42% or the votes and Ron Paul would earn 41%. Please see http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41
Ron Paul was on Fox News to discuss the poll, corporatism, and his limited government message.
Congressman Paul introduces End the Mandate Act known as H.R. 4995
Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the End the Mandate Act. This legislation repeals the sections of the recently-passed health reform bill that force all Americans to purchase federally-approved health insurance plans.
Forcing every American to obtain health insurance is a blatant violation of the Constitution. Defenders of this provision claim the Congress's constitutional authority to regulate "interstate commerce" gives Congress the power to mandate every American obtain a federally-approved health insurance plan. However, as Judge Andrew Napolitano and other distinguished legal scholars and commentators have pointed out, even the broadest definition of "regulating interstate commerce" cannot reasonably encompass forcing Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing health insurance.
Forcing every American to obtain a congressionally-approved health insurance plan is not just unconstitutional; it is a violation of the basic freedom to make our own decisions regarding how best to meet the health care needs of ourselves and our families.
Madam Speaker, the new law requires Americans to have what is defined as "minimum essential coverage." Some people may claim that the requirement to have "minimal essential coverage" does not impose an unreasonable burden on Americans. There are two problems with this claim.
First, the very imposition of a health insurance mandate, no matter how "minimal," violates the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded.
Second, the mandate is unlikely to remain "minimal" for long. The experience of states that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes health insurance more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely respond by increasingly subsidizing health insurance for an ever increasing number of Americans.
When the cost of government-mandated insurance proves to be an unsustainable burden on individuals, small employers, and the government, Congress will likely impose price controls on medical treatments, and even go so far as to limit what procedures and treatments mandatory insurance will reimburse.
Madam Speaker, Congress made a grave error by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance. The mandate violates fundamental principles of individual liberty, and will lead to further government involvement in health care. I therefore ask all of my colleagues to join me in correcting this mistake by cosponsoring the End the Mandate Act.
Monday, April 12, 2010
The FCIC: Passing the Buck - Essay by Ron Paul
Last week the federal government’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission held hearings as part of their continuing investigation into the causes of the acute economic meltdown which occurred in late summer 2008. This bipartisan commission, partly inspired by the Pecora Commission- which investigated the causes of the Great Depression- is expected to report back to Congress before the end of the year.
Things don’t seem to be going well. The individuals questioned by the commission mostly seem to be diverting blame for the whole fiasco to someone else. Nobody is offering any tangible insights into the causes of the financial crisis.
Predictably, the commission will avoid calling any witnesses who might unequivocally indict the federal government for its role in the crisis, or suggest solutions which take away government power. Government commissions have a remarkable tendency to recommend granting even more power to the same useless government agencies that so utterly fail to prevent crises in the first place. We saw this with the Pecora Commission, we saw it after 9-11, and we’re seeing it again today with regard to financial regulations. For example, this latest commission almost certainly will suggest granting more power to the SEC, when in fact the SEC should be abolished as an embarrassing farce. Rest assured that this recommendation will be made without apology or sense of irony.
The reality is that the Federal Reserve relentlessly expanded the money supply through artificially low interest rates for over two decades, and this expansion of easy money caused a wholly predictable bubble. To a myopic Keynesian regulator, the bubble may appear to be caused by greed, but in truth it is completely predictable that humans will act in their own perceived self interest. If the Fed wants to dole out artificially cheap money, people and businesses- including Wall Street businesses- will line up to take it. We can condemn this as greed, but the fundamental problem is Fed policy itself. There will always be demand for cheap money, but we should not allow the Fed to debase our currency and create bubbles of false prosperity to satisfy that demand.
What the commission really needs are experts who understand free market economics rather than big government Keynesian fantasies. The commission has none of these, and has called no true free market witnesses. That perspective would only distract from their predetermined goals.
The commission will bemoan the complexity and inscrutability of our economic problems, but the solution is simple: allow freedom to operate in our markets. Allow U.S. financial, labor, and housing markets to normalize without political interference. Though solution is simple, and rather obvious, it would not be easy or painless, but we’d be so much better off for it in the long run. It would require admitting fiat money is a tangled web of monetary deception prone to catastrophic failure. It would require allowing Americans to choose a system of sound money, where the money supply and interest rates are set by market forces rather than centralized economic planners. Unfortunately, fiat money is like a drug to a Congress hopelessly addicted to spending vastly more than the Treasury collects in revenues. Because of this, our problems can only get worse and more complex before they get better.
Things don’t seem to be going well. The individuals questioned by the commission mostly seem to be diverting blame for the whole fiasco to someone else. Nobody is offering any tangible insights into the causes of the financial crisis.
Predictably, the commission will avoid calling any witnesses who might unequivocally indict the federal government for its role in the crisis, or suggest solutions which take away government power. Government commissions have a remarkable tendency to recommend granting even more power to the same useless government agencies that so utterly fail to prevent crises in the first place. We saw this with the Pecora Commission, we saw it after 9-11, and we’re seeing it again today with regard to financial regulations. For example, this latest commission almost certainly will suggest granting more power to the SEC, when in fact the SEC should be abolished as an embarrassing farce. Rest assured that this recommendation will be made without apology or sense of irony.
The reality is that the Federal Reserve relentlessly expanded the money supply through artificially low interest rates for over two decades, and this expansion of easy money caused a wholly predictable bubble. To a myopic Keynesian regulator, the bubble may appear to be caused by greed, but in truth it is completely predictable that humans will act in their own perceived self interest. If the Fed wants to dole out artificially cheap money, people and businesses- including Wall Street businesses- will line up to take it. We can condemn this as greed, but the fundamental problem is Fed policy itself. There will always be demand for cheap money, but we should not allow the Fed to debase our currency and create bubbles of false prosperity to satisfy that demand.
What the commission really needs are experts who understand free market economics rather than big government Keynesian fantasies. The commission has none of these, and has called no true free market witnesses. That perspective would only distract from their predetermined goals.
The commission will bemoan the complexity and inscrutability of our economic problems, but the solution is simple: allow freedom to operate in our markets. Allow U.S. financial, labor, and housing markets to normalize without political interference. Though solution is simple, and rather obvious, it would not be easy or painless, but we’d be so much better off for it in the long run. It would require admitting fiat money is a tangled web of monetary deception prone to catastrophic failure. It would require allowing Americans to choose a system of sound money, where the money supply and interest rates are set by market forces rather than centralized economic planners. Unfortunately, fiat money is like a drug to a Congress hopelessly addicted to spending vastly more than the Treasury collects in revenues. Because of this, our problems can only get worse and more complex before they get better.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Ron Paul on Larry King with Jesse Ventura as Guest Host
Larry King took a night off and had former Navy Seal and Minnesota governor, Jesse Ventura, host the show. Ventura is a quintessential "say it like it is" leader in politics and media. His experience as a trained killer for the Government gives him a level of credibility that is unmatched when it comes to U.S. wars, declared and undeclared, around the world.
Jesse probably had no control over having share the hour with political lightweights Stephanie Miller, a comedian/radio personality and Andrea Tantaros, a GOP consultant and newspaper contributor. Both women sounded to me like marketing tools for the political establishment. But, to make up for the fluff, Jesse had Ron Paul on, who took the show into directions of substance rarely talked about for more than just a soundbite.
Rounding out the show with a taste of someone who is part of the slimy reality of politics was former Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich. He taintedly resigned amid a payola scandal for Obama's Senate Seat, but spiced up the Jesse's hour slightly.
This particular hour of Larry King is what I wish TV News was more like more often. I know Jesse hosts the TV show called Conspiracy Theory, but Jesse should have his own show like Larry King and talk about issues of real substance, much more.
Regards,
Greg Chamberlain
Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3.
Part 4.
Part 5.
Jesse probably had no control over having share the hour with political lightweights Stephanie Miller, a comedian/radio personality and Andrea Tantaros, a GOP consultant and newspaper contributor. Both women sounded to me like marketing tools for the political establishment. But, to make up for the fluff, Jesse had Ron Paul on, who took the show into directions of substance rarely talked about for more than just a soundbite.
Rounding out the show with a taste of someone who is part of the slimy reality of politics was former Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich. He taintedly resigned amid a payola scandal for Obama's Senate Seat, but spiced up the Jesse's hour slightly.
This particular hour of Larry King is what I wish TV News was more like more often. I know Jesse hosts the TV show called Conspiracy Theory, but Jesse should have his own show like Larry King and talk about issues of real substance, much more.
Regards,
Greg Chamberlain
Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3.
Part 4.
Part 5.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Congressional budget office: Fiscal policy is 'unsustainable'
This story from The Hill resonates with anybody who has been listening to Ron Paul for any amount of time. Please pass this along to those who are skeptical of Congressman Paul's predictions based upon the Austrian School of Economics theory.
Regards,
Greg Chamberlain
----------------
Excerpt From The Hill
Fundamental changes to the federal budget will be needed to rein in unsustainable deficits, Congress’s budget watchdog said Thursday.
“U.S. fiscal policy is unsustainable, and unsustainable to an extent that it can't be solved through minor changes,” Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast.
Spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, plus defense programs and debt interest, will exceed the rest of the federal budget in 10 years if most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended, as President Barack Obama has proposed, Elmendorf said.
“It's a matter of arithmetic,” Elmendorf said of getting record deficits under control.
“Government would need to make changes in some set of the large programs, large parts of the tax code that we think of as the fundamental parts of the budget.”
Elmendorf's remarks come a day after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke also called on policymakers to put in place a plan to reduce deficits.
“Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth,” Bernanke said in a speech Wednesday.
The CBO projects that Obama's policies would produce deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion for the next decade.
For the entire story, go to: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/91161-congressional-budget-office-fiscal-policy-is-unsustainable
Regards,
Greg Chamberlain
----------------
Excerpt From The Hill
Fundamental changes to the federal budget will be needed to rein in unsustainable deficits, Congress’s budget watchdog said Thursday.
“U.S. fiscal policy is unsustainable, and unsustainable to an extent that it can't be solved through minor changes,” Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast.
Spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, plus defense programs and debt interest, will exceed the rest of the federal budget in 10 years if most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended, as President Barack Obama has proposed, Elmendorf said.
“It's a matter of arithmetic,” Elmendorf said of getting record deficits under control.
“Government would need to make changes in some set of the large programs, large parts of the tax code that we think of as the fundamental parts of the budget.”
Elmendorf's remarks come a day after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke also called on policymakers to put in place a plan to reduce deficits.
“Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth,” Bernanke said in a speech Wednesday.
The CBO projects that Obama's policies would produce deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion for the next decade.
For the entire story, go to: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/91161-congressional-budget-office-fiscal-policy-is-unsustainable
Citing Ron Paul as his political role model, 19 year old Romaine Quinn voted in as town mayor.
RICE LAKE, Wis.
A young man wearing a Hollister T-shirt, shorts and sandals picked up election signs Wednesday in Rice Lake, Wis. The 19-year-old wasn't a campaign volunteer. Romaine Quinn is the new mayor.
Quinn, who served one year on the Rice Lake City Council before being elected mayor on Tuesday, said, "Age, I don't think, necessarily makes a difference, I mean, it's about the issues."
Judging by the talk at Maxine's restaurant, he might be right.
"Apparently, a lot of people wanted change," said 78-year-old Del Hanson, who voted for Quinn.
For the rest of the story, go to:
http://wcco.com/local/19.year.old.2.1620097.html
A young man wearing a Hollister T-shirt, shorts and sandals picked up election signs Wednesday in Rice Lake, Wis. The 19-year-old wasn't a campaign volunteer. Romaine Quinn is the new mayor.
Quinn, who served one year on the Rice Lake City Council before being elected mayor on Tuesday, said, "Age, I don't think, necessarily makes a difference, I mean, it's about the issues."
Judging by the talk at Maxine's restaurant, he might be right.
"Apparently, a lot of people wanted change," said 78-year-old Del Hanson, who voted for Quinn.
For the rest of the story, go to:
http://wcco.com/local/19.year.old.2.1620097.html
Monday, April 5, 2010
Government and Gasoline - Essay by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul
April 5, 2010
by Ron Paul
As we head into the summer driving season and gasoline prices are again creeping up, the administration has announced plans to explore opening up more off-shore areas for exploration and drilling. On the one hand this can be lauded as a positive step. On the other hand, it is too little, much too late to have any meaningful or long-term effect on what Americans pay at the pump any time soon, if at all.
Indeed, if increasing domestic energy production was really a priority, the administration would direct the EPA to remove its many roadblocks and barriers to energy production. In fact, abolishing the EPA altogether would do much to improve our country's economy. Instead of protecting the environment as they are supposed to do, most of what they do simply chills the economy. Polluters should be directly liable in court to any and all parties they harm, rather than bureaucrats at the EPA.
Of course, last week's announcement was couched in terms of removing barriers and red tape. However, the fact that we had these barriers in the first place is yet another reminder of how the energy market is hampered and controlled by bureaucrats and central planners in Washington, rather than the demands of the people and the decisions of private investors.
Consider how extremely negative our government's reaction has been to other governments around the world that have nationalized their oil and energy industries, such as Venezuela and Iran. We deposed a democratically elected leader in Iran in 1953 for this very reason. Yet the level of involvement of our government and bureaucrats in energy is nearly absolute. Of course, the only thing worse than our government dictating energy decisions to its own citizens is our government dictating energy decisions to the citizens of other countries.
Along with the waste of prohibitions that leave our own natural resources untapped is the waste our government perpetrates with subsidies to alternative fuel sources. There is certainly profit to be made in perfecting cheaper, cleaner fuel sources, but government subsidy programs interfere with finding realistic long-term solutions. Subsidies divert resources towards certain politically-favored fuel types while ignoring others. If the market were left alone, private investors would put their own capital into the most promising alternative fuels. Instead, due to government incentives, resources are concentrated into politically chosen endeavors that could very well end up being dead ends. Meanwhile, precious time and money is wasted.
The government has the opposite of the Midas touch. This has been observed over and over by the reduced quality and rising prices in every private industry in which it entangles itself. Yet somehow people still seem willing, even eager, to relinquish to government control the most important and sensitive portions of our economy and society. Education, healthcare, and energy are all unfortunate examples of industries that are in my opinion, far too important to be left to government control when it is the market that has the golden touch.
by Ron Paul
As we head into the summer driving season and gasoline prices are again creeping up, the administration has announced plans to explore opening up more off-shore areas for exploration and drilling. On the one hand this can be lauded as a positive step. On the other hand, it is too little, much too late to have any meaningful or long-term effect on what Americans pay at the pump any time soon, if at all.
Indeed, if increasing domestic energy production was really a priority, the administration would direct the EPA to remove its many roadblocks and barriers to energy production. In fact, abolishing the EPA altogether would do much to improve our country's economy. Instead of protecting the environment as they are supposed to do, most of what they do simply chills the economy. Polluters should be directly liable in court to any and all parties they harm, rather than bureaucrats at the EPA.
Of course, last week's announcement was couched in terms of removing barriers and red tape. However, the fact that we had these barriers in the first place is yet another reminder of how the energy market is hampered and controlled by bureaucrats and central planners in Washington, rather than the demands of the people and the decisions of private investors.
Consider how extremely negative our government's reaction has been to other governments around the world that have nationalized their oil and energy industries, such as Venezuela and Iran. We deposed a democratically elected leader in Iran in 1953 for this very reason. Yet the level of involvement of our government and bureaucrats in energy is nearly absolute. Of course, the only thing worse than our government dictating energy decisions to its own citizens is our government dictating energy decisions to the citizens of other countries.
Along with the waste of prohibitions that leave our own natural resources untapped is the waste our government perpetrates with subsidies to alternative fuel sources. There is certainly profit to be made in perfecting cheaper, cleaner fuel sources, but government subsidy programs interfere with finding realistic long-term solutions. Subsidies divert resources towards certain politically-favored fuel types while ignoring others. If the market were left alone, private investors would put their own capital into the most promising alternative fuels. Instead, due to government incentives, resources are concentrated into politically chosen endeavors that could very well end up being dead ends. Meanwhile, precious time and money is wasted.
The government has the opposite of the Midas touch. This has been observed over and over by the reduced quality and rising prices in every private industry in which it entangles itself. Yet somehow people still seem willing, even eager, to relinquish to government control the most important and sensitive portions of our economy and society. Education, healthcare, and energy are all unfortunate examples of industries that are in my opinion, far too important to be left to government control when it is the market that has the golden touch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)