During President Obama’s high profile visit to China this week, the most frequently discussed, yet least understood, topic was how currency valuations are affecting the economic relationship between the United States and China. The focal problem is the Chinese government’s policy of fixing the value of the renminbi against the U.S. dollar. While many correctly perceive that this ‘peg’ has contributed greatly to the current global imbalances, few fully comprehend the ramifications should that peg be discarded.The common understanding is both incomplete and naive. Most analysts simply see the peg as China’s principal weapon in an economic struggle for global ascendancy. The peg, they argue, offers China a competitive advantage by making its products cheaper in U.S. markets, thus allowing Chinese firms to gobble up market share and steal jobs from U.S. manufacturers. The thought is that were China to allow its currency to rise, American manufactures would regain their lost edge, and both manufacturing firms and the jobs formerly associated with them would return. In this narrative, the struggle centers on the United States’ diminishing leverage in persuading the Chinese to lay down their unfair weaponry. It’s a sympathetic picture, but it tells the wrong story.
While the peg certainly is responsible for much of the world’s problems, its abandonment would cause severe hardship in the United States. In fact, for the U.S., de-pegging would cause the economic equivalent of cardiac arrest. Our economy is currently on life support provided by an endless flow of debt financing from China. These purchases are the means by which China maintains the relative value of its currency against the dollar. As the dollar comes under even more downward pressure, China’s purchases must increase to keep the renminbi from rising. By maintaining the peg, China enables our politicians and citizens to continue spending more than they have and avoiding the hard choices necessary to restore our long-term economic health. Read More »
Health insurance is cheap in some states. In others it costs as much as the lease on a Ferrari. This isn’t because of any flaw in the free market. It’s because we don’t have a free market! What we have instead are laws that reward corporate welfare benefits to special interests and insurance companies.
Use the Ferrari example in my sample letter to make your case . . .
The average medical plan in New Jersey costs $37,164 per year. The monthly premiums exceed the lease for a Ferrari!
By comparison, Indiana has far fewer corporate welfare mandates dictating what health insurance must cover. People in that state can choose between 43 plans costing less than $5,400 annually!
If the New Jersey family could buy medical insurance from an Indiana provider, they’d save over $31,000 a year!
Extend this to the entire country and the results would be dramatic.
by John Browne – Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital
The U.S. economy is in uncertain times. Analysts are split between those seeing recovery and those fearing a second downturn. This confusion is being echoed in the highest levels of government as President Obama simultaneously speaks about the need for more federal spending and warns of the dangers of increased debt. As the volatile markets indicate, investors are not only confused – they are seriously concerned.
The country appears to be going through a period of buyer’s remorse over the election of Barack Obama. The majority cobbled together by the President one year ago included the Democratic base, independents hoping for “change,” and many disaffected Republicans betrayed by the Bush Administration’s big-government neoconservatism. It is unlikely that most of these voters favored an overt push toward socialism; however, this is what they have received. As the ‘tea parties’ illustrate, voters are not only confused – they are seriously concerned.
When all the high-fives, handshakes, and hip-hip hoorays finish dying down a bit of reality overcomes the Ron Paul, anti-Fed faithful. In order for Ron Paul’s full Federal Reserve audit to become law it requires Paul to swim in uncomfortable waters. He must compromise his principles. So the celebrations must be tempered with the hard truth that is DC politics. It is indeed a bittersweet symphony.
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.
“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.
Below is a link to the list of House Financial Committee members and how they voted on the Paul-Grayson amendment which passed committee earlier today. The amendment was a substitute for the evil Watt amendment. Paul’s amendment will now move forward along with the financial regulatory reform bill instead of Watt’s bill.
Of course, there is still ample opportunity for Paul’s bill to be gutted once again, but for now liberty-lovers should be quite happy that a big hurdle has been cleared.
Vote totals and details:
43 yeas / 26 nays
15 Democrats and 28 Republicans voted YES.
All 26 nay votes were from Democrats. No Republicans voted NO.
By now we all know the story. Mel Watt introduced an amendment on the big financial regulatory reform bill that “gutted” Ron Paul’s HR.1207 Fed audit bill. Today, Ron Paul introduced a substitute amendment to that amendment that puts the “guts” back in to the audit. Effectively, Paul’s amendment is HR.1207 with a bit more detailed language regarding monetary policy oversight.
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.
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!
Ron Paul introduced a substitute amendment to replace Mel Watt’s amendment that would have “gutted” HR.1207’s intent. Dr. Paul’s substitute was later passed by the committee over the ‘nay’ votes of both Barney Frank and Mel Watt. It was passed by voice vote. The roll call vote is scheduled for this afternoon.
This was an important step in the process, but the amendment is going to be tacked on to the larger regulatory reform bill being deliberated now.
Watch Ron Paul introduce the bill earlier today in the committee in the video below.
The House Financial Services committee began debating Mel Watt’s amendment to Ron Paul’s HR.1207 bill to audit the Federal Reserve today. Watt’s bill is said to strip HR.1207 of it’s original purpose.
The clip below shows Alan Grayson arguing against Mel Watt’s amendment and then Watt’s rather angry response. Stay tuned for more clips…
Congressional leaders routinely use your tax money to bribe other members of Congress, buying votes to enact legislation that couldn’t pass otherwise. The so-called healthcare bill is the latest example.
You can copy or borrow from my letter to Congress to write your own . . .
Please oppose the so-called healthcare reform bill. I especially object to the fact that my tax dollars are being used to bribe members of Congress to secure their votes, or to reward powerful Senators. For instance . . .
The Baucus bill has the federal government paying the entire cost for the mandated Medicaid expansion in the following states: Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Michigan. This is an attempt to bribe or reward the Senators and Representatives from those states using my tax money.
Other states aren’t getting this sweet deal. Citizens in the other 46 states will have to pay higher taxes to fund this scheme.
I’m sure the so-called heathcare bill is stuffed with other sweetheart deals, designed to win key votes. You guys call this logrolling. I call it bribery. The only reason Congressional leaders get away with it is because they’re using my tax money to do the bribing, but that makes it worse, not better.
Frankly, I think any Congressional leader who offers a tax-funded benefit for a state or district in order to secure a vote, and any member of Congress who negotiates to gain such a benefit, should be brought up on charges and go to jail for violating the anti-bribery law.
Liberty Maven
by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse
by John Browne – Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital
Follow LM on Twitter