Archive for the ‘Economic’ Category
As is common throughout history, when economic woes beset a people and policy makers are aloof to reality, it becomes pertinent to blame the foreigner for the ills of a self-inflicted wound. Such is the case today in the United States with a public debt surging past 16
trillion dollars, 1.5 trillion dollar yearly deficits, QE1, QE2, Operation Twist, and financial/environmental regulations that are equivalent to committing economic suicide. It concomitantly becomes apparent to federal policy makers to perfect the foul Keynesian economic soup with a dash of trade war hypocrisy.
As of late the artificial devaluation of the Chinese yuan has become the scapegoat of the brainiacs in Washington. They argue that renminbi is devalued by at least 30%, and this devaluation is driving the Chinese export machine as a form of protectionism. This development is also to blame for our rather lopsided balance-of-trade. George Mason’s Dr. Walter E. Williams illuminates the latter charge far better than I, here.
So who are these leaders of the charge against China’s unfair advantage. Why it’s the American version of Cobden and Bright, Senators Charles Schumer and Sherrod Brown, both of whom have been harsh critics of unfair price manipulation. Except when it has to do with domestic tires, or steel. So senators like Schumer and Brown aren’t necessarily opposed to artificial price levels, just those that benefit foreigners at our expense; however, they are in favor of tariffs that benefit select American producers at the expense of all American consumers.
Tyler Brown is a graduate student in History from Poplar Bluff, Missouri. He is a member of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty and a contributor to UMFreedom.com.
I recently stumbled onto an interesting site. MyGovCost.org takes an estimated projection of the growth of government expenditures and the information you give them about yourself to estimate the amount of taxes that you will be paying in the future.
It tells you the total amount of your estimated tax payments over the course of your life. It also breaks this number down into government programs such as Social Security, Defense, Welfare, etc. On top of that, it gives you an estimation of what you could have made had you been allowed to invest your tax dollars into the private market over the same time period.
I recommend checking the site out. It makes the true cost of government hit home pretty hard. Let us know what you think!
Democrats have just provided us with the largest expansion of the welfare state since Republicans did the same under George W Bush. But why, exactly, is Obamacare so atrocious?
For one, it represents a transfer of wealth. The many are taxed to pay for health insurance premiums for the few. Thirty-five million people (and Big Insurance) will enjoy the benefits of the money earned by the over two hundred million who actually worked for it.
The health insurance industry announced its support for Obamacare. Gee, what a surprise. It wants the federal government to create more than 30 million new customers. What a parcel of rogues for a nation!
Read the full article here.
Ron Paul truly walks the walk on fiscal conservatism:
Like him or hate him, Dr. Ron Paul doesn’t just talk a big game about fiscal conservatism, he lives it. In 2008, his congressional office returned $58,000 to the Treasury. In 2009, his office returned $90,000. Now, according to an official press release, Dr. Ron Paul’s congressional office has just paid back $100,000.
Not that $100,000 is going to make a serious dent in our fiscal imbalances, but Paul demonstrates the responsibility our government needs. The article also suggests:
If President Obama claims that he is serious about reigning in the runaway debt, perhaps he should install Dr. Ron Paul as the CEO of the bipartisan deficit commission. It appears he’s the only one in the federal government with the track record to speak with the highest degree of credibility.
By Preston Mui
By: James Robertson
President Obama’s summit on health care reform today marks an unprecedented move by the administration to offer Republicans a final say on proposed health care legislation before it is inevitably forced through a divided Congress. While Obama claims that the summit represents a move by Democrats to “reach out” to Republican opposition and allow them to reconcile their differences with the reforms, the meeting more obviously represents a last-ditch effort on the part of the administration to ensure that their top domestic priority doesn’t die on Capitol Hill. Such a failure would undoubtedly cripple the public’s faith in the current administration and significantly reduce its ability to govern. Of greater importance, though, is not the success of health care reform for the sake of this administration, but the success (or failure) of this summit for the sake of policymaking in the American republic.
The founders established democracy in the America by vesting the main legislative power in a national congress. The bicameral design of the U.S. Congress evolved to ensure equal representation of individuals and states in the policymaking process. Today, the Congress finds itself plagued with a mountain of debt and deeply divided along partisan lines, seemingly incapable of addressing public concerns or accomplishing much of anything at all. While not advertised as such, Obama’s summit represents an executive effort to counter the legislature’s ineptitude by removing the policy discussion from the halls of Congress itself to an executive suite in the Blair House, right across the way from the Oval Office.
This summit carries with it the message of hope that pervaded Obama’s campaign for the presidency; a sentiment that has been called into question recently due to the stalling of health care reform. The President clearly seeks to portray the message that, although the legislature as a whole has proven itself unable to deal with the issue, he is willing to take matters into his own hands and force Congressional leaders from both parties to hammer out a proposal, compromised or otherwise. While this move might appear noble and altruistic on the President’s part, its inherent disregard of Constitutional structure poses some dangerous implications for the future of democracy in America.
The U.S. Constitution establishes Congress in Article 1, then moves on to lay out Executive powers in Article 2. This order was not coincidental. The Founders recognized the danger of an over-powerful executive and, for that reason, gave the Executive few explicit duties and left policymaking to Congress. In Constitutional debates, James Madison was quick to note the dangers of a ruling majority. The presidential veto, the bill of rights, and the senate filibuster rule are just a few safeguards that protect Americans from the tyranny of a malevolent majority. Moving policymaking outside of the Congress and into the realm of the executive ignores this structure, bypassing these protections and perilously endangering liberty.
Many will note that Presidents have long involved themselves in the formulation of American policies. The increasing use of Presidential signing statements most clearly reflects a Presidential attempt at policymaking. These informal declarations have become the President’s way of directing, or in some cases limiting, Congress’ actions. Also, legislators judge Presidential proposals on different merits due to their possible political ramifications. However, removing debate on an issue from the floor of the Congress itself and into an executive conference room adjacent to the White House lawn not only symbolizes more executive interference, but very clearly increases Executive influence over the crafting of domestic policies.
This problem, like most facing America today, could easily be resolved by simply obeying the Constitution. Failure to recognize and abide by Constitutional guidelines led Congress to subsidize and socialize American industries while sustaining a Cold War-era empirical foreign presence, both of which contributed to the current debt of astronomical proportions. Exceeding their Constitutional boundaries allowed Congress to act in ways that immediately benefited many Americans and bought them some good will in the short run. Ultimately, though, by ignoring their Constitutional mandate, Congress damaged this brilliant structure of American government and led us to the broken system we have today. The answer to this problem lies not in an Executive takeover of the legislature, but rather in a return to the rule of law and a government that acts within the limited structure set forth by the Constitution.
Check out this great rap explaining the pitfalls of Keynesian economics from the Austrian perspective.
There are not too many topics that Americans seem to shy away from politically. Unfortunately, however, one of those topics we don’t like to talk about just happens to be the most important. The monetary system in this country receives absolutely no airtime on the major media networks. There is no debate about monetary creation during the presidential races. And, amazingly, most Americans don’t even know where their money comes from and how it receives its value. This is a trend that truly needs to change before America will be able to break the horrid boom and bust cycle of our economy.