Ron Paul’s efforts at having HR.1207 voted on as a standalone bill never really had a chance. Instead, it will arrive to the House floor attached to Barney Frank’s little boy, his comprehensive financial regulatory reform bill. The draft legislation grants new powers to the Federal Reserve and creates more regulatory controls over the market. If the free market is god, this bill is the devil. However, the bill will now have something good attached to it now that HR.1207 was added to it as an amendment.

Ron Paul makes a name for himself by always considering the Constitution while weighing his votes. Should Paul supporters expect him to don his Dr. No mask when his 30+ year fight against the central bank finally comes to a vote on the House floor? Will Paul vote against auditing the Fed because it is attached to an obviously unconstitutional bill? The libertarian purists among us may expect him to do so, but I expect him to vote for the evil to get the good. In fact, I would expect most if not all Paul supporters will give him a pass on this one. Tell us what you think in the comments section to this article.

He has already indicated what he will do in his press release covering yesterday’s committee vote:

“While HR 3996, if passed, will grant sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve, at least with this amendment attached, it won’t be acting in secret anymore. This is a major victory for Federal Reserve transparency and government accountability. I am very grateful to Congressman Bachus and all the other Members who were so supportive and helpful in this effort,” stated Congressman Paul.

An argument could be made (and Paul seems to be implying it by his quote) that the financial regulatory reform bill is going to pass anyway and with Paul’s audit included in it, the bill’s attack on the free market will be softened. If they gut Paul’s amendment (like Mel Watt and Barney Frank tried to do in committee) as it moves closer to a floor vote it wouldn’t be shocking to see Dr. Paul morph into Dr. No once again.

So it is certainly bittersweet, but at least it’s not all bitter and no sweet.

——————————————-

UPDATE: It looks like Paul will still push for a separate vote on HR.1207 as a standalone bill. I don’t think those in power will let it happen, but I never thought his bill would get as far as it has already, so we’ll see.

Paul’s amendment passed, first by voice vote, and then by roll call vote later in the day. The final tally was 43 for Paul’s bill and 26 against.

Earlier I posted Grayson and Watt debating Watt’s amendment and Ron Paul introducing his substitute amendment. Below are four new videos from the markup hearing. This includes the voice vote and the final roll call vote so you can hear which of the committee members need to be voted out of office in their next election cycle.

First up is Ron Paul arguing (yet again) why Fed transparency is not a call for injecting Congress into Fed policy decisions.

Next we have Barney Frank patting himself on the back again for bringing Ron Paul’s Fed audit legislation up in the committee. There’s a bit of humorous back and forth then Congressman Hensarling rips Frank for his comments a bit by calling them “irrelevant”.

Here are the leadup comments from Alan Grayson and co., then the voice vote on adopting Ron Paul’s substitute amendment.

And finally, the official roll call vote of Ron Paul’s substitute amendment. Ron Paul wins!

A few weeks ago at a Town Hall meeting Lindsey Graham argued that he would not let Ron Paul hijack the Republican Party. Grayson seems to be taking lessons from Graham. Watch Grayson in the interview below from WHAS11 as he smugly dismisses Paul while labeling him “crazy”. Hmmm… where have we heard that tactic before?

As the news report mentions, it appears there is the potential for another establishment Republican to enter the race. That would certainly shake up the race, but I’m not sure it would be a bad thing for Paul’s chances.

“I just don’t think she possesses the mental capacity to be the President of the United States. She’s a goofball!”

So everyone’s favorite host of Freedom Watch has weighed in on Sarah Palin. To me, she’s a completely divisive figure. People seem to either idolize her or loathe her. I don’t think she has much chance of being the next POTUS. In fact, I’d be surprised if she did better than Giuliani did in the GOP primaries of 2008.

For more about what lead up to the Judge’s “straight talk” listen to the audio:

(Thanks to Media Matters for the audio)

Economic theory and massive amounts of empirical evidence make a strong case for maintaining the Fed’s independence. When central banks are subjected to political pressure, authorities often pursue excessively expansionary monetary policy in order to lower unemployment in the short run. This produces higher inflation and higher interest rates without lowering unemployment in the long term. This has happened over and over again in the past, not only in the United States but in many other countries throughout the world.

The Fed’s independence is critical to its credibility. During the financial crisis, this credibility allowed the Fed to take extraordinary action to prevent a possible depression without triggering inflation. But eventually the Fed will have to scale back its unprecedented monetary accommodation. When it does move to tighten monetary conditions, it must be allowed to do so without political interference.

This is a tired argument at this point. The bottom line, once again, is that the Fed cannot “maintain its independence” when it is not independent to begin with. It is politicized already and it is plainly obvious to most observers without an axe to grind. The fact that this opinion piece appears in the WSJ at all is evidence in itself of this. It’s always important to consider the sources. The authors of the piece are both “in bed with the Fed”, so to speak.

Anil Kashyup was “an economist for the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System. He currently works as a consultant for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and serves as a member of the Economic Advisory Panel of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and as a Research Associate for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).” His faculty bio page is here.

Frederic Mishkin is a former member of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve (2006-2008). Perhaps more telling is the following juicy bit:

In 2006, Mishkin co-authored a report called “Financial Stability in Iceland”. The report maintained that Iceland’s economic fundamentals were strong. The report was commissioned by the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce in response to critical coverage of the Icelandic economy and certain Icelandic companies in the international business media.

Iceland subsequently experienced a spectacular collapse within a year of Mishkin’s good report.

So, considering the sources, this WSJ opinion piece should be ignored and ostracized as the comments on the article are already showing.

Following the gigantic shift in poll numbers, showing that Paul now has a slim lead over Grayson in the contest, Dr. Paul is getting serious. He’s going to break some bread with the establishment. He’s going to meet with Senator Mitch McConnell.

(WHAS11) – The surprise candidate in Kentucky’s Republican U.S. Senate primary tells WHAS11 News he is reaching out to senior Senator, Mitch McConnell.

Rand Paul is a Bowling Green eye surgeon. His campaign’s poll numbers and fundraising success have stunned party leaders and it is early in the game.

So who is he and does he have a chance?

Most Kentucky political observers expected the democrats to duke it out in the senate primary while Republican Trey Grayson sat back and prepared for the fall campaign.

But Rand Paul and the sudden uprising of fiscal conservatism in the tea party movement appears to have changed all that.

Some people who have supported Rand Paul’s father, Ron Paul, had concerns that Rand would abandon his principles once (or if) he get to DC. Truth be told, it must be extremely difficult to resist doing so. But the younger Paul has the blood of his father coursing through his veins. He’s given no indication thus far that any liberty-loving principles will be abandoned. I expect that to continue right on through his coming 12 years in the Senate.

At this point no one except Paul and McConnell know what will be discussed at their meeting. Is Paul trying to win over the establishment to his anti-establishment ways? Was the meeting set up by McConnell to twist Paul’s arm toward the “center”, politically?

In any case, the meeting is an encouraging sign for Paul. If Paul didn’t raise over a million and follow it up with a jump in the polls this meeting would probably not be taking place. The bottom line is that Rand Paul has an “it” factor that many do not have. He’s likable. He’s pragmatic. He articulates his positions in a manner that would make his father jealous. He has the potential to take the cause of liberty to new levels of popularity.

With Ron Paul I was hoping against hope he would be our next President. With Rand Paul I am not merely hoping, I’m expecting him to win.

Check him out at RandPaul2010.com.

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H. L. Mencken

I’m tired of the health care debate. It’s not much of a debate anymore when the Republican lawmakers are arguing for socialism-lite and the Democrats are arguing for maximum strength socialism. It’s like asking the patient, “Do you want a government doctor or do you want a government physician?”

I’m tired of everyone calling it health “insurance”. It should be called health welfare. Medicare and medicaid are welfare programs. The proposed health care reform is nothing more than medicare on steroids. It’s certainly not insurance. Does auto insurance cover oil changes and tune-ups?

I’m tired of the argument that we should force insurers to cover preexisting conditions. We don’t force home owner’s insurance companies to cover a house already engulfed in flames. Forcing this upon insurers marks the beginning of the slow regulatory death of private insurance. This reeks of progressive incrementalism–a phasing out of private insurance to create a monopoly for government insurance. In other words, the public option becomes the only option. Obama highlighted his plan for this back in 2003 (see the video).

I’m tired of many arguing that health care is a “right”. Calling health care a right is a patently absurd and immoral logical fallacy. One cannot have a right to property or labor owned by someone else. Rights can only be based upon an individual’s own action. Leonard Peikoff put it best during the Hillary-care debate back in 1993.

Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want — not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

I’m tired of hearing Obama and his minions claim that the health care reform proposals will lower health care premiums and costs. My fatigue forces me to be blunt. If you buy in to this argument, find a mirror, look into it, and you will see an “It takes a village” idiot. After you wipe the drool from your chin and lumber away from the mirror, ponder the following 5 items:

1. We already have partial socialized medicine in the form of Medicare (elderly) and Medicaid (poor).
2. As of 2008 the number of people on these government-provided plans totaled 87.4 million.
3. Medicare will run out of money in 2017 according to last year’s government statistics. The previous year the government said it would be insolvent in 2019. I wonder what next year’s numbers will reveal, considering the rising unemployment and the struggling economy (less payroll taxes).
4. As of 2008 there were 46.3 million people without health insurance. About 36 million of these people are promised coverage with the House health welfare bill passed on Saturday evening.
5. How can anyone claim with a straight face that increasing demand for a product by nearly 50% in a newly taxed and regulated market will lower prices? (Better go find that mirror again)
   

I’m tired of writing about national health care. Part of me thinks that those of us fighting against it should just cave in and give the thieving looters what they want. They would certainly get it “good and hard”.

I then look into the faces of my children and see their complete innocence on display. They deserve better. In fact, we all do.

We may be beaten down and tired, but we must never stop fighting.

For the best health care “reform” information all in one place, check out CATO’s health care page.

The latest administration push is to promote merit pay for public school teachers rather than the guaranteed pay scales achieved by teachers unions. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is using the $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” funds as incentive for “progress towards” merit pay.

It is at this point that the reader will be wondering whether I’m a pro-union stooge defending the status quo or a “change agent” who sees how merit pay works in the private sector to enhance performance, and wants to extend that benefit to teaching.

Sorry to disappoint: I’m not really in either camp. I write here to suggest only that the Obama administration, and the states reacting to its efforts, are not promoting a policy on teacher merit pay, but merely broaching the subject, or, if you will, making noise. In pursuance of the Race to the Top funds, the California state legislature and Governor Schwarzenneger have eliminated a law that forbade use of student test scores in evaluating teachers. That’s the easy part.

Merit pay for teachers is an idea worth considering, but it will be complicated, both in political venues and in the field, to carry out. If any level of government were really interested in implementing merit pay, here’s what we’d be reading in the newspapers coverage of the policy development:

1. Discussion of how to determine “merit” for teachers. In California the only objective measure available is the California Standards Test (CST), given each year in the spring to grades 2 through 11. There is no test in September to establish a baseline. The “value added” approach is a rational first step in achieving a baseline. It is used in Texas, Chicago, and some southern states. Value added uses the scores of the three previous years as the baseline. This approach may be the way to go in California, but it would not work as we are currently structured. Kindergarten, first grade and high school seniors do not take the CST. How will teachers of these grades be evaluated? Even if primary were evaluated, what would the baseline be? Where is the discussion?

2.Even if all grade levels were tested, how do we factor student transiency into the baseline? Transiency is a major statistical factor. In LA Unified, thousands of students transfer every year in and out of schools. There are migrant children who follow their parents’ seasonal work, children going in and out of home schooling, children moving to California from states whose standardized testing is structured differently from ours. How do we derive their baseline? Where is the discussion?

3. How do we factor in the impact various types of students have on measures of teacher performance, and how can we keep a collegial environment among faculties? Teachers already tend to compete for the highest scoring students, but evaluating teachers with student scores poses a counter-intuitive problem: the highest scoring students have less room to go up. It’s easier to show improvement from lower scoring students. How do we factor in those differences? How do we keep teachers from fighting over which students will be most likely to improve? Might we want to consider awarding merit pay to an entire school that has used peer assistance for struggling teachers and smart management to achieve academic growth? This might work better than trusting a bureaucrat in Sacramento to figure things out. But where is the discussion?

Bertrand Russell noted that society is motivated by strife, not discussion. It’s more fun for the villagers to march with flaming torches demanding that the teachers be held accountable, than to have rational discussions of how to hold them accountable. My own problem with the flaming torches approach is that it gets government off the hook for actually figuring out policy. I say, let’s settle down and get some real policy.

Doug Lasken is a retired LAUSD teacher and freelancer. Write him at doug.lasken@gmail.com
This article first appeared in the L.A. Daily News, 10/25/09

Originally published October 31, 2009 at http://towneforcongress.com/economy/jake-towne-on-foxs-freedom-watch-with-judge-napolitano-1

On Wednesday, October 28th, I traveled down to the Drexel University campus to appear on FOX New’s Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano, Drexel’s Student Liberty Front, Pennsylvania State Representative Sam Rohrer, and Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation.  I was a panel member for the first two sessions covering the concept of “just war” and also the current “financial fiasco” which can be seen below, or watched on this playlist link.

On the first session, my plank on the Iraq War can be read here, and the “War is a Racket” essay by USMC General Smedley Butler can be read here.  In the second session, my plank on the Federal Reserve is here, and I highly recommend “Fractional Reserve Banking in Pictures” to understand the current fraudulent monetary system.

I will discuss the Federal Reserve in more detail as a keynote speaker this November 22nd at the Constitution rEVOLution Tea Party in Philadelphia.  Locally, I will be given a few minutes to talk about constitutional money on Friday, November 6th at 7 PM in Palmer Township.  Details on both of these upcoming events are here.

This was my first time on a major news network and I must say that I was quite impressed with Judge Napolitano – he is quite the media professional.  As a professional chemical engineer, not a career politician, it is quite a bit different to have to immediately answer fastball questions than in person or even phone interviews.  However, practice makes perfect, and trial by fire is the best way to learn quickly.

Judge for yourself how I did, and please leave any comments or suggestions to improve below!  I was not part of the panel for the last two parts but the remainder of the show can be watched here.

The reason Bob McDonnell beat out Creigh Deeds in Virginia was not because McDonnell represents some new style small government Republican. McDonnell won because Deeds made campaign mistakes. McDonnell made none. Deeds lost the race more than McDonnell won it.

The same is true for the New Jersey race. Corzine, a former chairman at Goldman Sachs, easily became a scapegoat for a failing economy and political corruption. So, he lost.

What Tuesday’s election results really demonstrated was a lack of conviction for either Democrats or Republicans. When the political spectrum shines red, then blue, then red, then blue, over and over again something tangible comes to light:

America is not rooting for either party to win. America is rooting for the underdog.

After 8 years of Clinton, George W. Bush was the underdog. In 2004, Bush was still the underdog largely due to his perceived strength (however false it was) in fighting “those who attacked us on 9/11″. That quickly soured so much that by 2006 the Democratic Party was the underdog so they won control of Congress. If Bush was up for re-election himself in 2006, he’d have lost.

The 2008 election cemented the underdog theory with America getting the chance to elect the first African American President. McCain, largely a Bush twin, had no chance.

Tuesday’s election results demonstrated that the Republicans are now, once again, the underdogs. This bodes well for them in the 2010 election and it could carry over to the 2012 Presidential contest. Of course, that depends on who has the perceived power at that time.

The point of this “underdog theory” is that we are not happy with the blue nor the red team. When the time comes we just want to take away power from whichever team has it.

For liberty champions this eternal game is growing extremely tiresome.

When everyone buys into the two team league yet no one wants either team to finish in first place, isn’t it time to expand the league?

It just so happens that there is a liberty-loving team already in place ready to be added to the league. Here are their names:

• Rand Paul
• David Hedrick
• Adam Kokesh
• Peter Schiff
• Ray McBerry
• Chris Simcox
• Debbie Medina
• Bill Hunt
• RJ Harris
• John Dennis
• David Ratowitz
• Jake Towne
• Randy Brogdon
• Robert Broadus
• Collins Bailey
• Jaynee Germond
• Bob Parker
• Bill Connor
• Peg Luksik

These are the candidates being celebrated today on the anniversary of Ron Paul’s 5th of November money bomb. To learn more about these candidates please check out ThisNovember5th.com. If you find a candidate you like, then please don’t hesitate to support that candidate with a generous donation.

These are the real underdogs and outcasts. Let’s help make them winners and keep them winning.

Here’s an excerpt:

I trust that by this point I need not belabor my point at greater length. To recapitulate: “solutions” to the ongoing growth of government are available for a dime a dozen. I have a bag full of them myself, and every one of them is utterly worthless as a means of achieving the ultimate goal. Every genuine solution must be carried through, and any serious solution will require enough people and money to carry out the activities necessary to bring it about. Marshalling people and money may in turn require ideological conversions on a substantial scale, which themselves may require a great many people and a great deal of money, if such conversions are possible at all, given the existing configuration of vested interests (broadly construed).

Moreover, another potent constraint always lurks in the background. Although we need not spend much time at present in dwelling on this issue, the fact remains that if any truly effective measures were approved to rein in the government, the rulers in all likelihood would resort to whatever legal or illegal violence proved necessary to prevent those measures from taking effect. Thus, I am quite sure, for example, that if Ron Paul were ever, by a miracle of miracles, to be elected president, he would not live to take the oath of office. Opponents of the government’s ongoing growth must bear in mind that we are dealing with violent, heavily armed, utterly unscrupulous people who, if pushed to the brink, will stop at nothing to retain their power and privileges.

Take time to read the entire article here.

Well, that’s what they want you to think. I want to know why the debate is now all about whether or not there should be a public option and little else? This shows us how Obama and his fellow looters are now firmly in the lead on this debate. The argument is no longer about whether we should have the government more involved in health care, but whether the government should provide health care.

The question is no longer “why are we doing this?” Instead, the question is “how do we do it?”

If Pelosi has her way, this is how:

The new House proposal is similar to one drafted by Democrats months ago. It requires Americans to buy health insurance by 2013 or pay a fine, creates a government-run program similar to Medicare to compete with private insurers and lets 15 million additional people enroll in Medicaid by easing eligibility requirements.

But in an effort to make the bill more appealing to moderates in her party, Pelosi altered some of the fine print. The proposed government-run “public option,” for instance, would negotiate for how much to pay doctors and hospitals rather than relying on government-set rates, as Medicare does.

Echoing concerns raised by his Republican colleagues, Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan said the bill’s heft, at 1,990 pages, indicated how it would expand the government’s role in health care: “Families will face higher taxes,” he said.

Replacing the above word “higher” with “astronomical” would be more honest. One need not read past page 4 (3d) to find the most offensive words to free market liberty loving Americans:

“initiates shared responsibility among workers, employers, and the Government; so that all Americans have coverage of essential health benefits.”

The word “initiates” should be replaced with the more honest word, “forces”. This phrase is a pure unadulterated call for socialism. When you force someone to share, it’s no longer sharing. It is theft, well-intended theft, but theft nonetheless.

Why do we get put in jail if we steal money to give to the poor yet it is perfectly fine for the government to do it without repercussions? I suppose the answer is: they own the jails.

Why do we get put in jail if we murder someone yet it is perfectly fine for government troops to kill people?

Are government humans more special than civilian humans? They seem to be able to operate outside the scope of morality.

The bill would establish a new federal government department inappropriately called the “Health Choices Administration” with the “Health Choices Commissioner” at the head. I can’t wait for their ad slogan to come out: “The Health Choices Administration: Be Nice, we can choose whether you live or die!”

Under this bill the Health Choices Commissioner has the power to regulate a new “market” they call the “Health Services Exchange”. This is the so-called new “free market” where the government public option health care is to compete with private health insurers. Yet somehow this is supposed to allow private insurers to compete on a level playing field? Please.

This bill becoming law would signal the end of private health insurance. It is only a matter of time before the public option will be the only option.

The government owns the jails now. The government tells you what you can put in your body. With socialized medicine the government is just continuing its assault on individual liberty. There is no “I”, only “We”.