The Patriot Act 2: This Time It’s Your Money

Over the past few days, I’ve been talking everyone’s ear off about how I feel like we’re reliving 9/11. Except this time it’s not a terrorist attack; it’s a financial crisis. But, as was the case seven years ago, America is panicking and lawmakers are willing to do anything just to do something.

I’m afraid that the desire for national security—in this case, national financial security—is once again going to drive our lawmakers to pass another piece of ill-conceived, unconstitutional power-grab legislation that we will all shortly regret. Does the Patriot Act ring a bell, anyone? In our haste to expel terrorism, we “gutted” (as Jesse Ventura so eloquently put it) the Fourth Amendment. Wire tapping. Reading private email. Cell-phone record surveillance. These were not acts becoming of a free country. But the bill still breezed through the House and Senate. And at the end of the day, the extreme measures they authorized did more to terrorize liberty than they did to defend liberty from terror. In a vain attempt to establish security, we actually forfeited it; not to a terrorist or foreign power, but to the Federal Government and Homeland Security (such an ironic name).

Now, less than a decade later, we’re once again facing a seismic dilemma. Will we pass the Patriot Act 2? Will we forfeit economic liberty for so-called financial security? I answer emphatically, NO! As Benjamin Franklin would say: ”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”

Apparently, I’m not the only one with déjà vu. My brother Neal found this telling article in the International Herald Tribune.

Bottom line: bailing out giant corporations with tax dollars is immoral. I wrote this post on Karmel Larson’s blog back when the Fannie-Freddie bailout went down:

Although the government takeover of the two mortgage giants no doubt spells opportunity for some investors, I think it’s still worth mentioning that this deal needs to be recognized for what it is at its core: socialism—an unconstitutional bailout of two giant corporations at the expense of you and I, the taxpayers. Now I understand the arguments for attempting to stabilize the housing market and stem the recent tide of economic downturn. But it’s all for short term gain, long-term loss.

I think our politicians have good intentions for our country in taking this drastic measure. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the principle at work here is still redistribution of the wealth. Except, in this case, it’s the whole Robin-Hood-and-his-Merry-Men thing flipped on its head: stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

A few articles that help clarify this:

“Bailout cure worse than disease”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JG29Dj07.html

“Senator Bunning Says Paulson Acts Like Socialist, Should Resign”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alpUsTv3.upI

“Government as the Big Lender”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/washington/14guarantee.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Please click here to contact your local representatives and tell them to vote “no” on the bailout.

I.O.U.S.A.—A Documentary Film

As we slog through the current economic slump, our national dept—one of the nation’s most vexing problems—has been weighing on my mind a lot lately.  I can’t understand how our elected leaders can continue to plunge us deeper into the red, as if they had no clue what a balance sheet was (in all honesty, a lot of them probably don’t). And the higher the deficit climbs, the more checks the bureaucrats seem bent on writing. When it comes to the Federal Government handling our money, it often seems there’s little accountability, no logic and even less restraint.

A new documentary film that opened this weekend, I.O.U.S.A, looks like it will expose some of the all-too-ignored realities of this dilemma.

Here’s the I.O.U.S.A. trailer.

How to deal with this crisis is a conversation that desperately needs to be hashed out. I don’t care what your political background is; this much is certain: if our government continues to spend with reckless abandon it will result in national financial suicide. As a democrat friend of mine put it,

“It’s high time we stopped passing the buck, both figuratively and literally. And who pays? In the short term, it’s people like you and me. But, I feel the long term may not be so far away. We need pragmatists in Washington, yesterday.”

I couldn’t agree more. One such “pragmatist” is BJ Lawson, a congressional candidate in North Carolina’s 4th district. Wisely, Lawson sponsored the premier of I.O.U.S.A. in his neck of the woods to help spark a healthy discussion on the topic among his constituents.

Lawson’s positions on financial issures are impressive. And he brings a wealth of experience from the business and medical sectors, too.

Commander in Chief of the Economy?

Hillary Clinton gave us a nice little one-liner the other day: “It is time for a president who is ready on day one to be commander in chief of our economy,” she proclaimed. Good one, Hill. Sounds like she snatched the term from one of Ron Paul’s responses (go about 5:00 into the YouTube) in the final republican debate and tried to twist it into a positive thing.

As Paul points out in the above video, Article II. Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states that “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.” However, it doesn’t say anything about the President commanding the economy. That’s what dictators try—and eventually fail—to do.

As any good economist will tell you, in a truly free society, only the market commands the economy, with the principles of supply and demand, competition, self reliance and innovation as the chief underpinnings.

Hillary went on to say, “sometimes the phone rings at 3 a.m. at the White House and it’s an economic crisis and we need a president who is ready, willing and able to answer that call.”

Hate to break it to you, Hill, but I’m afraid that phone’s been ringing off the hook for years. The “crisis” is the ongoing abandonment of sound money (a Constitutional gold standard) and free markets. Yet almost no one in Washington has been willing to heed the call (except for Ron Paul, of course).

Since Hillary already wants to extend her “commander in chief” power to the economy, if elected, where would she stop? Commander in chief of health care? (Actually, we already know she’s going for that one.) Commander in chief of education? (How I cringe at the thought.) How about commander in chief of energy? Or of agriculture? Or maybe even the environment? And while we’re at it, let’s just top it off with transportation, recreation, communication and the arts—then throw in a scepter and a tiara and call it a day.

Ron Paul’s $157 Billion Campaign

First Bernanke cut the interest rate today (the second time in eight days) and now the Senate is passing an economic stimulus bill for $157 billion in tax rebates. Both these efforts are just inflation enhancing band-aids for an economy suffering from a cannonball wound of poor monetary policy.

But not all is lost. You can take your fat rebate check and give it all to Ron Paul who supports sound money. That’s your best bet to turn this bill into some real economic stimulus.