Libertarians for Ron Paul » Big Government
“The dangers inherent in the foreign policy advocated by the neo-conservatives are well known. While many Americans have become increasingly aware of those dangers, far less attention has been focused on the dangers of neo-conservative economic policies. This issue is of critical importance right now, because many are mistakenly pointing their fingers at the free market as the culprit behind our current economic plight.”
“There are only a few in elected office who have any real loyalty to free markets and limited government. The agenda of neo-conservatives in the economy calls for a very active central government. Indeed, while there are some neo-conservatives who continue to use the rhetoric of limited government, and who oppose increases in the federal income tax as a way to maintain the political benefits that apply to those who talk about free markets, it is now the neo-conservatives who promote fiat monetary policies even more than those on the liberal left.”
Rep. Ron Paul warns us @ http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003449.html
Tuesday, July 29, 2008: Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies:
“The new budget estimates show that federal spending will top $3.13 trillion in 2009, up 68 percent from $1.86 trillion when the current president came to office in 2001. That increase is enormous — indeed it is more than twice the 32 percent increase under eight years of President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The deficit is expected to rise to a record $482 billion next year and then decline and magically disappear by 2012, based on the usual phony accounting that we have become used to from this White House. However, the deficit can be, and should be, erased by major spending reforms and cuts, and that should be the top domestic priority of the next president.”
Source: http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=ncomments&id=102
“Measuring the growth in the number of activities considered federal crimes is challenging. Ideally, one compares counts of federal crimes taken at different times and employing consistent criteria to determine what constitutes a federal crime. Obtaining comparable data, however, is almost impossible. Nonetheless, a careful survey of laws enacted by Congress does permit reasonable estimation of the number of federal criminal offenses.”
“This report follows from other attempts to count the number of federal criminal offenses or to measure their growth. The most complete count of federal crimes, done by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in the early 1980s, put the number at 3,000. A 1998 report by a task force of the American Bar Association relied on the DOJ figure and other data to measure the growth of federal criminal law but did not itself actually provide a count of federal crimes.[1] In a 2004 Federalist Society monograph building on the DOJ and ABA reports, I counted new federal crimes enacted following the point at which the ABA report finished its data collection at the close of 1996. That report estimates that there were 4,000 federal crimes at the start of 2000.[2] This report updates that total through 2007, finding 452 additional crimes created since 2007, for a total of at least 4,450 federal crimes.[3]”
John S. Baker, Jr has compiled a report for the Heritage Foundation http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm26.cfm
“Early this year, the price of crude oil surpassed its previous inflation-adjusted peak of $103.76 a barrel (a record established in 1980). Since then, the price of crude has been making new record highs on a regular basis. And that’s not all. On June 6th, it surged by $10.58 a barrel – a record one-day move. This was enough to bring the chattering classes out in full force. They produced a great deal of commentary – much of it unfounded – about what was causing oil prices to go through the roof. They were also quick to condemn the traditional bogeyman – the speculators. Not surprisingly, the finance ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized nations focused on oil prices during their recent two-day meeting in Osaka, Japan.”
“Just what is pushing prices skyward? Surprisingly, the G-8 finance ministers failed to mention the US dollar’s role. Every commodity trader knows that all commodities trade off changes in the value of the greenback. When the value of the dollar falls, the nominal dollar prices of internationally traded commodities, like gold, rice, and oil, must increase because more dollars are required to purchase the same quantity of any commodity. Accordingly, a weak dollar should signal higher commodity prices. And it does.”
Steve Hanke of the Cato Institute looks at the oil market http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9490
“Recently Congress sent the latest Farm Bill to the president. The bill features brand new federal programs, expansion of existing subsidies, more food stamps and more foreign food aid. This bill hits the taxpayer hard, while at the same time ensuring food prices will remain elevated. The president vetoed the bill, citing concerns over its costs and subsidies for the wealthy in a time of high food prices and record farm income. Nevertheless, this over-reaching, government-expanding Farm Bill will soon be law.”
“The truth is most farmers simply want honest pay for honest work. However, if the government is providing competing farms with advantages, and one wants to remain a farmer, one must seek a proportional advantage from government. It is a difficult position for the farmer. Some are better at qualifying for taxpayers’ largesse than others as evidenced by the fact that more than 60% of the subsidies go to just 10% of recipients, edging out the small family farm. This entire system is unfair and demoralizing. It disproportionately benefits big agribusiness at the expense of struggling family farms.”
Rep. Ron Paul looks at the latest Farm Subsidy bill http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003368.html
“Barack Obama recently said, “I believe in our ability to perfect this nation.” Clearly there is something the candidate of “change” will not change—the pattern of extravagant presidential rhetoric. Obama is trying to replace a president who vowed to “rid the world of evil”—and of tyranny, too.”
“But then, rhetorical—and related—excesses are inherent in the modern presidency. This is so for reasons brilliantly explored in the year’s most pertinent and sobering public affairs book, “The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power,” by Gene Healy of Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute.”
George Will reviews new Cato book @ http://www.newsweek.com/id/138505
“The Cult of the Presidency” is available @ www.renbook.com for $21.00 plus shipping
“On Sunday Barack Obama urged graduates of Connecticut’s Wesleyan University to devote themselves to “collective service.” This is not an unusual theme for a commencement address. But it was interesting how long he went on discussing various kinds of nonprofit activism without ever mentioning the virtues of commerce or of individual achievement.”…
“Or this year’s Republican nominee. John McCain also denounces “self-indulgence” and insists that Americans serve “a national purpose that is greater than our individual interests.” During a Republican debate at the Reagan Library on May 3, 2007, Sen. McCain derided Mitt Romney’s leadership ability, saying, “I led . . . out of patriotism, not for profit.” Challenged on his statement, Mr. McCain elaborated that Mr. Romney “managed companies, and he bought, and he sold, and sometimes people lost their jobs. That’s the nature of that business.” He could have been channeling Barack Obama.”
David Boaz of the Cato Institute looks at the Presidential hopefuls of the pro-government parties http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9429
“It’s a curious thing in America that each July we celebrate how the founding fathers threw off the shackles of an oppressive monarchy, that we favorably compare our republican system of governance with the world’s tyrants, dictatorships and monarchies (and rightly so)—and yet we then celebrate those American presidents who most behaved like tyrants, monarchs and dictators.”
“Presidents like Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman are regularly put at the top of lists of America’s greatest presidents. This is true when both historians and the American public at large are polled. Yet these are presidents who did everything they could to expand the power of their offices, to extend the sphere of influence of the federal government and to bully through policies that met inconvenient hurdles otherwise known as checks and balances.”
Radley Balko explains why executive authority is the most important issue this November @ http://www.reason.com/news/show/126621.html
“The House passed two bills attempting to rehabilitate the housing and mortgage market this week. There doesn’t seem to be any shortage of criticism and blame for the bad decisions, and rightly so. Lenders and banks do share much of the blame for the overheated market. Lending standards were relaxed, or even abandoned altogether, creating an exaggerated pool of homebuyers that led to ballooning home prices that many, especially real estate investors, expected to continue forever. Now that the bubble has burst, the losses are staggering.”
“However, many in Washington fail to realize it was government intervention that brought on the current economic malaise in the first place. The Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates created the loose, easy credit that ignited a voracious appetite in the banks for borrowers. People made these lending and buying decisions based on market conditions that were wildly manipulated by government. But part of sound financial management should be recognizing untenable or falsified economic conditions and adjusting risk accordingly. Many banks failed to do that and are now looking to taxpayers to pick up the pieces. This is wrong-headed and unfair, but Congress is attempting to do it anyway.”
Full commentary by Congressman Ron Paul http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003342.html
“We need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and pass the farm bill immediately,” Barack Obama declared last November. It was a weird thing to say, since the farm bill, which subsidizes an arbitrarily chosen section of the economy at the expense of taxpayers and consumers in general, is special-interest legislation by definition.
“The latest version, which President Bush has promised to veto, includes tax breaks for racehorse owners, “marketing aid” for fruit and vegetable growers, research funding for organic farmers, enhanced price supports for domestic sugar producers, increased subsidies for dairy farmers, a $170 million earmark for the salmon industry, and billions of dollars in automatic payments and “permanent disaster assistance” for corn, wheat, cotton, rice, and soybean growers. Take that, special interests!”
“Less than a month ago, the Associated Press reported that “it’s not a good year for a farm bill,” what with surging food prices, record farm income, a tight federal budget, and a resistant president unconcerned about getting re-elected. But in the logrolling culture of Washington, the solution to wasteful, unjustified spending is more wasteful, unjustified spending.”
Jacob Sullum takes on welfare for rich farmers @ http://www.reason.com/news/show/126484.html