Ron Paul: Get Rid Of Fiat Money
I think this is something worth taking a look at. In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate speaking the truth about the United States’ fiscal problems, including the disadvantages of using a paper money system that is not backed up by gold or silver and the hidden costs associated with inflation:
The more I read about him and his political beliefs, the more I can’t get past the idea that Ron Paul could do great things for the Unites States - specifically, putting traditional Goldwater conservatism and the principle idea of federalism back on the map. Unfortunately, the last few years have seen the rise of “compassionate” big government conservatism, a conservatism that rejects its own core beliefs about the role of limited government, spending, and taxation.
Ron Paul would be the perfect candidate if it wasn’t for his anti-global positions. And I’m not talking about the United Nations or the role of international law in wartime. I’m talking about foreign isolationism and economic protectionism. Here’s an excerpt from Paul’s official 2008 election website:
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.
First off, the International Criminal Court was something that was never signed off by President Bush nor ratified by the U.S. Senate. Therefore, the ICC issue is null and void at this point in time. Second, free trade agreements are actually a good thing.
Times have changed economically around the world. The world is no longer made up of limited, pocketed financial markets like it once was. Global information technology and the ability to travel overseas has increased our ability to communicate and trade with foreign peoples. As it was to the advantage of the Europeans to trade with America in the 1700’s, it is to our advantage to trade worldwide, with the least trade barriers. NAFTA and CAFTA are making it easier for the United States to participate in global trade, knocking down barriers to trading markets and foreign investment. Protectionism in these times simply does not work because the worldwide economic environment is not conducive to a protectionist philosophy. The reality is that the United States cannot economically isolate itself on the world stage. The consequences of such behavior could promote economic slowdown not only in the United States, but other countries as well.
Update: For an interesting take on Ron Paul, check out this article.
House Passes Minimum Wage Bill
Be prepared to pay more for EVERYTHING you buy:
The Democratic-controlled House voted Wednesday to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, bringing America’s lowest-paid workers a crucial step closer to their first raise in a decade.
The vote was 315-116, with more than 80 Republicans joining Democrats to pass it.
Yet again, Democrats have shown me they are NOT the party of economic success. Thanks more making my hard earned money worth less than it already is.
Democrats are not ruling out raising taxes for the wealthiest people to help pay for tax cuts for middle-income families, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
-Snip-
“As we review what we get from … collecting our taxes and reducing waste, fraud and abuse, investing in education and in initiatives which will bring money into the Treasury, it may be that (repealing) tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year, might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America’s children,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview aired Sunday.
Here are the problems, Madam Speaker, with your way of cutting taxes:
First, repealing Bush tax cuts on the highest earners really doesn’t do anything for you except penalizing rich people for simply being rich. Second, it undercuts productivity and initiative to put toward wealth creation and investment of capital for those in the highest tax brackets. Third, higher earners who run businesses may have to cut back on workers, wages, investment, and possibly raise prices on products they sell. This passes the cost unto the “middle-class” consumer you’re so interested in protecting and ends up putting an indirect tax on them. This fact goes for not only the so-called “rich,” but also corporations, especially those your party is targeting like oil companies.
You want to cut taxes Ms. Pelosi? Here’s an idea - introduce a flat tax as they have in Russia and some South American nations. There won’t be anymore class warfare in regards to taxes because everyone will pay their proportion. Revenues will rise to the U.S. Treasury, helping to offset and pay the deficit. You on the other hand, will receive all the credit from conservatives for reforming the system and would truly make the United States a better country to live in.
But Ms. Pelosi, you’re a leftist, so you really have no clue how to give the government back to the people. All you care about is increasing your power in Washington and taking more of my money. I can’t wait to vote against your party in 2008.
More About Dems’ Minimum Wage Increase
Captain Ed over at Captain’s Quarters has a great article about how a minimum wage increase this year by Dems will actually hurt the poor and cause inflation. An excerpt:
…They’re distorting a market for a short-term political benefit that will do nothing to raise the standard of living for the people they supposedly want to help. Arbitrarily raising the prices of services and goods in a marketplace causes inflation, not an increase in real value. They’re forcing consumers of labor to pay more for the same service, from which they will get no increased benefit — and that means that they will have to pass the costs along to the consumers of their goods and services, all through the distribution chain.
Whose money is getting given away? Yours and mine, and all 479,000 minimum-wage workers, that’s who. i can absorb the incremental loss of buying power, but the people at the bottom rungs cannot. If they’re lucky, all that will happen is that their buying power will remain the same as it was after a short period of adjustment. More likely, some of their jobs will get eliminated as businesses have to support the cost increase in some other fashion than price hikes.
Captain Ed is awesomely correct in his assessment of possible results driven by a minimum wage increase. It’s an all too familiar example of why government needs to get out of the economy and how Americans need to get informed about their government.
Related: Say “No!” To Dems’ Agenda
From Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An investigation by U.S. antitrust authorities found no evidence that oil companies illegally manipulated gasoline prices or constrained oil refining operations, the Federal Trade Commission said Monday.
However, the agency said it had found 15 examples that fit lawmakers’ definition of price-gouging at the “refining, wholesale, or retail level.” It said factors like regional and local market trends appeared to explain the pricing in nearly all the cases.
Congress ordered the FTC probe last summer as part of a broad energy bill in response to a steady climb in crude oil and gasoline prices.
Instead of actually doing something about rising tax prices like increase supply by passing legislation allowing more off shore drilling and refining capacity, Congress called for the FTC to investigate oil price gouging, an ineffective and insulting political ploy getting the American people nowhere nearer to ending the country’s dependence on foreign oil.
As expected, the FTC found little to no evidence of price gouging, a conclusion evident in all other investigations within this last decade. Usually a strategy taken to heart by liberal politicians, even Republicans have attempted to make price gouging an issue in this election year. Instead of ordering some worthless investigation that doesn’t even make sense in the first place, Congress could actually focus on U.S. energy priorities before politicians go jumping to conclusions that Big Oil is gouging prices or its Big Oil’s fault that they have record profits this year.
By Deb Reichman
President Bush signed a $70 billion tax-cut package Wednesday that Republicans hope will ingratiate them with voters as they head into midterm elections with worries about holding control of Congress.
“Our pro-growth policies stand in stark contrast to those in Washington who believe you grow your economy by raising taxes and centralizing power,” said Bush, who was joined at the signing ceremony by Vice President Dick Cheney. “They are wrong. Our pro-growth economic polices are working for all Americans.”
The GOP says the tax cuts, which were first enacted in 2003, have created millions of new jobs and bolstered tax revenue. Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the bill, saying the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends will flow mostly to rich Americans.
“The bill I sign today is a victory for the American taxpayers and is a strong lift for our economy,” Bush said.
The bill passed the Senate last Thursday by a 54-44 vote.
The legislation Bush signed provides a two-year extension of the reduced 15 percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends, which were set to expire at the close of 2008.
An election goal fulfilled, President Bush signed a $70 billion tax cut to extend some of his 2003 taxcuts to 2010 and to provide relief for near 15 million families by taking away their eligibility for the AMT, or alternative minimum tax, a tax that was originally written and put into law for wealthy Americans.
I am very greatful Republicans in Congress and President Bush have created and signed this legislation into law. Not only will the tax cuts be able to help this country in the short term economically, but will help investors down the road and keep America fiscally healthy. I’m very excited what this will mean for the country over the next couple years.
Republicans Reach Deal on Bill to Extend Tax Cuts
From the Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress reached agreement Tuesday on a $70 billion measure to extend tax breaks for investors and prevent more middle-income families from being hit by a tax aimed at the wealthy.
The bill would hand President Bush one of his top tax priorities, a two-year extension of the reduced 15 percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends, currently set to expire at the end of 2008. Republicans credit the tax cuts, enacted in 2003, with boosting economic growth and creating many jobs.
The measure also would keep 15 million families from being hit this year with the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to make sure the wealthy paid taxes but is ensnaring more and more middle-income families because it is not indexed for inflation.
The accord paves the way for House approval of the measure as early as Wednesday. The Senate could clear the bill for Bush’s desk by week’s end.
“This is a responsible bill that protects families and small business owners from tax increases, while also providing investors with a bigger window of certainty — critical to continued economic growth,” said Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif.
In a show of strength and a return to conservative ideals, Congressional Republicans have finally reached a deal on the extention of the Bush tax cuts. If passed, this bill will help to extend economic growth throughout the United States and continue to give tax relief to millions of American families. However, this great tax bill is not enough. The Congress must cut spending and regulation in order to promote further long term growth.
A Twisted Trade-Off: Cutting Funding for Troops, Boosting Corporate Pork
The Heritage Foundation is carrying a great article concerning an absurd proposal by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that cuts every appropriation in the emergency defense and Katrina supplemental recently passed by the Senate by 13% in order to bring the appropriations bill down to President Bush’s budget goal:
According to CQ Today, Frist’s top budget aide, William Hoagland has proposed an across-the-board cut in the supplemental spending to bring the bill’s total cost into line with the President’s initial request and veto threat. Just cut everything by the same amount, it seems, and the bill will slide right under the President’s cap. It’s an easy way out and, as Hoagland pitches it, an easy way for Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert to reach common ground. The entire difference between the Senate’s bill and the President’s request could be traversed by a 13-or-so percent across-the-board cut.
But easy and simple aren’t necessarily good. Relative to the President’s request for emergency spending, an across-the-board cut would reduce funding for defense in the supplemental–money for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to meet needs that are the very purpose of this legislation–by $9.6 billion. An across-the-board cut would also chop $2.6 billion from funding to respond to the actual emergency of Hurricane Katrina. This ploy just highlights the terrible trade-offs that pork-barrel spending leads lawmakers to make.
So where’s the money going if not to our troops and to hurricane victims? There’s billions in farm subsidies when the industry is roaring along. The bill has a bit over $1 billion for the fisheries and seafood industries–classic corporate pork. There’s highway spending, social program spending, and all other manner of non-emergency spending. None of this stacks up to the needs of U.S. troops abroad and our fellow citizens hit so hard by Hurricane Katrina.
Instead of doing the fiscally responsible thing and cutting the pork from the emergency funding bill, Frist and his aides are actually throwing around the idea of cutting everything in the bill by a proportional amount. This included cutting funding for the bill’s primary purpose - to support the troops fighting in the Middle East and provide funding for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery.
Instead of offering leadership when it comes to cutting the pork, Senator Frist has played into the hands of liberal interests and has betrayed the conservative cause.
Senate Defies Bush on Spending
By Shailagh Murray
The Senate ignored President Bush’s veto threat yesterday and easily passed a $109 billion emergency spending bill for war and hurricane recovery costs that also brimmed with favors for farmers, the fishing industry, and the states of Hawaii and Rhode Island.
The two-week debate that preceded yesterday’s 77 to 21 final vote was marked by an election-year surge in targeted spending on behalf of constituents and special interests, despite repeated warnings by fiscal conservatives about a swollen budget deficit.
The Senate added money to rebuild a highway in Hawaii; protect riverbanks in California; upgrade a hurricane barrier in Providence, R.I.; and compensate New England shell fishermen for their losses from a red tide outbreak. The Senate also took steps to make farming less risky by offering compensation for virtually any scourge, including drought, flood, wildfires and pestilence.
The next step for the Senate is a potentially rancorous final negotiating session with the House, where Republican leaders greeted the Senate package with scorn. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called it “dead on arrival” and said his chamber “has no intention of joining in a spending spree.”
House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) promised a final bill that does not spend “one dollar more than what the president asks for, period.”
-Snip-
“In emergency legislation, we have a lot of things that really aren’t emergencies,” said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who led a largely futile fight to strip extraneous provisions from the bill. “I think we as a body ought to look at that and use self-discipline.”
It seems Congress is full of nothing but rhetoric when its politicians speak about cutting the budget and keeping federal spending to a responsible level. While this bill represents and includes much needed funding for important priorities like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and more hurricane relief for the southern coast, many politicians have let their pork-filled ambitions get in the way of fiscally sound and responsible policy.
With the threat of a veto from President Bush, many conservatives including Trent Lott have no words of support for the president, but merely brush the threat of veto aside - “I don’t take it that seriously, and I don’t think (Bush’s) priorities come down from heaven.” Lott’s words are not only a disappointment, but they are words that represent failing ideals in politicians who cannot and should not be considered conservatives anymore.