But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about the unrepentant plundering of the American people. The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith in the credit of the United States being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family’s income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.

In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of cuts that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to cut. It would only take us five years to cut $1 trillion in Washington math just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.

A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply referred to that year’s spending levels, which would hardly do us fear, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever.

We pay 35% more for our military today than we did 10 years ago for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn’t have double the population or double the land area or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.

In Washington terms a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger cut than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.

These remarks were delivered to the Save America Foundation Convention in Tampa, Florida, on Saturday, March 19, 2011.

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens,), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.

“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice?”

These famous words of George Washington’s Farewell Message to America strike us today with remarkable precision and force. Our First President warned us against foreign influence and foreign entanglements — yet Americans have forgotten that message.

We have allowed ourselves to be stationed in military bases all over the world. We have endless entanglements dating back decades. We are in crushing debt in part because of it and seem to be in a state of perpetual war.

As Sun Tzu warned: “There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.”

The security of our nation is threatened by this debt we now owe to foreigners. Our children now face what was warned against in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower:

“We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

This was as he warned us of two dangers to society: control of America by a “military industrial complex” and of public policy being held captive by a “Scientific and technological elite”. He warned

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.”

Yet here we stand.

- a bankrupt America with our children losing political and spiritual heritage to foreign entities.

-subject to the whims of a United Nations Security Council that appears to regard the U.S. Military as its personal ready response police force.

-Captive to a scientific and technological elite that control our domestic and foreign policy agenda.

-a deeply entrenched military industrial complex that is endangering our liberties and our democracy.

- A series of Presidents that have committed to unconstitutional acts of war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and now Libya.

- A Congress that disregards its responsibility to the nation to declare war rarely and soberly — recognizing the deep financial impact on our citizens, dangers to our country and the many losses of liberty by individual Americans that accompany such a declaration.

Our founders established in the very constitution –the bedrock of our country — that only Congress should declare war. But now this is seen as anachronistic, inconvenient and somehow trite.

Well, here is something that our founders knew that our elected leaders have forgotten: Entering into War is supposed to be inconvenient. It is supposed to be difficult. It should require national unity and a solid economic footing. It should consider the actual effect on Americans and the real American interests at stake.

No such declaration will be forthcoming. America fired its first missiles (114) at air defense system in Libya today (3/19/2011) — an act of war at the behest of an unelected, unaccountable council of 15 leaders of mostly foreign governments. People who do not have the consent of the governed in America. Made of many foreign entities who seek an end to America and who are delighting in the continued over-extension of our country — at its continued descent into endless debt as its currency becomes even more worthless. An act of war by an America with an overextended military, currency in danger of collapse. A risky action in a powder-keg of a region that threatens to evolve into the first stop in a new world war.

How can this be stopped? What should we do? Do we wait for our politicians to do the right thing on their own? If so, we will wait a long time.

We are blessed now to live in a time of Miracles. A time when Americans are rising up in the millions to say no to an oversized government with domestic policies that are a danger to their liberties and to the political and spiritual heritage of our children. It is now time for these same millions to recognize that our government over decades has made similar and even more serious errors in its foreign policy.

With the hostile actions of U.S. Military forces today, the President is now required under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to report to Congress within 48 hours of this action. The Congress has 60 days to authorize continued military action.

It is time for the Tea Party and all Americans to tell our Congressman to vote no! No more wars of selection. No more wasted taxpayer dollars on foreign misadventures. No more blood of good American men and women spilled on foreign soil. No more foreign entanglements and call to action by an unelected United Nations that is not accountable to the American people. Talk about a foreign entanglement!

Over the next several days, there is likely to be launched an advocacy campaign among many tea party groups in Florida demanding that congress vote no on authorizing military force. I ask you to go to a website and sign up for an email action alert and be prepared to respond. I ask you to go to FLAlliance.com and register. That is FLALLIANCE.com. Get your members to go there. Get them to call their Congressmen and women and tell them: use all resources at your disposal to stop military action by the U.S. in Libya. Launch similar campaign by your tea party groups around the country and by any group that recognizes this to be an unwise act — a dangerous act for the security of America.

Many of the congressmen and Senators sent to Washington by the Tea Party are engaging in uninformed saber rattling. They are being drawn in by the power circles of Washington. They are being persuaded by foreign powers that we must get further entangled and must expend our treasure and our lives abroad.

It is time for Congress to tell the President to return American Military forces home. Close our foreign bases. End our military action. Grow Strong again America and then we will have true national security and no country or entity will lightly threaten the United States Again. They will remember these words from George Washington’s Farewell Address.

If we remain one People, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or War, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.”

Copyright © 2011 David McKalip

Ron Paul gives:

“Questions to consider:

1.  Do the American people deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

2.  Could a larger question be: how can an Army Private gain access to so much secret material?

3.  Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not our government’s failure to protect classified information?

4.  Are we getting our money’s worth from the $80 billion per year we spend on our intelligence agencies?

5.  Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths; lying us into war, or WikiLeaks’ revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

6.  If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information, that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the First Amendment and the independence of the internet?

7.  Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on WikiLeaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

8.  Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in the time of a declared war—which is treason—and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death, and corruption?

9.  Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it’s wrong?”

Read the full article here.

Ron Paul announces last night (Dec. 8, 2010) on Freedom Watch that Cong. Spencer Bachus has promised him the Chair of the House Sub-Committee on Domestic Monetary Policy.

[phpzonsidebar title="At Amazon Now!" keywords="schiff" num="5" country="US" searchindex="Books" trackingid="commlines-20" sort="relevancerank" id="3"]

Peter Schiff

There has been so much discussion recently about “QE 2″ that you would think the entire financial sector were about to embark on a transatlantic cruise. Unfortunately, they, and we, are not so lucky. In the year 2010, “QE 2″ doesn’t refer to a sumptuous ocean liner, but a second, more extravagant round of “quantitative easing” – stimulus. In the past, this technique was simply called “printing money.” As if the nation has not already suffered enough from the first round, Captain Ben Bernanke and the Fed are determined to compound the damage by hitting us with another monetary juggernaut. Their stated goal is to boost the economy and create jobs. However, since economic growth cannot be achieved by printing money, their QE 2 will sink just as surely as the Titanic.

The intent of QE 2 is to lower interest rates to promote job growth and avoid the apparently growing threat of deflation. But the very idea that the economy is weak because interest rates are too high is laughable. Deflation is the market’s cure for the asset bubbles that have recently burst, so any attempt to avert it will only weaken the economy further.

In fact, one of the reasons the US economy is in such bad shape is that interest rates are already too low. Low rates have encouraged excess borrowing, by both individuals and governments, and discouraged saving, fueling new asset bubbles at the expense of legitimate investment. As a result, the dead weight of debt has simply overloaded our economy, and our creditors are getting nervous. What we need now is to make hard choices, not engage in more easing – to deleverage, not borrow more.

Worse still, by keeping rates too low, the Fed has enabled the US government to grow significantly larger than it otherwise could had its borrowing been restrained by higher rates. Absent these low rates, Washington likely wouldn’t have passed expensive new healthcare and financial regulation reforms; they would be too busy trying to keep the lights on in the Capitol.

For this and other reasons, the bogeyman of deflation is really not a concern at all. It’s not a threat because falling consumer prices could serve as a relief for many suffering from layoffs and pay cuts in the recession. Even if it were a threat, it’s not even likely because so much liquidity has already been created and an infinite amount could still be created at will by the Fed. Consumer prices are already rising across the board, despite a contracting economy, so what’s all this talk about deflation?

The Fed is quick to point to falling real estate prices. But a drop in real estate will no more cause consumer prices to fall than the real estate boom caused them to rise. Real estate prices are too high, and the economy will never truly recover unless they are allowed to fall. It is interesting that when real estate prices were rising, the Fed did not raise rates to bring them down, but now that they are falling, the central bank feels compelled to lower rates to prop them up. If falling real estate prices threaten deflation, why did the Fed not perceive an inflation threat when real estate prices were rising?

My thinking is that, at the end of the day, all this deflation talk is a red herring. The true purpose of QE 2 is to disguise the decreasing ability of the Treasury to finance its debts. As global demand for dollar-denominated debt falls, the Fed is looking for an excuse to pick up the slack. By announcing QE 2, it can monetize government debt without the markets perceiving a funding problem. If the truth were known, a real panic would ensue. So, the Fed pretends buying treasuries is simply part of its master plan to boost the economy, even though, in reality, it is simply acting as the buyer of last resort.

If the Fed really wanted to help the economy, it would raise rates quite dramatically. Instead of preparing for QE 2, it should be unloading the debt it purchased during QE 1. Of course, that is not so easy to do – which is precisely why I was against QE 1 from the beginning. However, even though the exit will be painful, going down with the ship will be even more unpleasant.

Higher interest rates and a commitment from the Fed to refrain from purchasing Treasury debt would force the government to dramatically reduce spending. If we combine less government spending with fewer regulations, reform our tax code in a way that stops punishing savings and investment, stop all government subsidies for real estate so that prices can fall to affordable levels, and allow all insolvent entities to fail, then a real recovery will take hold.

If the Fed refuses to set sail on QE 2, then her loyal passengers might complain, but at least the US will be on solid monetary ground as it tried to rebuild a viable economy. If instead we board QE 2 (and QE 3 and QE 4 thereafter), then we are headed to a sea full of icebergs called interest rate spikes, and all on board will surely drown in a sea of worthless Federal Reserve Notes.

For a more in-depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar, read Peter Schiff’s 2008 bestseller “The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets” and his newest release “Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse.”

[phpzonsidebar title="At Amazon Now!" keywords="ron paul" num="5" country="US" searchindex="Books" trackingid="commlines-20" sort="relevancerank" id="3"]

Of course, America has never enjoyed absolute free-market capitalism: creeping government intrusion and special interest political patronage have existed and increased since our founding.  But America historically has permitted free markets to operate with less government interference than other nations, while showing greater respect for property rights and the rule of law.  Less government, respect for private property, and a relatively stable legal environment allowed America to become the wealthiest nation on earth.

By contrast, the poorest nations almost always demonstrate hostility for free markets, private property, and the rule of law.  Capital formation, entrepreneurship, credit, and wealth accumulation are uniformly discouraged in poor countries.  Private contracts are not reliably enforced, and private property is not secure in the hands of owners.  The predictable result is widespread poverty and misery.

First and foremost, the role of government in business should be limited to resolving contractual disputes.  As long as both parties of a contract enter into the arrangement willingly, without coercion, and with complete and accurate information, they should be expected to live up to their end of the deal.  When a party cannot or will not honor the terms of a contract, it is acceptable for government to provide a court system to resolve disputes in a fair and impartial way.

Government should not dictate the terms of a contract to the parties involved.  However, throughout the 20th century, our government became increasingly comfortable mandating terms that politicians find acceptable without regard to what businesses or their customers might want.   This interference has had a chilling effect on the economy.

For example, government increases labor costs through minimum wage laws, union requirements, healthcare mandates, and various other stipulations that decrease a business’s capacity to hire as many employees as they might otherwise.  And because they can only hire a few, they must reserve those spots only for top candidates.  Thus, a teenager or a handicapped individual may miss out on job opportunities and work experience because of government-created job shortages.  What if someone was willing to work for less than the government-mandated minimum wage, and a business was willing to give them a chance?  Government makes this illegal, and both the business and the worker are worse off for it.

By contrast, business flourishes when government gets out of the way. One example is playing out in the 14th congressional district in Texas. A major multinational company, Caterpillar, is building an assembly facility in Victoria, Texas, rather than in one of the heavily unionized midwest states where it operates other plants.  Texas, as a “right to work” state, offers more manageable labor costs. It also offers a more business-friendly regulatory landscape, and an overall lower tax burden with no corporate income tax.   I am pleased that because of this, the people of Victoria will be rewarded with more job opportunities.

Freedom and a restrained government are what made us an economic power house.  If we keep chasing businesses away with onerous taxes, mandates, and regulations, they will eventually leave.  The best approach to our economic woes that will help the most people is simple: get back to the Constitution and demonstrate respect for free markets, private property, and the rule of law.

This bill (now called the Wall Street Reform Bill, to make Wall Street look like the bad guys and take attention off the Fed) will give the Federal Reserve more power. In other words, they’re going to give the private bankers at the Fed, who caused most of the financial meltdown this country is experiencing, more power to do more damage. Call, FAX, email your Senator now and tell them to vote NO on this bill.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ojbOd4HPVc

Since my 2008 campaign for the presidency I have often been asked, “How would a constitutionalist president go about dismantling the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional republic?” This is a very important question, because without a clear road map and set of priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from big government.

Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help – churches and private charities.

Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.

No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress.

Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright – thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending!

While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution would need the consent of Congress for very large changes in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments, he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch and as commander in chief to take several significant steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing vague “authorization of force” bills that allow the president to send any number of troops to almost any part of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead, Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the president’s requests.

If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin withdrawing troops from other areas of the world. The United States has over 300,000 troops stationed in more than 146 countries. Most if not all of these deployments bear little or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American people. For example, over 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. still maintains troops in Germany.

Domestically, the president can use his authority to set policies and procedures for the federal bureaucracy to restore respect for the Constitution and individual liberty. For example, today manufacturers of dietary supplements are subject to prosecution by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if they make even truthful statements about the health benefits of their products without going through the costly and time-consuming procedures required to gain government approval for their claims. A president can put an end to this simply by ordering the FDA and FTC not to pursue these types of cases unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer’s claims are not true. Similarly, the president could order the bureaucracy to stop prosecuting consumers who wish to sell raw milk across state lines.

A crucial policy that a president could enact to bring speedy improvements to government is ordering the bureaucracy to respect the 10th Amendment and refrain from undermining state laws. We have already seen a little renewed federalism with the current administration’s policy of not prosecuting marijuana users when their use of the drug is consistent with state medical-marijuana laws. A constitutionalist administration would also defer to state laws refusing compliance with the REAL ID act and denying federal authority over interstate gun transactions. None of these actions repeals a federal law; they all simply recognize a state’s primary authority, as protected by the 10th amendment, to set policy in these areas.

In fact, none of the measures I have discussed so far involves repealing any written law. They can be accomplished simply by a president exercising his legitimate authority to set priorities for the executive branch. And another important step he can take toward restoring the balance of powers the Founders intended is repealing unconstitutional executive orders issued by his predecessors.

Executive orders are a useful management tool for the president, who must exercise control over the enormous federal bureaucracy. However, in recent years executive orders have been used by presidents to create new federal laws without the consent of Congress. As President Clinton’s adviser Paul Begala infamously said, “stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool.” No, it is not “pretty cool,” and a conscientious president could go a long way toward getting us back to the Constitution’s division of powers by ordering his counsel or attorney general to comb through recent executive orders so the president can annul those that exceed the authority of his office. If the President believed a particular Executive Order made a valid change in the law, then he should work with Congress to pass legislation making that change.

Only Congress can directly abolish government departments, but the president could use his managerial powers to shrink the federal bureaucracy by refusing to fill vacancies created by retirements or resignations. This would dramatically reduce the number of federal officials wasting our money and taking our liberties. One test to determine if a vacant job needs to be filled is the “essential employees test.” Whenever D.C. has a severe snowstorm, the federal government orders all “non-essential” federal personal to stay home. If someone is classified as non-essential for snow-day purposes, the country can probably survive if that position is not filled when the jobholder quits or retires. A constitutionalist president should make every day in D.C. like a snow day!

A president could also enhance the liberties and security of the American people by ordering federal agencies to stop snooping on citizens when there is no evidence that those who are being spied on have committed a crime. Instead, the president should order agencies to refocus on the legitimate responsibilities of the federal government, such as border security. He should also order the Transportation Security Administration to stop strip-searching grandmothers and putting toddlers on the no-fly list. The way to keep Americans safe is to focus on real threats and ensure that someone whose own father warns U.S. officials he’s a potential terrorist is not allowed to board a Christmas Eve flight to Detroit with a one-way ticket.

Perhaps the most efficient step a president could take to enhance travel security is to remove the federal roadblocks that have frustrated attempts to arm pilots. Congress created provisions to do just that in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, the processes for getting a federal firearms license are extremely cumbersome, and as a result very few pilots have gotten their licenses. A constitutionalist in the Oval Office would want to revise those regulations to make it as easy as possible for pilots to get approval to carry firearms on their planes.

While the president can do a great deal on his own, to really restore the Constitution and cut back on the vast unconstitutional programs that have sunk roots in Washington over 60 years, he will have to work with Congress. The first step in enacting a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget that outlines the priorities of the administration. While it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for the congressional appropriations process. A constitutionalist president’s budget should do the following:

1. Reduce overall federal spending
2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military
3. Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare
4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt
5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states
6. Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

If Congress failed to produce a budget that was balanced and moved the country in a pro-liberty direction, a constitutionalist president should veto the bill. Of course, vetoing the budget risks a government shutdown. But a serious constitutionalist cannot be deterred by cries of “it’s irresponsible to shut down the government!” Instead, he should simply say, “I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America’s freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare state. I am the moderate; those who believe that America can afford this bloated government are the extremists.”

Unconstitutional government spending, after all, is doubly an evil: it not only means picking the taxpayer’s pocket, it also means subverting the system of limited and divided government that the Founders created. Just look at how federal spending has corrupted American education.

Eliminating federal involvement in K–12 education should be among a constitutionalist president’s top domestic priorities. The Constitution makes no provision for federal meddling in education. It is hard to think of a function less suited to a centralized, bureaucratic approach than education. The very idea that a group of legislators and bureaucrats in D.C. can design a curriculum capable of meeting the needs of every American schoolchild is ludicrous. The deteriorating performance of our schools as federal control over the classroom has grown shows the folly of giving Washington more power over American education. President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law claimed it would fix education by making public schools “accountable.” However, supporters of the law failed to realize that making schools more accountable to federal agencies, instead of to parents, was just perpetuating the problem.

In the years since No Child Left Behind was passed, I don’t think I have talked to any parent or teacher who is happy with the law. Therefore, a constitutionalist president looking for ways to improve the lives of children should demand that Congress cut the federal education bureaucracy as a down payment on eventually returning 100 percent of the education dollar to parents.

Traditionally, the battle to reduce the federal role in education has been the toughest one faced by limited-government advocates, as supporters of centralized education have managed to paint constitutionalists as “anti-education.” But who is really anti-education? Those who wish to continue to waste taxpayer money on failed national schemes, or those who want to restore control over education to the local level? When the debate is framed this way, I have no doubt the side of liberty will win. When you think about it, the argument that the federal government needs to control education is incredibly insulting to the American people, for it implies that the people are too stupid or uncaring to educate their children properly. Contrary to those who believe that only the federal government can ensure children’s education, I predict a renaissance in education when parents are put back in charge.

The classroom is not the only place the federal government does not belong. We also need to reverse the nationalization of local police. Federal grants have encouraged the militarization of law enforcement, which has led to great damage to civil liberties. Like education, law enforcement is inherently a local function, and ending programs such as the Byrne Grants is essential not just to reducing federal spending but also to restoring Americans’ rights.

Obviously, a president concerned with restoring constitutional government and fiscal responsibility would need to address the unstable entitlement situation, possibly the one area of government activity even more difficult to address than education. Yet it is simply unfair to continue to force young people to participate in a compulsory retirement program when they could do a much better job of preparing for their own retirements. What is more, the government cannot afford the long-term expenses of entitlements, even if we were to reduce all other unconstitutional foreign and domestic programs.

As I mentioned in the introduction to this article, it would be wrong simply to cut these programs and throw those who are dependent on them “into the streets.” After all, the current recipients of these programs have come to rely on them, and many are in a situation where they cannot provide for themselves without government assistance. The thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities for them because they were misled into depending on a government safety net that has been yanked away from them should trouble all of us. However, the simple fact is that if the government does not stop spending money on welfare and warfare, America may soon face an economic crisis that could lead to people being thrown into the street.

Therefore, a transition away from the existing entitlement scheme is needed. This is why a constitutionalist president should propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government’s obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. This re-routing of spending would allow payroll taxes to be slashed. The eventual goal would be to move to a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs. Americans who do not want to participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after retirement.

Some people raise concerns that talk of transitions is an excuse for indefinitely putting off the end of the welfare state. I understand those concerns, which is why a transition plan must lay out a clear timetable for paying down the debt, eliminating unconstitutional bureaucracies, and setting a firm date for when young people can at last opt out of the entitlement programs.

A final area that should be front and center in a constitutionalist’s agenda is monetary policy. The Founders obviously did not intend for the president to have much influence over the nation’s money – in fact, they never intended any part of the federal government to operate monetary policy as it defined now. However, today a president could play an important role in restoring stability to monetary policy and the value of the dollar. To start, by fighting for serious reductions in spending, a constitutionalist administration would remove one of the major justifications for the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies, the need to monetize government debt.

There are additional steps a pro-freedom president should pursue in his first term to restore sound monetary policy. He should ask Congress to pass two pieces of legislation I have introduced in the 110th Congress. The first is the Audit the Fed bill, which would allow the American people to learn just how the Federal Reserve has been conducting monetary policy. The other is the Free Competition in Currency Act, which repeals legal tender laws and all taxes on gold and silver. This would introduce competition in currency and put a check on the Federal Reserve by ensuring that people have alternatives to government-produced fiat money.

All of these measures will take a lot of work – a lot more than any one person, even the president of the United States, can accomplish by himself. In order to restore the country to the kind of government the Founders meant for us to have, a constitutionalist president would need the support of an active liberty movement. Freedom activists must be ready to pressure wavering legislators to stand up to the special interests and stay the course toward freedom. Thus, when the day comes when someone who shares our beliefs sits in the Oval Office, groups like Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty will still have a vital role to play. No matter how many pro-freedom politicians we elect to office, the only way to guarantee constitutional government is through an educated and activist public devoted to the ideals of the liberty.

For that reason, the work of Young Americans for Liberty in introducing young people to the freedom philosophy and getting them involved in the freedom movement is vital to the future of our country. I thank all the members and supporters of YAL for their dedication to changing the political debate in this country, so that in the not-too-distant future we actually will have a president and a Congress debating the best ways to shrink the welfare-warfare state and restore the republic.

This essay originally appeared in Young American Revolution, the magazine of Young Americans for Liberty.

Peter Schiff

As business owners undercarego the yearly ritual of passing through eye-popping health insurance premium increases to their employees, it’s easy to understand why any attempt at health insurance reform would be met with some degree of hope. Unfortunately, President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress are about to take a very bad system and make it unimaginably worse.

While ramming their new legislation through Congress, the Democrats have taken great pains to point out that they do not intend to “socialize medicine.” But make no mistake, that’s where we’re headed. Even if some naïve centrists believe that their efforts have denied the Left a total victory, the practical implications of the current legislation sow the seeds for complete capitulation.

This first round of reform could be labeled as the ‘neutron bomb’ of the insurance industry: it leaves some of the private apparatus standing, but it irradiates whatever remains of the industry’s market viability.

The bill’s centerpiece is a clause prohibiting insurers from denying coverage based on a pre-existing medical condition. However noble and marketable an idea, this proscription removes the very basis upon which any insurance model operates profitably.

A system of insurance requires that premiums be collected from a pool of low-risk people so that funds are available in case a high-risk event befalls a particular person. In that way, premiums can be low and coverage can be widely available, even if the benefits offered are hypothetically unlimited.

For example, homeowners buy fire insurance even though their houses are very unlikely to burn down. Recognizing that a fire could wipe them out financially, most homeowners endure the cost of coverage even if they never expect to collect. The same model applies to health insurance in a free market.

However, the health care bill removes the need for healthy individuals to carry insurance. Knowing that they could always find coverage if it were eventually needed, people would simply forgo paying expensive premiums while they are healthy, and then sign on when they need it. But insurance companies cannot survive if all of their policyholders are filing claims!

Correctly anticipating this incentive, the Senate bill imposes an annual fine which gradually escalates to $750 for those who fail to buy coverage. So what? I would gladly pay $750 in order to avoid the $8,000 per year I pay now for personal health insurance. Currently, I’m relatively healthy for a 46 year old and I don’t anticipate making a big claim. But if I do, under the new rules I can always get ‘insurance’ after the fact. Heck, if I can stay healthy for the next couple of decades, I’ll save a fortune. Think about how much easier the decision would be if I were 20 years younger! Since most people are capable of figuring this out, the entire insurance industry would collapse under such a system.

There can be no question that $750 annual maximum penalty is a mere placeholder. It is the camel’s nose under the tent. When the non-discrimination provision kicks in, the only way these companies could remain solvent would be for Congress to raise the fine to the point where the penalty is greater than the gain of skipping coverage.

For me, that would have to be roughly $8,000 per year. Introducing such a fine right now would have surely killed the bill. So, the wily wonks in Washington have chosen to move slower, knowing that once the first step is taken, the second becomes inevitable.

However, there is another, more devious possibility. Perhaps our elected officials actually intend to bite the hands that feed them. They could double-cross insurance companies by not raising the fine in five years, thereby forcing the industry into bankruptcy as millions of healthy people opt-out. During the ensuing ‘insurance crisis,’ our courageous leaders could ride to the rescue with a nationalized, single-payer system.

The real tragedy is that the current bill does nothing to restrain the forces that are propelling healthcare costs into the stratosphere, namely: regulatory bans of insurance competition, the out-of-control medical malpractice industry, federal programs and subsidies, and a tax code that favors a third-party payment system – which alienates the patient from the cost of his care.

To consider that many in Washington have the nerve to market this multi-trillion dollar monstrosity as a “deficit reduction bill” is to realize that our representatives have lost all touch with reality. For those keeping score, the government made similarly rosy projections in the mid-1960′s when Medicare was first introduced. The inflation-adjusted cost of that program already exceeds the original estimate by a factor of ten. That’s probably where we are headed this time around.

For a more in-depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar, read Peter Schiff’s 2008 bestseller “The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets” and his newest release “Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse.”

Peter Schiff

As the unemployment rate crossed the double digit barrier for the first time since Michael Jackson learned to moonwalk, President Obama announced that he will convene a “jobs summit” to finally bring the problem under control. Using all the analytic skill that his administration can muster, the President is determined to figure out why so many people are losing their jobs and then formulate a solution. That’s a relief; for a while there, I thought we were in real trouble! In fact, the absolute last thing our economy needs is more federal government interference. If Obama really wants to know what’s behind entrenched joblessness, he should start by looking at the man in the mirror.

Obama is pursuing, with unprecedented vigor, the same policies that have for decades undermined our industrial base and yoked us to an unsustainable consumer/credit driven economy. This doubling down on Washington’s past failures is destroying jobs at an alarming rate. Today we learned that the September trade deficit surged by 18.2%, the largest gain in ten years. Much of the deficit resulted from Americans spending Cash-for-Clunkers stimulus money on imported cars – or “American” cars loaded to the sunroof with imported parts. In exchange for more domestic debt, we have succeeded only in creating foreign jobs.

An article in this week’s New York Times by veteran writer Louis Uchitelle confirmed a fact that I have been alleging for years. Uchitelle pointed out that foreign outsourcing of component manufacturing has led to consistent overstatement of U.S. GDP and productivity. The connection goes a long way to explain why we keep losing jobs even as GDP is apparently expanding.

As our economy becomes less competitive due to higher taxes, burdensome and uncertain regulations, and capital flight, more manufacturing and services will be outsourced to foreign firms. However, the flaw in GDP calculation allows the output of those foreign workers to be included in our domestic tally. Since we count the output but not the worker responsible for it, government statisticians attribute the gains to rising labor productivity. To them, it looks like companies are producing more goods with fewer workers.

The reality is that we are producing less with fewer workers. The added “productivity” comes from higher unemployment and larger trade deficits. This is a toxic formula that will have lethal economic consequences.

Don’t expect the brain trust at the President’s job summit to fret much about these details. That public relations stunt will likely ignore the root cause of the economic imbalances and instead stress the need for government spending on training and education, i.e. more public debt. The unemployed do not need government theatrics, they need actual jobs. But as long as the government props up failed companies, soaks up all available investment capital, discourages savings, punishes employers, and chases capital out of the country, jobs will continue to be lost.

To really fix the unemployment problem, the President must look past his peers in government and academia to understand how jobs are actually created. In the private sector, all individuals have a choice to either work for themselves or someone else. Since labor is far more productive when combined with capital (office equipment, machinery, business models, and intellectual capital), those who lack these assets themselves often choose to work for others who have sacrificed to accumulate them. This increased productivity is shared between the worker and the owner of capital, and both are better off.

However, for one person or company to choose to offer a job to another, there must be an incentive to do so, and they must have the necessary capital. In the first place, employers must commit to paying wages and benefits, comply with government mandates and regulations, and subject themselves to potential lawsuits from disgruntled employees. All of these costs must be measured against the extra profits an employer hopes to earn by hiring an additional worker.

If profit opportunities exist, jobs will be created. Otherwise, they will not. Of course, anything the government does to raise the cost of employment, such as a higher minimum wage, mandated heath care, or greater regulatory burdens, not only prevents new jobs from being created but also causes many that already exist to be destroyed. Anything that diminishes the profit potential of extra hiring will diminish the number of job opportunities that are created. Also, since it is after-tax profits against which employers measure risk, the higher the marginal rate of income tax, the less likely employers will be able to hire.

Finally, in order to hire workers, employers must have access to capital to expand operations. Anything the government does to discourage capital formation automatically diminishes job creation. By running the largest federal deficits in history, Barack Obama is diverting all available capital to the Treasury, and is in effect waging a war against private capital formation.

If the President’s summit truly intends to find the root cause of unemployment, his advisers don’t need Bureau of Labor statistics or complex modeling software, just the courage to drop their dogmatic belief in central planning and embrace the laws of economics.