In Ron Paul’s latest video released on his Congressional site he talks about his questioning of Bernanke yesterday. The video is a bit of a scholastic lecture on our fiat money system. During it, he claims, more than once, that our financial system has collapsed.
Bruce Fein, a laywer who specializes in constitutional and international law, gave what arguably could be considered one of the best speeches at Ron Paul’s Rally For The Republic earlier this year. He also testified at a Congressional hearing regarding the Executive Branch’s (i.e. Bush Administration’s) power-hungry ways. In light of Obama’s (and the Congress’) endorsement of Troubled Asset Relief Act of 2008 (TARA) — in addition to all the financial bailouts to date — Fein wrote an editorial in the Washington Times, railing against such ill advised interventions which he claims “reward political machinations inside the Beltway; distort economic competition by favoring some industries or companies over others; and, kill new jobs or innovation - earmarks of a healthy economy.”
Writing 220 years ago in Federalist 62, James Madison descried incessant changes in the law that altered the economic playing field. Legal instability confers on lobbyists and their clients a preferred position over men and women whose labors are economically productive. Anticipating modern-day Jack Abramoffs, Madison observed that mutability in government financial decrees gives “unreasonable advantage … to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.”
Fein goes on to illustrate how Madison’s sage words fits today’s situation perfectly. Read the whole article here.
Yesterday, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson published an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times. It was filled with doublespeak, platitudes, lies, and incredible ignorance. Chris Martenson parsed Paulson’s words, paragraph by paragraph, to shed some truth of the situation. Here’s a snippet:
[Paulson writes:]
I have always said that the decline in the housing market is at the root of the economic downturn and our financial market stress. And the economy, as it slows further, threatens to prolong this decline, as well as the stress on our financial institutions and financial markets.
My Comment: Um, no, Hank, sorry, this is not true. Here are some recent quotes from you:
April 20, 2007 — “I don’t see (subprime mortgage market troubles) imposing a serious problem. I think it’s going to be largely contained.”
July 26, 2007 — “I don’t think it [the subprime mess] poses any threat to the overall economy.”
This article by Chris Martenson is quite revealing, even entertaining (if you’re into black comedy). Read the whole thing here.
For once it seems that when it comes to the auto industry bailout Ron Paul agrees with Mitt Romney, or is it the other way around? Romney said the following about the bailouts in a New York Times op-ed.
“If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.”
“Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.”
I couldn’t agree with Romney more. Paul and Romney’s reasoning may come from different sources, but the result is the same, at least on this particular bailout. I’m happy to see Romney not taking the same line of Bush Republicans, saying that the bailout is required but must not come from the $700 billion bailout money.
Ron Paul appeared today on CNN in the time slot usually reserved for Glenn Beck, but Beck is off to FOX News now. His replacement Jane Velez-Mitchell is mostly right with her views, but after listening to her you may need a few ibuprofen.
They discuss the auto bailout and bailouts in general. Neither Velez-Mitchell nor Paul think this auto bailout is necessary, of course. Paul seems to hint around that he doesn’t necessarily believe the auto bailout bill is as “dead” as many are making it out to be.
The U.S. companies say they need $25 billion in taxpayer money to help convert to building smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Many are afraid that if Detroit does not somehow obtain it’s $25 Billion from the taxpayers that consumers won’t get vehicles they need, such as the Chevy Volt. Well, who needs the Chevy Volt, and who needs Detroit?
Ron Paul appeared on FOX Business News today following his grilling of Ben Bernanke on Capitol Hill. He accuses Bernanke and Paulson of price fixing among some other choice words. Paul’s contention is that they are fighting against what the market wants and their efforts to subvert the market will fail because the “market is more powerful than the central bankers”.
A favorite Paul comment:
“No I didn’t get answers, and I didn’t expect any.”
Ron Paul questioned Ben Bernanke this morning regarding the entire financial system as it relates to the bailouts. Again, Paul says the words that no one wants to hear, but truly needs to hear. A few choice quotes from Paul:
“Something has to give, or we are going to waste more time trying to patch this system together.”
“Does this thought come up… about a new world reserve currency?”
“The dollar system has essentially been declared dead.”
Quote of the Day: “The practice of combining into one Bill Subjects diverse in their nature and having no necessary connection, thereby to secure the passage of several measures, no one of which could succeed on its own merits, both corrupts Congress and endangers the American constitutional republic.” — One Subject At A Time Act, Section 2(f)
Subject: OSTA would prevent monstrosities like the Big Bailout bill
What does that have to do with “rescuing the economy?” Nothing.
The bailout bill was stuffed with unrelated provisions to win the votes of pork-minded Congresspeople, and passed quickly before anyone could read it. This made it easy to add provisions that couldn’t have passed by themselves in the full light of day.
The original bailout bill was bad. The final bill was worse. This wouldn’t have happened had the “One Subject At A Time Act” (OSTA) been in force. Here are three examples of how OSTA would have stopped the Big Bailout bill . . .
OSTA says: “No Bill or Joint Resolution shall embrace more than one subject at a time, and that shall be clearly and descriptively expressed in the Title.”
The Big Bailout bill had at least 5 “subjects,” and not all of them were mentioned in the bill’s title.
OSTA says: “An Appropriations Bill shall not contain any general legislation or change of existing law provision, the subject of which is not germane to the subject matter of each such Appropriations Bill…”
Quote of the Day: “The Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.” — Joseph Sobran
Subject: Should you pay autoworkers to do nothing?
If the history of the current era is ever written properly it may be called “The Age of the Government Sponsored Scam.” The examples are piling up. Here’s the latest . . .
Think of what this will mean if the politicians pass a bill to bailout GM, or Chrysler, or Ford. When you go to work you’ll be laboring part of the day to pay some members of the United Auto Workers union to sit and produce nothing.
Doesn’t that sound like a scam to you, and wouldn’t a bailout represent government sponsorship of this scam?
Do you think, perhaps, the Detroit automakers might not need a bailout if they didn’t sign such stupid contracts with the UAW union?
Do you think, perhaps, that the Democrats may ignore this problem unless they hear outrage about it from their constituents?
If you have Democratic representatives you may want to ponder whether they represent the unions, or you. Shouldn’t you ask them where their loyalties lie?
Or, if you have Republican representatives, do you think they might make an issue of this if you inform them of it?
Liberty Maven
