Quote of the Day: “Today’s political candidates are proposing a new fiscal spending stimulus, when what we really need is a “deregulatory stimulus.” We need to roll back the regulatory state and free up the wealth-creating sector. We cannot afford today’s bull market in government regulations.” — Clyde Wayne Crews & Ryan Young
Subject: They could do this instead
The Big Three automakers came to Washington last week, begging for $25 billion in loans.
The Detroit automakers can’t say why they need so much, how they would spend it, or that they won’t be back again, asking for more. After the bungled handling of the banking bailout many lawmakers are reluctant to give the automakers what they want. As of now, there’s no deal, but the danger hasn’t passed.
Proponents of a bailout argue that without it the money will instead be spent on unemployment checks and income tax losses when one or more of the Detroit 3 file for reorganization under the bankruptcy laws. So why not just go ahead and do the bailout?
We need to push our own counter-arguments. Let’s start with a few startling facts . . .
Some companies spend millions trying to find tax loopholes. This is money that could go to create products, services, and jobs. In 2008, the combined cost of corporate taxes and tax compliance is likely to be about half a trillion dollars.
Lew Rockwell sat down with Peter Schiff yesterday to discuss our current financial mess. They first talk about the current “deflation” and how it will lead to inflation at some point. Schiff goes on to explain what he sees for us in the coming years. Surprise! His outlook is far from good.
Walter E. Williams, one of Liberty Maven’s Liberty Heroes, has a new column in his “A minority View” series, called Evil Concealed by Money, in which he illustrates the inherent “evil” with the tenants of Socialism:
Imagine there’s an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here’s my question to you that I’m almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady’s lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I’m hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.
Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow’s lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I’d say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate’s mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.
Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.
This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one’s fellow man. Helping one’s fellow man in need, by reaching into one’s own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another’s pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.
In Ron Paul’s latest video released on his Congressional site he talks about his questioning of Bernanke yesterday. The video is a bit of a scholastic lecture on our fiat money system. During it, he claims, more than once, that our financial system has collapsed.
Yesterday, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson published an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times. It was filled with doublespeak, platitudes, lies, and incredible ignorance. Chris Martenson parsed Paulson’s words, paragraph by paragraph, to shed some truth of the situation. Here’s a snippet:
[Paulson writes:]
I have always said that the decline in the housing market is at the root of the economic downturn and our financial market stress. And the economy, as it slows further, threatens to prolong this decline, as well as the stress on our financial institutions and financial markets.
My Comment: Um, no, Hank, sorry, this is not true. Here are some recent quotes from you:
April 20, 2007 — “I don’t see (subprime mortgage market troubles) imposing a serious problem. I think it’s going to be largely contained.”
July 26, 2007 — “I don’t think it [the subprime mess] poses any threat to the overall economy.”
This article by Chris Martenson is quite revealing, even entertaining (if you’re into black comedy). Read the whole thing here.
Ron Paul appeared today on CNN in the time slot usually reserved for Glenn Beck, but Beck is off to FOX News now. His replacement Jane Velez-Mitchell is mostly right with her views, but after listening to her you may need a few ibuprofen.
They discuss the auto bailout and bailouts in general. Neither Velez-Mitchell nor Paul think this auto bailout is necessary, of course. Paul seems to hint around that he doesn’t necessarily believe the auto bailout bill is as “dead” as many are making it out to be.
Quote of the Day: “The practice of combining into one Bill Subjects diverse in their nature and having no necessary connection, thereby to secure the passage of several measures, no one of which could succeed on its own merits, both corrupts Congress and endangers the American constitutional republic.” — One Subject At A Time Act, Section 2(f)
Subject: OSTA would prevent monstrosities like the Big Bailout bill
What does that have to do with “rescuing the economy?” Nothing.
The bailout bill was stuffed with unrelated provisions to win the votes of pork-minded Congresspeople, and passed quickly before anyone could read it. This made it easy to add provisions that couldn’t have passed by themselves in the full light of day.
The original bailout bill was bad. The final bill was worse. This wouldn’t have happened had the “One Subject At A Time Act” (OSTA) been in force. Here are three examples of how OSTA would have stopped the Big Bailout bill . . .
OSTA says: “No Bill or Joint Resolution shall embrace more than one subject at a time, and that shall be clearly and descriptively expressed in the Title.”
The Big Bailout bill had at least 5 “subjects,” and not all of them were mentioned in the bill’s title.
OSTA says: “An Appropriations Bill shall not contain any general legislation or change of existing law provision, the subject of which is not germane to the subject matter of each such Appropriations Bill…”
Quote of the Day: “The Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.” — Joseph Sobran
Subject: Should you pay autoworkers to do nothing?
If the history of the current era is ever written properly it may be called “The Age of the Government Sponsored Scam.” The examples are piling up. Here’s the latest . . .
Think of what this will mean if the politicians pass a bill to bailout GM, or Chrysler, or Ford. When you go to work you’ll be laboring part of the day to pay some members of the United Auto Workers union to sit and produce nothing.
Doesn’t that sound like a scam to you, and wouldn’t a bailout represent government sponsorship of this scam?
Do you think, perhaps, the Detroit automakers might not need a bailout if they didn’t sign such stupid contracts with the UAW union?
Do you think, perhaps, that the Democrats may ignore this problem unless they hear outrage about it from their constituents?
If you have Democratic representatives you may want to ponder whether they represent the unions, or you. Shouldn’t you ask them where their loyalties lie?
Or, if you have Republican representatives, do you think they might make an issue of this if you inform them of it?
Given the direction the political winds are blowing, with world leaders meeting to determine how best to further intervene into the world’s monetary and economic system, the odds of returning to the stable days of the Gold Standard seems infinitesimal at best. At the Christian Science Monitor, an op-ed titled Forget Bretton Woods II – we need a gold standard, editorialist Walker Todd says that absent the “integrity and restraint a gold standard provides” our country may be headed straight for hyperinflation. Using Weimar, Germany as an extreme example, he illustrated how desperate conditions could get:
Weimar Germany experienced one of the greatest inflations in modern history in 1922 and 1923. Eventually, the official exchange rate reached 4.2 trillion marks per dollar. Some Germans heated their homes by burning cash, since it was cheaper than buying wood. The inflation finally was tamed by government bonds promising repayment in gold, backed by land taxes also payable in gold.
And photographs from the situation in Zimbabwe illustrate clearly what could happen. Here’s a man going out to lunch: Read More »
Quote of the Day: “In the long run men hit only what they aim at.” — Henry David Thoreau
Subject: How to cure political loneliness
* How many Americans want smaller government?
* How many Americans would support the “Read the Bills Act” and the “One Subject at a Time Act,” if they were introduced to them?
In today’s Dispatch we’ll answer the first question, and explain how we can use $50,000 in pledges made by two generous donors to answer the second question. We’ll also tell you how you can see and receive our new “I Am Not Afraid” t-shirt.
We start by tipping our hat to David Boaz at the Cato Institute for constantly calling attention to the kind of data we’re going to share below, and to Ramesh Ponnuru for providing a good recent summary of this information.
CBS pollsters have been asking the following question for decades, “Would you say you favor smaller government with fewer services, or larger government with many services?”
From 1996 through Jan. 2001 the smaller-government side had an average lead of a whopping 20 points. This lead has slipped in the current decade, but as of March-April of this year the sides were tied.
For most of the past three decades a majority of Americans (often a vast majority) have favored smaller government. And even now, when the propaganda drumbeat for more government in areas such as health care and the financial system has been extremely loud, the support for smaller government is close to a majority, according to this poll.
Liberty Maven
Walter E. Williams, one of Liberty Maven’s 
