The Politics of Disaster. If you declare it, relief will come

Dave Durand-Contributor

This country is headed for a disaster of Biblical proportions. What do I mean by "Biblical"? What I mean is Old Testament, Mr. Reader. Real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice… dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

No, I am not just referencing Ghostbusters here. I am quoting verbatim the disaster declarations from states directly in the path of Hurricane Irene… ok maybe not “verbatim”.

I’d like to ask you to undergo a short intellectual exercise with me regarding federal disaster relief funds. But first, please read what James Madison had to say on the issue. "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Right on Jimbo! There is no doubt that Madison is correct in saying there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to provide disaster relief. My objection goes a little deeper than that. I tend to take a more philosophical stance against government sponsored charity whether it is on the federal, state, or local level.

Let’s assume for a minute that you have a home, and it is burns to the ground from a lightning strike. What would you do under the circumstance? I think there are three logical and just ways to deal with this problem.

I would suspect that the vast majority of you would call your insurance agent and have the home rebuilt. Now if you are a fool and you don’t have insurance, I would think you would then have to rebuild, purchase, or rent another home. If you did not have the money for a new home or a rental, I would think you could ask your family, a friend, or a private charity to take you in during your time of need. It seems to me which ever path you take, it is logical and just.

What if instead of the three solutions presented, you broke into 1000 homes and stole $100 from each family. You then used the money to purchase a new home for $100,000? Would that be logical and just? I argue no. What if you had the ability to break into 10,000 homes and steal just $10, or 100,000 homes and steal just $1, or 1,000,000 homes and steal just $0.10? Would that then be logical and just? I say no! What if instead of mass larceny, you employ your elected representatives to tax your neighbors, give their money to you, but call it “disaster relief”. Would that then be logical and just? I still say no!

If you agree with me, then how can you support government sponsored charity such as FEMA or other disaster relief programs? How can you support government programs that will help rebuild areas affected by Hurricane Irene?  If you disagree with me, let me say it plain. What you support is the taking of property from one individual via taxation, and giving it to another for altruistic reasons. This is not charity. It is theft.

Am I responsible for my neighbor’s misfortune? Is my life and property any less my own once my neighbor’s house is reduced to a pile of ashes or is washed away in a storm surge? At what point, can my neighbor legally claim possession of my money in order to rebuild his shattered life, even if his life is shattered through no fault of his own? I’ll leave it to the reader to answer these questions.

This is not a rant against charity, altruism, hand outs, or the ideals of a community that helps those who are less fortunate. If these actions are voluntary, then they are the epitome of love, kindness, and selflessness that only a free and prosperous people can truly demonstrate. What’s more, I think that America has shown itself to be exactly the kind of nation I just described.

What I object to, is forced participation in a cause no matter how worthy, widely accepted, or useful. In the final analysis government is force, and force should only be used to repel illegitimate force. This is why we grant government the power to maintain a military, police forces, and a court system. This is why we establish laws that make it illegal for one person to initiate force on another. Once government forces you to participate in charity, then you have flipped the proper role of government on its head. Your property rights, along with you freedom, are then a thing of the past.

The Federal Gas Tax Needs to Go! Defending The Logical.

Dave Durand - Contributor

Last week, I refuted three of the commonly given (yet still asinine) reasons to KEEP the federal gas tax, which is set to expire on September 30^th. Some may say it’s easier to argue against an established position rather than come up with a convincing argument to support a position of your own. Indulge me, if you will, as I take this opportunity to put my money where my mouth is and give you my three reasons why the federal gas tax should EXPIRE.                 

#1 – The transportation needs of one state will no longer be subsidized by taxes of another.

Remember that the federal gas tax is collected at the state level, sent to Washington D.C., and then sent back to the states for spending on transportation projects.

Not surprisingly, once Washington D.C. gets its hands on your money, there is a tendency to dole out special favors to politically connected constituencies. Transportation projects are no exception, and many states actually get back more money than they collected from the gas tax. Others, then, receive back less than they collected.

For example, in 2008, North Carolina only received back 0.877% of every dollar collected from the federal gas tax. Conversely, Arkansas received back 1.110% of every dollar collected from the federal gas tax. Good for Arkansas, bad for the North Carolina. You can check the data HERE.

However, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) will argue that every state receives back MORE than they contribute to the Highway Trust Fund. 

Wait… what? 

Can the federal government turn 7 loaves and a few fish into a meal for thousands with baskets of food to spare? 

Something doesn’t add up.

What the GAO meant to say is that the Highway Trust Fund spends more than it takes in. It can do this because the Department of Transportation is allowed to raid the general tax funds when it wants to spend irresponsibly. Good thing the entire federal government doesn’t spend more than it takes in or we would be in quite a pickle.

#2 – Washington DC will no longer dictate behavior through extortion.

Like a good control freak, the central planners will only portion out certain Highway Trust Fund money if the states behave in an appropriate manner. Typically, a federal law is passed, and the states are given three years to roll over… sorry … I mean“comply”. If they don’t obey, they don’t get their money back. After all, you can’t actually expect your state and local representatives to spend your tax dollars wisely. It takes a federal bureaucrat to guide us. Want a few examples?

In 1984, 26 states set their drinking age at 18. The same year, Congress “found” the constitutional authority to mandate the minimum drinking age of 21. Just 3 years later, all 50 states had a minimum drinking age of 21, and they were rewarded by getting their own money back.

In 1995, 26 states did not have a zero alcohol tolerance law for drivers under the age of 21. The same year, Congress “found” the constitutional authority to mandate a zero alcohol tolerance law for drivers under the age of 21. Just 3 years later, all 50 states had a zero tolerance law for drivers under the age of 21, and they were rewarded by getting their own money back.

In 2000, 31 states set the legal blood alcohol level above .08%. The same year, Congress “found” the constitutional authority to set the maximum legal blood alcohol level at .08%. In just 5 years, every state had set their maximum legal blood alcohol level at .08%, and they were rewarded by getting their own money back.

Some of these laws may very well be the smart thing to do, but just because a broken clock is right twice a day doesn’t mean states should give their autonomy over the Washington D.C. Some states do stick to their guns against federal attempts to mandate helmet, primary seatbelt, and texting laws, but most are more than happy to bend over and

… well whatever.

This tendency for states to acquiesce is leading to even more problems. There is now a push in Washington D.C. to mandate Highway Trust Fund money to be diverted solely to public transportation projects. States will be required to use up to 25% of the returned funds to establish or maintain Mass Transit programs, or even worse, High Speed Rail (HSR) projects. Like all mass transit, HSR boondoggles cost billions up front, cost millions more in operating subsidies, and are used very little by the general public. Hence extortion is the name of the game.

#3 – Keep the power in your hands and your money in your pocket.

In almost every circumstance, reducing the scope and influence of government is a good thing. If taxes are indeed necessary, you should demand expanded access to those voting to deprive you of your hard earned money. Keeping the federal government out of transportation is one good step.

Besides, if your state is responsible with its resources (excuse me… your money), they may choose to maintain the current state gas tax and continue to provide the same level of transportation “services”. Some states, I suspect, will go ahead and raise their gas tax to up to the federal level so they can continue to squander your money on projects that favor certain constituents. The beauty in either case is that your state/county representative is a lot closer to you that your Senator or Congressman. You and your neighbors have much more control over state and local government than you will ever have over the federal behemoth.

So I say let the federal gas tax die and see if anyone notices! Are you worried?

Time Mag Article on Ron Paul- run away, Neo-Cons!

The Prophet
By Alex Altman / Concord Monday, Sept. 05, 2011-Time Magazine


Twilight descends in new Hampshire as an old man climbs onto his soapbox. LIBERTY: TOO BIG TO FAIL reads a banner hanging in the jam-packed tent. He is hardly a commanding figure, but a thousand people chant his name and lean in to listen, ready to follow, as Ron Paul delivers his genre-bending stump speech. There are no focus-grouped slogans, no empty calories: Paul's talk is more like a high-fiber graduate seminar on economic theory, forgotten history and the nooks and crannies of the U.S. Constitution. "The Federal Reserve system and all their members have been counterfeiters for a long time," he says, his reedy voice straining. "Sound money is connected to free markets and the freedom message and the Constitution, and we can bring this all together for people. It fascinates me, and I'm sure it must fascinate a lot of you also."


In normal times, Paul's esoteric pitch might leave voters bemused, bewildered or just bored. But these aren't normal times, and the rapt crowd roars its approval. The attendees share his conviction that a great man has met his moment in history. "Our time has come," Paul declares, and this time, it may be more than wishful thinking.


For decades, the Republican Congressman from Texas has preached much the same brand of libertarian politics and Austrian economics. When he ran for President four years ago, Paul drew a zealous but narrow following, and his warnings that murky monetary policy, runaway spending and a sprawling foreign empire would ruin the country struck many Republicans as kooky. His GOP rivals smirked or simply ignored him. Although Paul raised a staggering $35 million, he captured just 1% of Republican delegates.


But in the four years since, the world has changed in mostly grim ways that seem to affirm Paul's worldview. His vision of an eroding Constitution and a Washington--Wall Street cabal helped spark the Tea Party movement. Conservatives who once sneered at his foreign policy as being "isolationist" have grown weary of war. His call for a more accountable and transparent Federal Reserve has morphed from quaint obsession to mainstream Republican talking point in Congress and on the campaign trail.


As presidential contender, Paul remains an extreme long shot. He lags behind central-casting candidates like Mitt Romney and Rick Perry in polls. The pillars of his libertarian philosophy--restoring the gold standard, abolishing the central bank, letting states legalize drugs, gutting the size of government and the social safety net, sharply reducing America's global footprint--are too radical for the typical suburban swing voter. Not to mention that the 76-year-old Paul would be the oldest ever first-term President.


(page 2)


But as prophet, he is still defining the GOP race. He came within a whisker of spoiling Michele Bachmann's headline-making win at the Aug. 13 Iowa straw poll and helped end Tim Pawlenty's candidacy by denying him a second-place finish. When Republican heavies like Newt Gingrich and Perry bash the Fed's monetary policy, he mocks them as latecomers to his party. "Who would have thought the former Speaker of the House would come out for 'Audit the Fed?'" Paul says to deafening applause in Concord. "Now we have a Southern governor. I can't remember his name"--a wry reference to Perry, who suggested it would be almost "treasonous" for Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to pump more money into the economy--"[who] realizes talking about the Fed is good too."


Paul still struggles to win the major media's attention, prompting Jon Stewart to compare his candidacy to "the 13th floor of a hotel." But Paul's allies say he's more interested in influence than political power. "He does not have a great personal desire to be the President," says Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign chairman and grandson-in-law. Instead, he is that rare commodity in modern politics: a man of ideas, however unconventional they may be.


The Making of the Maverick


Ron Paul's political epiphany took place on Aug. 15, 1971. That was the day Richard Nixon, hoping to boost a flagging U.S. economy, decoupled the dollar from the gold standard. Few people understood or cared about the change. For Paul, it was a calamity. "That was the moment I knew something very strange was going on in the government establishment," he recalls, sitting in a desk chair in his Concord campaign office. Paul believes that a currency unmoored from gold is based on, well, nothing, and that simply printing fiat money inevitably leads to ruin. "I thought it was just a total disaster," he says.


The mild-mannered Paul is an unlikely messenger of economic doom. Born outside Pittsburgh, he attended medical school at Duke and joined the Air Force in 1963. He served as a flight surgeon during Vietnam, an experience that convinced him the American "empire" is folly. As he built an obstetrics practice in Brazoria County, Texas, he spent his free time studying the theories of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, giants of the Austrian school of economics, which champions unfettered free markets, individual rights and money backed by scarce commodities like gold and silver. "When I discovered people like Mises, to me they were geniuses," Paul says. "They could explain this stuff. It helped me feel comfortable that it wasn't only me in the world."


In 1974 Paul ran for Congress in South Texas, promising "freedom, honesty and sound money." He lost that race but won the seat two years later. Paul's latest campaign ad boasts that he is "guided by principle," and his record supports the claim. Though he represents a rural coastal district, Paul regularly votes against farm subsidies and flood insurance. He has never voted for a tax increase or an unbalanced budget. He opposed congressional medals for Rosa Parks, Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa as well as aid for Hurricane Katrina victims, all on the grounds that Congress has no business meddling in such matters.


(page 3)


Paul isn't a pure libertarian. He doesn't support abortion or gay marriage; he believes those issues should be left up to states. But he has a coherent worldview: that individual liberty is the highest American ideal and a free-market economy its foundation. Paper money is a mirage predicated on trust in a government that can't be trusted. Fealty to the Constitution means accepting the parts of it you might not like, whether it's your neighbor's right to shoot heroin or gamble away his paycheck. "You can take your life and be very productive, or you can be destructive," Paul says, "but you can't meddle in other people's lives."


Paul's acolytes often speak of him in nearly messianic tones. "It's like a light switch going on. You see things you haven't seen before," says Doug Wead, a senior adviser who served under both George W. Bush and Bush's father. After Paul spoke in Concord, hundreds of fans thronged to greet him. Kate Baker, the national chair of a group called Women for Ron Paul, tried to organize a greeting line. "Ron Paul walks where he wants to walk and stops," she tells an eager fan. "We follow him."


A Revolution Matures


For a political prophet, paul isn't much of a speaker. He tangles his syntax and is prone to rambling. But one man's awkward is another's authentic, and when you are trying to sell a candidate as a truth teller, it's best if the packaging doesn't show: his newest ad contrasts him with the "smooth-talking politicians" he's running against. "We've run into Romney. We ran into McCain. Whenever you talk to them, you feel like everything they say is almost programmed," says Jesse Coffey, a 17-year-old Paul volunteer who is among the candidate's many young devotees. "When you meet Ron Paul, it's like meeting an old friend you haven't seen in years."


For the next hour, Paul stands in the gathering dusk, shaking hands, snapping pictures and signing memorabilia: $2 bills, a watercolor portrait of his face, a copy of the John Birch Society's magazine. "I'd ask you to sign my chest, but it probably wouldn't be appropriate," says one woman, who settles for her sleeve. A trio of young men, including one in a T-shirt depicting a vampiric George W. Bush sinking his fangs into Lady Liberty, crowd around the Congressman to vent about the treatment of Bradley Manning, the Army private imprisoned for allegedly slipping a trove of classified documents to WikiLeaks. "They tried to throw Daniel Ellsberg in jail too," Paul says, shaking his head, recalling the furor over the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago.


The 2008 Paul campaign was a ragtag coalition of anarchists, antiwar activists, goldbugs, paleoconservatives, hard-core libertarians and conspiracy theorists. His grassroots supporters threw raucous rallies, floated a Ron Paul blimp, lionized the 17th century British revolutionary Guy Fawkes--infamous for his attempt to blow up Parliament--and raised huge chunks of cash through online "money bombs." But his organization was hapless when it came to translating that enthusiasm into votes. "Last time, we didn't know what we were doing," says Chris Lawless, 42, a volunteer who voted for Paul back in 1988 when he ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket. "We made WHO IS RON PAUL? T-shirts"--a reference to the "Who is John Galt?" refrain in Ayn Rand's libertarian touchstone Atlas Shrugged. "We had a freaking blimp."


(page 4)


Paul was almost a passive figurehead in that spectacle, putting his message ahead of campaign tactics. "His goal, I think, was to use his platform as a pulpit to keep talking about these things until people understood it," says Jim Forsythe, his New Hampshire campaign chairman. "Enough people understand it now. It's time to do something about it."


Convinced that he has a shot in 2012--a late-August Gallup poll showed him running nearly even with President Obama in a hypothetical matchup--Paul's aides have hired seasoned operatives and are more focused on ballot-box results, demonstrating early success at the Iowa straw poll. And Paul is still raising big money, including a $1.8 million money bomb to mark his Aug. 20 birthday.


There remains the matter of the candidate himself, though. "He's incorruptible," Wead says. "He just will not say or do anything that is not based on what he believes, even if it will help his cause. It's very frustrating, because at times using different language would be so much more politically effective."


Whether or not Paul attracts more votes than he did in 2008, his ideas have clearly taken on a life of their own. And that's what Paul says is most important. "I do what I do because I believe that truth wins out in the end," he explains. Even if his candidacy will have a hard time doing the same.




Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz1W3GbiOJg

The Federal Gas Tax Needs to Go! Refuting the Pro Tax Talking Points.

Dave Durand-Contributor
“I got 99 problems, but a gas tax ain’t one… it’s actually two.”

On September 30^th the Federal Gas Tax expires unless it is re-authorized by congress. This means that on October 1rst, the taxes collected by the feds would drop from 18.4 cents to 4.3 cents per gallon of gasoline sold. This amounts to a 14.1 cent per gallon savings that goes directly into the pocket of the American driver. In perhaps an even more exciting prospect, the (partial) death of the gas tax requires the federal government to relinquish most of its control over transportation back to states where it rightfully belongs. What is the problem with that?

Believe it or not, there are those who oppose any plan that allows for you to actually control more of your money. The federal gas tax is no exception. There are three popular arguments given in favor of keeping the tax, and I have thoughts on each.

#1 - Eliminating the gas tax will bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund resulting in a crumbling of the nation’s transportation infrastructure.

No it won’t. If you are not familiar with how the gas tax works, let me quickly explain. Every state collects their own excise (sales) tax on each gallon of gasoline ranging from $0.08 in Alaska to $0.47 in California. That money stays in the states and is used to update the infrastructure within said state. On top of that, the federal gas tax of $0.184 per gallon is collected, sent to Washington DC to stock the Highway Trust Fund, and is then sent back to the states to be spent on updating the infrastructure within said state.  

So while it is true that the Highway Trust Fund will be depleted, it is also true that the money is kept at the state level instead of being funneled through the federal government. So if states like Alaska need more money to spend on transportation, then they are free to raise their gas tax up to California levels to compensate.

#2 – The transportation needs of a state are much different than the transportation needs of a nation.

Are they really? Do states need freely flowing lanes of transportation via road, rail, water, and air? Yes and so does a nation. Do states need these lanes to be safe, affordable, and easily accessible? Yes and so does a nation. Do states need to cooperate with each other so their transportation lanes are compatible in order to promote an easy exchange of commerce? Yes and so does a nation.

I will admit that this is one area where the federal government can play a role (albeit as minimal one). The commerce clause allows the feds “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. Regulate literally mean “to make regular”. So the feds can establish standards that prohibit two bickering state legislatures from erecting unfair trade barriers. This happens to encompass interstate lanes of travel, but the scope is very narrow. But as far as taxes go, each state is more than capable to raise their own revenue without the help of the federal government.

#3 – If we let the gas tax expire, the result will be windfall profit for the oil companies because they will not pass the saving along to the consumer.

This is wrong for four reasons.

First of all, it only takes one gas station in your town to reduce their prices by the amount of the expired federal gas tax and it’s off to the races. The rest of the stations in your town will have to reduce their gas price in order to get your business. Competition works to your benefit.

Second of all, the big bad oil companies don’t own gas stations. They are generally franchisees. If you want to point to windfall profits, you need to look no further than you friendly, neighborhood gas station owner. Go inside, ring the bell, look him square in the eye (or as best as you can through the six inches of bullet proof glass), and ask for the bathroom key. When you done with your business, lecture him about the fact he rakes in all sorts of cash yet fails to stock the bathrooms with disposable toilet seat covers.  

Thirdly, the sale of gasoline is a loss leader for gas stations. In other words, they make little to no money on gas, but once you are in the store, they bet you will buy their coffee, milk, chips, soda, beer, Philly Blunts or any of their fine selection of slowly rotating, heat lamp cured “meats” (Stomach pumps are next to the video poker). 

You take advantage of the convenience, and they make a killing on the premium prices. Therefore profiting from the sale of gasoline price is not a primary concern for gas stations.

And finally, profits of privately owned business are none of your business unless you are a stake holder! However, if you do have a complaint, you should promptly start your own oil company, embark on exploration expeditions, extract the crude oil from the earth, refine your own gasoline, create your own distribution and retail network, and sell it at cost to expunge your guilt.

So let me conclude by stating that I be feeling you Jay-Z. The federal gas tax will more than likely be re-authorized and the double taxation will continue.

Maybe one day these United States will once again govern themselves as our Founding Fathers outlined in the United States Constitution. As sovereign states governed by the citizens therein and not by a centralized authority: As a voluntarily compact that comes together in the narrowest of circumstances and only to protect everyone’s natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where the property you earn cannot be taken from you unless there is a call to action to provide Peoria, IL with a new bike path that falls under the guidelines of a federal smart-growth urban-renewal grant from the Department of Transportation.

Ah America…

Xconomic-Files. The Great Depression, Our Current Recession, and Space Aliens.

Dave Durand- Contributor

I’ve noticed numerous discussions over the past few of years about the Great Depression and the policy prescriptions that pulled America out of the worst economic disasters our world has ever experienced. The parallels to our current predicament are obvious, so looking to the past for solutions to the problems of today is a reasonable approach.

In general, I would say that opinions about what ended the Great Depression are split right down ideological lines; Liberal and Conservative.

The line parroted by good Libs everywhere is that the New Deal pulled us out of the Great Depression. Only by the grace of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the all knowing, all caring, all powerful Federal Government did the economy start humming again. Only after tax increases, countless government work projects, targeted welfare programs and carefully written labor and trade regulation did America finally rise like a phoenix from the ashes to become the economic powerhouse we are today.

The line parroted by good Neo-cons everywhere is that World War II pulled us out of the Great Depression. Only by the grace of the Allied Forces and the all knowing, all caring, all powerful Federal Government War Machine did the economy start humming again. Only after war bonds, military campaigns, targeted manufacturing programs and carefully written wage, price, and consumption regulations did America finally rise like a phoenix from the ashes to become the economic powerhouse we are today.

I am not surprised by the Left’s interpretation of the New Deal and how it affected the Great Depression. They favor Keynesian economics, central planning, and government intervention. However, I am supremely confused as to how the Right can look to WWII as the cure for the Great Depression. Just like the Left, they seem to favor Keynesian economics, central planning, and government intervention. I’m lost.

A perfect example of this disconnect happened this week on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Rush pointed out the absurdity of Paul Krugman’s assertion on CNN that a national mobilization against an impending alien attack would result in a fiscal stimulus that would be good for the economy (even if the threat turned out to be false). Fox Mulder would be so proud.

Here are some quotes from Limbaugh’s show that got me thinking. The full transcript can be found HERE. 

“A product's a product. A bomb is a product, whether it's a good thing or bad thing. But it is a thing of economic value; and in his endless arrogance that Krugman doesn't seem to realize that we really were the world's arsenal. People bought weapons and tanks from us with real money”.

And…

“See, this is the hypocrisy with these people.  They're all running around saying, "Well, we got all these fake, phony wars. We got a Iraq, we got Afghanistan, the net cost to the economy, we gotta get out of there. Those things are a trillion dollars apiece," and yet if we were attacked by space aliens, that would be legit.  Thank you, CNN. “

May I suggest we change old “Rush is Right” bumper sticker to “Rush is Right… Sorta”? The thing is that Limbaugh wasn’t arguing against the notion that a military buildup to ward off a fictitious alien invasion will result in an economic boom. He was pointing out that Paul Krugman types tout the New Deal as the be-all-end-all economic stimulus program as opposed to military spending as the be-all-end-all economic stimulus program. He was actually agreeing with Krugman in a way that military spending on bombs and tanks results in productive, economic growth.

The problem here El Rushbo is that eventually, the war ends, bombs are no longer purchased, the bubble has burst, and you are in the same dire straits as before. As the old saying goes, “Money for nothing and tanks for free” (a little Mark Knopfler humor there).                 

I hear people on the right espouse this nonsense all of the time. It drives me nuts because you can’t swear off government intervention when it takes the form of the New Deal and in the same breathe credit government intervention because it takes the form of the military industrial complex. They are the opposite sides of the same big government coin.

It is a classic case of the Broken Window Fallacy (or Theory).

In short, the Broken Window Theory suggests that a broken window is good for an economy because the act of replacing the window spurs economic growth. The problem with this logic is that the owner of the window cannot use the money spent to replace the window on a suit, a lawnmower, or a nice meal at a restaurant. Plus, a perfectly good window was destroyed in the process. The owner of the window would be better off with an unbroken window AND a suit, lawnmower, or a full belly.                  

The moral behind the Broken Window Theory is a parallel to vandalism, war, natural disasters, and redistribution of wealth as a form of economic “stimulus”. They do not stimulate anything in the long term.

Think about it. During World War II, would it have been wise to allow for the Axis Powers to level Los Angeles? Think of all the construction jobs that would have been created to rebuild a city of that magnitude. Think of all the new homes, businesses, and skyscrapers that would dot the landscape. Boom Baby!

Maybe we should have spent millions to construct aircraft carriers, set them off the coast of North Carolina, and sink them with our own submarines. Think of the thousands of jobs created for aircraft component manufacturers that would have benefited from such a ramp up in production. Not to mention, the certain boom for the TMAA (Torpedo Makers of America Association).

Maybe we should pray to the Keynesian gods for a Japanese earth quake or a Sumatran tsunami to level the entire east coast of the United States. The trillions lost in the unimaginable destruction will only lead to trillions found in the glorious rebuilding effort. Plus, the untimely deaths of millions will lower the national unemployment rate. I think we have just stumbled across a pretty exciting solution to America’s woes.

The answer to government prolonged recessions (or depressions) is never more government. If you want to credit World War II for ending to Great Depression, you could say that it effectively distracted FDR from his destructive, big government, nanny state policies that only prolonged the misery.  You could also credit World War II for the death of millions and the incapacitation of Europe’s manufacturing base. This allowed America to assume the role of world’s supplier of commodities and consumer goods for years to come. That is a hollow victory in my book.

You know what's funny?

That John Stewart is more of a journalist than everyone in the collective government media complex!


Check it-

The Department of Homeland Tyranny

Fellow Patriots, we live in a country reserved for prisoners of war.  The last thing your stolen government wants you to be concerned about is the TSA (the boots on the ground army of the Dept. of Homland Security).  Below are some of the safeguards set up in our Constitution, put in place by men well acquainted with the tyranny that we once again find ourselves living under. These men left their native land, sacrificed land and fortune and life to give us more than what we now have in America. This land is not their America: it is, without one doubt, a country that they themselves would not live in or abide by. There is piracy and contempt for the law in the uppermost parts of political power in America, and we the people must see it and know it. Only in knowledge of tyranny is liberty brought to life again. How well are you acquainted with that great gift of George W. Bush called the Patriot Act? To what degree are you acquainted with your slavemasters? How passionate are you about repealing it? Hopefully this will stoke some fires. Below are a short list of violations from the Patriot Act to the Constitution. "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams Constitutional Amendments Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.	Violations from the Patriot Act: Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.	Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.	Freedom of association: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.
Amendment VI: ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.	Right to legal representation: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...	Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
Amendment VI: ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him ... Public opinion about the TSA HERE	Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.

It Might Happen- Strolling down the primrose path to “Deficit Reduction”

Dave Durand - Wednesday Contributor

We did it America! After all the partisan bickering and despite all the infighting between the establishment and freshmen congressmen, a deal was finally reached to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. We can confidently proclaim that the threat of default has been forever vanquished. The markets have been pulled back from a great precipice overlooking the abyss known as the double dip recession. America’s AAA rating will remain secure establishing our economy as the standard bearer for the civilized world.

Wait a minute. What’s that you say? The exact opposite has occurred? Get right out of town!

You mean there was never the great threat of default and a compromise to raise the debt limit was completely unnecessary? Are you actually telling me that the market plunged and erased all the gains made this year? I refuse to believe that you are sitting at home, staring at your computer, and screaming at top of your lungs that S&P has downgraded the American Debt after all this rigmarole.

I guess there is a first time for everything.

Despite the reality slap upside our collective heads, we can at least take solace in President Obama's words last week on the debt ceiling compromise. In his most promising and re-assuring tone, the president stated that the deal “will begin to lift the cloud of debt and the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy”.  He also went on to add that “It will allow us to start reducing our deficit in a responsible way”.

But is President Obama right to be so optimistic? Are we on the path to reducing the daunting annual deficits we face? Will we finally tighten our belts as a people and make the hard choice to live within our means?

Well, in the immortal words of Wayne Campbell…

And why don’t I expect to see airborne monkeys anytime soon? Because there has never been a credible plan presented that will intentionally balance the US budget, thereby reducing the deficit allowing us to pay down the National Debt. Oh in case you missed it, out National Debt is now 100% of GDP. That’s European levels of debt. 

 Sacré Bleu!

I argue that we will never balance the federal budget with the current leadership in Washington DC. The Democrats along with President Obama insist on spending and taxing our way to prosperity. The Republicans insist on zero tax increases (I agree!) and spending our way, albeit at a slower pace, to prosperity. Both parties only flirt with the idea of even marginally reforming entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. And if you add the impending deluge of retiring baby boomers and burdensome Obamacare legislation into the calculation, by 2050, the budget for entitlements will have more than doubled from 2005. These costs will literally equal the amount of “revenue” the federal government has historically taken in on average each year!

How can we afford this? Does anyone have a reasonable plan to set right our ship of state? Democrats? Republicans? Liberals? Conservatives? Tea Party Caucus? 

Bueller… Bueller… Bueller…?

How about the Tea Party favorite and budget hawk from Florida, Representative Connie Mack? His plan (H.R. 1848) is known as the "One Percent Spending Reduction Act of 2011".  The bill mandates cuts in federal spending (in real dollars) by 1% for every year until 2019 when the federal budget would then be balanced.

Wow. Sounds good right? Well consider this. By 2019 this plan reduces the federal budget to $3.184 Trillion. We were spending this amount 2 years ago!

So this plan, which is criticized by opponents as draconian and disregarded as “extreme”, takes 7 years to roll back the spending we have incurred since 2009. All the while, we will go deeper and deeper into debt as the budget slowly balances. I applaud the effort, but this discussion is getting us nowhere fast.

So what can be done? Well may I humbly suggest fidelity to the Constitution? If the federal government only performed the 18 tasks outlined in Article 1, Section 8, then we would not be in the mess we are in. Our monstrous tax code would not exist. Hundreds of federal departments, agencies, bureaus, or commissions would not exist. Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare would not exist. Millions of regulations that only suffocate private enterprise would not exist. Hundreds of military bases across the world would not exist, and we would not waste blood and treasure on unnecessary wars that do not safeguard our liberties.

If government would only get out of the way, then of the US economy would again be the envy of the world. Prosperity and opportunity would abound. Individuals would be free to pursue life, liberty, and property. Free markets and free minds would flourish, and the result would be the greatest living standard for the greatest number of Americans far surpassing our wildest hopes and dreams.

Just a thought.