Reality is immune to human fantasy

This truism is no more prevalent than now as we witness Ron Paul’s rise in the polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire to front runner status. All of the usual pundits in the usual media outlets are attempting to discredit a potential Paul victory in Iowa by calling it meaningless. This is irritating and predictable; however, it gets worse. The governor of Iowa has now joined in on this fantasy. From Politico:

Leading Republicans, looking to put the best possible frame on a Paul victory, are already testing out a message for what they’ll say if the 76-year-old Texas congressman is triumphant.

The short version: Ignore him.

“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third,” said Gov. Terry Branstad. “If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states.”

What country do we live in again? This ain’t America…. not even the America I was taught about in public school. Discrediting an election (caucus) merely because you disagree with the results is something Hugo Chavez does. It is not something we do in America. At least I thought we didn’t. Do these Ron Paul detractors really believe this behavior is acceptable? If the majority (or plurality) of people in your state vote for someone you don’t like how can you say it doesn’t count?

This effort at undermining their own process by making these comments has more danger of discrediting the election than Ron Paul winning. Hopefully Iowans and others see through this poppycock and vote without its influence.

The reality of Ron Paul should be no match for those naysayers living in fantasy land calling him an anti-semite, racist, and worse. It seems to me that once your foes start calling you names rather than debate you on your positions then you’ve already won.

During Paul’s 2008 campaign I wrote that I didn’t think America was quite ready for Ron Paul. Here in 2012, America just might be ready for him and the harsh reality he brings. We are going broke. We need to cut spending. We need to cut taxes. We need to bring our troops home from overseas to defend this country. We need to end all foreign aid. Yes, including Israel. Give them back their sovereignty.

If you fear a Ron Paul presidency just take a deep breath, calm down, and read the Constitution. That’s his platform. If you still think he’s too extreme then realize that there are 2 other branches of government that will be operating to limit his extremism. That’s a major reason we have the judiciary and legislature, checks and balances. If any other candidate wins, nothing will change. We’ll keep going down the spending death-spiral to our own demise. I’m not a big fan of demise. I’m voting for Ron Paul. Are you?

RIP Ron Smith.

This was not just an appearance on a late night talk show. This was a Ron Paul campaign rally.

During the final interview segment with Paul, Leno asked him his thoughts on the other candidates and went down the list by name. When he got to Bachmann, Ron Paul replied, “She doesn’t like Muslims. She hates Muslims. She wants to go get them.” This probably didn’t win him any neo-conservative supporters. Then he doubled down on this when he replied similarly about Santorum saying he doesn’t like “gay people and Muslims.”  Wow. I can’t imagine that Santorum and Bachmann won’t issue a counter-attack soon.

This just further cements my point in previous articles. Ron Paul can and would beat Obama in the general election. His more difficult win is in the GOP primary.

During the appearance Twitter was about 99% positive about Ron Paul, including many tweets saying things like, “I wasn’t sure before, but now I’m definitely voting for Ron Paul.”

Now we can sit back and monitor how the pundits and other candidates react, if they react at all.

See the entire appearance below in 4 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0r0lRyiKY

Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

by Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, and host of The Peter Schiff Show, broadcasting live from WSTC Norwalk CT from 10am to noon Eastern time every weekday, and streaming at

Herman Cain has been gaining much traction with his 9-9-9 Plan, a bold proposal to replace our dysfunctional tax code with what could be a simpler, less invasive, and more economically stimulative alternative. While I don’t agree with the full spectrum of Mr. Cain’s policy choices, I applaud his courage on the tax front. Judging by his rising poll numbers, this appreciation is widely shared. However, the plan has deep flaws, the most glaring of which is its creation of a hidden payroll tax which represents a fourth “nine.” This serious pitfall has been unmentioned by Mr. Cain and overlooked by those who have analyzed his plan.

Cain would replace the current system of income and payroll taxes with a 9% flat-rate personal income tax, a 9% corporate tax, and a 9% national sales tax. Great idea. Such a system would unburden businesses, provide a tax cut for most Americans, and shift taxation to consumption and away from income generation. This is exactly what our economy needs. But unlike our current corporate tax system, the plan eliminates the deductibility of wages and salaries from corporate income. The net effect is the creation of a brand new 9% tax on wages. When this fourth 9 falls from Cain’s sleeve, many of his opponents will likely accuse him of cheating.

Much of the plan’s virtue lies in its elimination of Social Security and Medicare taxes (payroll taxes) that fall heaviest on lower income workers. This includes the 6.2% Social Security tax and the 1.5% Medicare tax paid directly by the worker. But it also includes the 6.2% and 1.5% portions paid indirectly by workers through their employers. Payroll taxes are, in reality, a cost of employment. From the employer’s perspective these costs are part of the wage package. Absent these taxes, employers could raise wages by an equivalent amount without raising labor costs. Inclusive of this portion, payroll taxes currently cost workers 15.4% of their wages.

The Cain plan scraps this tax. But the elimination of wage deductibility from corporate taxes replaces it with a 9% payroll tax. Therefore a more honest name for Cain’s proposal is the 9-9-9-9 plan. The forth nine changes everything.

Cain admits that the 9% sales tax would fall heaviest on the poor, but he claims that the elimination of the payroll tax would more than compensate. But when the hidden 9% payroll tax is factored in, more than 50% of workers who currently pay an average income tax rate of just 3% would see a huge tax hike, from 18.4% (former payroll tax plus income tax) to 27%: 9% payroll tax, 9% income tax and 9% consumption tax (poorer worker generally spend all income).

On the other hand, high income tax payers get a huge break. Not counting the consumption tax, the 9-9-9 plan reduces the highest marginal tax rate from 38% (35% income tax and 3% payroll tax – on income over $105,000) to just 18% (9% income tax plus 9% payroll). For the self-employed, who can transform their wages into dividends (that are deductible business expenses under the 9-9-9 plan), the rate would fall to just 9% (all income tax, no payroll or business tax). Of course, in either case, the 9% sales tax will apply to spending, but even if 100% of earnings are spent (which is generally not true of high earners) the top rate would still top out at only 27% for the highest salaried employees and just 18% for the self-employed. In essence, tax cuts for the rich are paid for with tax hikes on the poor and middle class. If these aspects were widely known the plan would become a political dead letter.

Even with its flaws, the 9-9-9-9 plan would create an economic windfall by lowering the top corporate rate to 9% from 50% (35% at the corporate level and 15% on dividends taxed at the individual level), and simplifying the tax code to reduce unnecessary compliance costs and the economically inefficient behavior that is created by perverse tax incentives. These changes alone will make America far more globally competitive. Also by taxing individuals based more on what they spend rather than on what they earn, the plan will encourage more savings (which is a key ingredient for economic growth). As a result, the economy will grow faster, generate greater output of goods and services, and create more jobs.

The problem for Herman Cain is that unless he slashes government expenditures, his pro-growth tax structure will inevitably shift more of the tax burden to low and moderate-income people. The only way to combine tax reform with tax reductions for most taxpayers is to shrink government to a more manageable scale.

The size of the tax increases required to keep Cain’s 9-9-9-9 plan revenue neutral demonstrates just how high a percentage of our current taxes are being paid by affluent taxpayers. Couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $125,000 only constitute about 3% of taxpayers but pay almost half of all taxes. Any policy that cuts their taxes will inflict a disproportional hit on government revenue.

Contrary to the rhetoric emanating from the American left, the “rich” are currently paying a lot more than “their fair share.” It is only a handful of mega-rich, those whose entire incomes are derived from dividends and capital gains, rather than salaries or business profits, who have the ability to pay lower tax rates than some members of the middle class. The left knows this but continues to build their “free loading millionaire” straw man because it makes good politics.

In the final analysis, if Cain really wants a 9-9-9 plan that doesn’t raise taxes he needs to remove the hidden 9% payroll tax.  However, the only way this could be done, without blowing an even bigger hole in the federal deficit, is to combine his plan with significant spending cuts. If he can pull that off, three nines may be a winning hand after all.

Peter Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of ”How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.”

New Special Report: For an in depth look at the prospects of international currencies, download Peter Schiff’s and Axel Merk’s Five Favorite Currencies for the Next Five Years.

The following essay is presented as an educational service of the Downsize DC Foundation …

By Jim Babka, Perry Willis, and James Wilson

On Monday, August 15, billionaire Warren Buffett argued in an op-ed for the The New York Times that his taxes should be raised. He claimed that giving the Federal State more of his money would be a good thing.

We disagree. We think Mr. Buffett’s investments do more social good than his taxes do. Here’s why…

None of Mr. Buffett’s companies use force to compel people to do business with them, but everything The States does relies on coercion. This automatically makes Mr. Buffett’s investments better than his tax payments. In addition….

Mr. Buffett’s companies must serve their customers, or go bankrupt. By contrast, Statist programs almost always receive increased budgets when they fail. Thus, businesses have an incentive to use resources wisely, while The State has incentives to waste resources. This is why money spent by The Coercive Sector (The State) tends to have less social utility than money spent by The Voluntary Sector (businesses and charities).

In short, businesses tend to be pro-social because they serve society, while The State tends to be anti-social, because it’s wasteful and coercive.

When Mr. Buffett says that he should pay more taxes, he is really saying that he should have less money to invest. Looked at correctly, this is the same as saying that he wants to stop doing social good, and start doing social harm.

We also want to point out that Mr. Buffett is being a hypocrite. If he thinks The State should have more of his money, then he should write them a check.

But instead of putting his money where his mouth is, he asks Congress to take other people’s money. This suggests to us that Mr. Buffett is really pandering to the mob. He doesn’t REALLY believe the Federal State can use his money more wisely then he can. But he may believe that his op-ed will win applause from Left-Statists who have an unquenchable lust for other people’s money. This bit of brown-nosing may even be beneficial for Buffett’s business!

Mr. Buffett is also scamming us in another way. He wants us to believe that wealthy Americans have been doing less to fund the Leviathan State. He wrote in The New York Times….

“Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2% on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion… but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5%”

We say that Mr. Buffett is using percentages in order to deceive. Here’s how those percentages work out in terms of dollars….

• In 1992 the top 400 wealth generators paid $4.9 billion in taxes.
• In 2008 the top 400 wealth generators paid $19.5 billion in taxes.

Can you see how Mr. Buffett’s scam works? The percentage of income paid in taxes went down, but the amount of taxes paid in dollars actually ROSE, by a multiple of 4 in 16 years! This is a staggering rate of return. It’s unlikely that Mr. Buffett’s investments grow that much. But then again, actually having to earn money is much harder than taking it from people at the point of a gun the way The State does.

When Mr. Buffet tries to make you think that society’s top wealth creators are paying less in taxes, he is simply being a con-man.

Mr. Buffett should stop trying to harm society by asking Congress to take other people’s money. Instead, Mr. Buffett should tend to his own knitting, because his investments do more social good than his taxes ever will.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

by John Browne, Senior Market Strategist at Euro Pacific Capital

The basic unwillingness of politicians to face economic and financial realities has caused the United States and European Union to face currency collapse. The politicians are content literally to paper over the problem with massive amounts of newly printed currency. This means that savvy investors, facing major real losses, are turning increasingly to gold. In essence, even though currencies are no longer on a gold standard, they are increasingly being “redeemed” for gold in the marketplace.

For decades, fiscally irresponsible US Administrations have gradually reduced the world’s richest nation, with a currency perceived as ‘good as gold,’ to the position of the largest global debtor, with a debased currency. Furthermore, US stock markets have offered little real return. Indeed, the Dow stands just below 11K, down over 3K points from its all-time high on October 9, 2009. Discounting for inflation shows a loss close to 4K points, or a fall of over 25 percent from its all-time high. Meanwhile, equities in emerging markets have often shown handsome returns.

The recent political wrangling in Washington has damaged the financial credibility of the United States, prompting a long overdue debt downgrade by ratings house Standard & Poor’s. This removes a fundamental pillar supporting the dollar as the global reserve asset of choice.

In Europe, the unwillingness of politicians to face the fatal structural flaws within the euro is encouraging a fear-driven economic recession, sovereign debt defaults, a banking crisis, and, potentially, a currency collapse. This is hurting the euro’s formerly bright prospects of replacing the dollar as global reserve.

This week’s Merkel-Sarkozy summit meeting amounted to nothing constructive. The most popular topic was instituting a Tobin tax on forex transactions. This would, of course, drive financial markets out of the EU to more friendly environments. But more importantly, it leaves the major structural issues of a two-speed Europe unaddressed.

With nothing achieved by the EU’s ruling Franco-German axis, European banks are correctly seen as increasingly vulnerable to further EU sovereign debt defaults. Of course, former communist Merkel and her French ‘poodle,’ the socialist Sarkozy, will find no problem in transferring toxic bank assets to the public purse. But it will require more market anguish before they dare to do it. Once this happens, the euro will be locked on the same railway to devaluation as the dollar.

China’s yuan has strong fundamentals, but is not properly situated to vie for a place on the world stage. It is neither backed by hard assets nor freely floating. Though this policy is changing, it is not yet a true alternative to the dollar as it maintains a fixed exchange ‘band’ to restrain its true value.

Naturally, private investors and foreign central banks are turning to the very monetary instrument that they never should have abandoned: bullion gold. That is why the gold price is rising in $50 leaps per day, with only small corrections. Gold is being re-monetized. [Learn the difference between rare and bullion gold in Euro Pacific Precious Metals' new special report, free for download HERE. Please note: Euro Pacific Capital and John Browne are not affiliated with Euro Pacific Precious Metals.]

Still, despite our continued warnings, and perhaps motivated by yield or a misplaced sense of safety, some investors still are tempted into dollars and US Treasuries, driving them to negative real yields of up to three percent. This may prove to be one of the largest financial traps in history, potentially devastating the savings of many investors. It reflects a fundamental investment strategy flaw.

It has been held that most wise investors should look not at yield and capital appreciation, but at total return. The only need to differentiate between yield and capital growth is for tax purposes. Some investors avoid gold still, because of its lack of yield. This can be a costly mistake when gold’s meteoric capital gains are taken into account.

Some are skeptical because of the performance of silver during the spring. However, it must be remembered that silver is still up some 125% year-over-year. The drop from $50 to $35 was directly related to an unprecedented triple-margin hike by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The exchange made the same move against gold, but the yellow metal shrugged it off through buoyant demand.

Indeed, while silver is temporarily hobbled by worries of global depression and a corresponding drop in industrial demand, gold appears to have no such reservations. Silver may ultimately surge well past gold as the emerging markets prove themselves able to stand on their own despite an ailing West. But gold is a pure monetary trade, and its signal is indisputable.

As long as politicians continue to paper over their problems by issuing more fiat money, gold will regain its crown as the king of monetary instruments.

by Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, and host of The Peter Schiff Show, broadcasting live from WSTC Norwalk CT from 10am to noon Eastern time every weekday, and streaming at

As attention focuses intently on the negotiations to raise the debt ceiling, House Republicans have made a great show of drawing a line in the fiscal sand. They claim that they will not vote for any deal that includes tax increases to narrow the budget deficit. But we all know how the game works in Washington. With the 2012 elections looming the Republican bluster is merely a bargaining chip that they will quickly toss into the pot when they sense a political victory. In fact there are signs that such a compromise is already underway.

House Republicans already have the power to avoid tax hikes and force significant spending cuts. All they have to do is refuse to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances. That’s it. At that point the only discussion would be where to find spending to cut.

But Republicans want to raise the debt ceiling just as much as Democrats, they just want to gain political advantage in the process. They have widely accepted the Democrat stalking horse that a failure to raise the ceiling will lead directly to economic Armageddon. No party wants to be held responsible for such an outcome. Even if the expected Armageddon does not come, the Republicans will be blamed for any problems that follow a no vote on the increase, regardless of the true cause. As a deal is in everyone’s political interest, I am convinced it will happen.

When it comes, it will be structured in a way that allows both sides to claim victory. Each side will praise the other for putting politics aside and having the courage to work together for the American people. They will announce some kind of ten-year deficit reduction plan, with a seemingly large multi-trillion dollar headline number. However, you can be sure that no real spending cuts will take effect in the early years of the plan. All the real action will be scheduled for the later years of the current decade and beyond.

But as in all such plans, actions slotted for distant time horizons have minimal likelihoods of occurring. Unexpected developments (and in Washington all developments are unexpected) always reshuffle priorities. The plan will surely rely on rosy economic assumptions that exaggerate growth forecasts and understate the growth of government expenditures. When reality intervenes, and the assumed deficit reductions never materialize, and the economy continues to stagnate, look for Congress to pass emergency legislation that cancels all bets.

The compromise handed down in a few weeks will also likely include the elimination of tax provisions that the left have described as giveaways to businesses. For instance, Democrats will likely get their way about eliminating the “tax breaks” used by corporate jet owners. Expect the depreciation schedule for these aircraft to be lengthened from the current five years to the seven years that is mandated for planes owned by commercial airlines. While the revenue raised by such a move will be trivial, the rhetoric is far more important. And in this case the rhetoric is dead wrong.

There are no subsidies for corporate jet owners. The fact that corporations are forced to depreciate jets over a period of five years, rather than being able to fully deduct the expenditure immediately, is not a subsidy but a penalty. Just because commercial airlines are penalized more does not mean other corporations are getting a subsidy.

Republicans are also likely to cave on higher taxes on the rich. Some of these increases will be disguised as merely closing loopholes and others will just impose income caps on deductions. But do not be fooled. Some of these moves will bite deeply on the engines of our economy and make it even more difficult to run a profitable business in this country.

The new political spin echoed in Democrat talking points in coast to coast is that the rich are paying the lowest taxes since 1950. The bogus statistic results from the meaningless fact that federal tax revenues currently “only” constitute 16% of GDP. However this figure is rendered meaningless when considering the inflated nature of today’s GDP figures, and the exclusion of rising state and local taxes. When it comes to tax burdens, GDP means nothing.  What counts is what percentage of income taxpayers actually fork over. Those numbers tell a different tale.

Today a married couple with a combined income of $250,000 (assuming each spouse earns 125,000) will pay about 40% of their combined incomes in Social Security, Medicare, and federal taxes, if they take the standard deduction. (I have included as part of their incomes and taxes the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid on their behalf by their employers – which in reality are borne by the employee anyway. I then added that figure to their incomes, and divided the total tax paid by that higher income. I did not factor in this year’s one time 2% payroll tax holiday.)

Compare that to a household in 1950 that earned $25,000 per year (the approximate equivalent to $250,000 today). Assuming all the income was earned by the husband, which was the norm at the time, the total tax take using the standard deduction and including both the employee and employer social security taxes, would have been just below 22%. In other words, despite claims that taxes are at their lowest levels in 50 years, today’s high earning couple pays over 80% more in federal taxes than their 1950 counterpart!

My guess however is that the real difference is even greater. In both instances I used the standard deductions to arrive at taxable income. But the 1950 code was far more generous than the current code in its allowances for tax shelters. As a result, my guess is that the typical couple making itemized deductions in 1950 paid less than half the amount of their modern equivalent. Of course back then there were also far fewer states imposing their own income taxes, and those that did generally had much lower rates than what prevails today. Local sales and property taxes were also lower.

It is interesting to note that about 45% of the total federal tax paid by this modern couple went to Social Security and Medicare. In 1950, Social Security represented less than 1.5% of their total federal tax (Medicare did not yet exist). If you just compare income taxes alone, the modern couple pays 24% in tax and the 1950s couple paid about 21.5%. It is no accident that advocates for higher taxes fail to mention this issue.

The debt problem does not stem from low taxes, but from high spending. I do not expect a deal to lift the debt limit will make any meaningful impact on either. Unfortunately both taxes and spending are likely to head higher in the years ahead. Americans should prepare for the sad reality.

Subscribe to Euro Pacific’s Weekly Digest: Receive all commentaries by  Peter Schiff, John Browne, and Michael Pento delivered to your inbox every Monday.

Click here for free access to Euro Pacific’s latest special report: What’s Ahead for Canadian Energy Trusts?

For a great primer on economics, be sure to pick up a copy of Peter Schiff’s hit economic parable, How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes.

That is why our new campaign is a “heresy.” What we propose may shock you, but we have good reasons.

Our position is that even if you hate corporations . . .

Abolishing corporate income taxes is in your self-interest.

These taxes are unproductive as revenue-generators, but what they really do is make politicians more powerful, at your expense.

The following letter to Congress explains the benefits of abolishing the corporate income tax. The hard-wired message to Congress says . . .

Please repeal all corporate income taxes and replace them with nothing.

I then added these personal comments, which you may borrow from or copy.

The facts are plain. At Reason, economist Veronique de Rugy explodes several myths about the corporate income tax. (http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/06/the-facts-about-the-corporate) She demonstrates that . . .

* high corporate income taxes actually reduce employee wages.
* federal revenues from this tax are lower than in other countries, even though we have the highest tax rate among industrialized nations.
* corporate taxes fund a minuscule part of the federal budget.

On the other hand, if we scrapped corporate income taxes entirely . . .

* foreign corporations would move here to take advantage of our ZERO corporate tax rate.
* the ZERO tax rate would cause many new corporations to form that wouldn’t have been viable under the old tax system.
* costs to comply with the corporate tax would disappear, leading to expanded investment.
* the number of new jobs would soar, and wages would rise at the same time.
* the resulting economic expansion would more than offset the “lost tax revenue.” This would also be a sustainable boom, unlike the booms caused by the Federal Reserve’s legalized counterfeiting.

This would be the ultimate economic stimulus. Nothing else could do so much so fast to boost the economy.

So why isn’t this done?

Because it’s against the interests of the Political Class.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_class)

Think about the typical political demagogue. Early in his speech, he promises to end “tax breaks” to corporations. Then, later in the speech, without any sense of irony, he says there should be “tax incentives” to encourage companies to do certain things.

Of course, the tax incentives he says he wants to create are exactly the same as the kind of tax breaks he says he wants to end, but the demagogue doesn’t want you to connect the dots.

So what he’s really saying is that he wants to end tax breaks to some corporations he doesn’t like (probably the ones that have received bad press) while extending tax breaks to other corporations who will do what he wants.

Politicians couldn’t care less how much revenue the corporate income tax generates. The revenue isn’t the point. The point is the complicated laws, breaks, and loopholes that the politicians can manipulate to enhance their own power and importance.

Take the side of the people, NOT the Political Class. Abolishing corporate income taxes will reduce corporate influence in Congress, by removing a major incentive for lobbying. It will revive the economy almost instantly.

Abolish corporate income taxes now!

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

And we encourage you to forward this to like-minded friends!

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

by Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, and host of The Peter Schiff Show, broadcasting live from WSTC Norwalk CT from 10am to noon Eastern time every weekday, and streaming at www.schiffradio.com.

Today the U.S. government officially borrowed beyond its $14.29 trillion statutory debt limit. And even though the Obama administration has assured us that accounting gimmickry will allow the government to borrow for another few months, the breach has given seeming urgency to Congressional negotiations to raise the debt ceiling. Republicans are making a great show of acting tough by linking their “yes” votes with promises for future budget cuts (that could even slow the rate of debt increases at some uncertain point in the future). But as we go through the process, many novice observers may wonder why we have a debt ceiling at all when our government has never shown the slightest inclination to respect its prior self-imposed limits.

The ceiling was first imposed in 1917 as part of a deal that passed the Liberty Bond Act that funded America’s entry into the First World War. To make it easy for the Treasury to sell those bonds, Congress also amended the Federal Reserve Act to allow the Fed to hold government bonds as collateral. But given the potential for unchecked Federal deficits, Congress sought to limit taxpayer exposure to $11.5 billion.

The problem was that Congress never passed a law to prevent future Congresses from raising the ceiling. And even if it had, that law could have been rewritten by future legislation. Sure enough, when the Second World War rolled around the debt limit was raised frantically, leaving it at $300 billion by 1945. But believe it or not, after the War ended, the limit was actually reduced to $275 billion.

Despite the costs associated with the Korean War, the next increase did not come until 1954. And over the ensuing eight years, the ceiling was raised seven times and reduced twice, finally getting back to $300 billion in 1962. Since then, Congress has voted to raise the ceiling 74 times without a single reduction.

Practically speaking, a ceiling that is raised automatically is no ceiling at all. Given that, why not dispense with the pretense? The reason is politics. No Congressman wants to be on the record voting for unlimited debt, yet most are willing to rail against fiscal recklessness while raising the ceiling every time it’s reached. Any Congressman who gives lip service to a balanced budget Amendment but votes to raise the debt ceiling is a hypocrite.  No one needs constitutional help to hold the line on the debt right now!

But epic levels of Federal red ink and the approach of the 2012 elections have raised the stakes. Despite the newfound urgency, nearly all Democrats and a very large chunk of Republicans argue that failure to raise the ceiling will be tantamount to economic suicide. They argue that such a rash move will cause the U.S. to default on outstanding debt obligations, thereby sending interest rates sharply higher across the board. Higher interest rates they argue would cripple the economy and permanently increase debt service costs. As a result, they predict capping debt now will precipitate a far deeper economic contraction than what we have already seen in the last few years.

Few see the inherent absurdity in the notion that taking on more debt improves the economic health and creditworthiness of the United States. I would argue for the much simpler idea that more debt weakens a nation’s financial position. More importantly, capping U.S. debt at current levels means bringing a future crisis into the present where it can be dealt with in practical terms. This is something that nobody in Washington actually wants.

If we do today what we have failed to do in the past, we very may well default on a portion of our debt. No doubt our creditors will suffer. But such near term pain will lead to a quicker and healthier recovery. Out of control Federal spending will have to be dealt with now. A downgraded credit rating will make it harder for the United States to continue borrowing, and as a result should be viewed as a blessing in disguise.

A reduction in debt levels is good economics. Remember, taxpayers will have to repay with interest anything the government borrows now. The more the government borrows, the larger it grows, and the larger it grows, the weaker the economy becomes. The less money the government borrows, the more that is available for the private sector to borrow to increase production and create jobs.

Failing to raise the debt ceiling will force Congress and the President to tell the truth to Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries who have been promised more than taxpayers can deliver. They will have to concede that so-called government “trust funds” are mere accounting gimmicks, and that benefits will need to be cut if the programs are to be solvent. They will have to tell the truth to our creditors that the U.S government has borrowed beyond the ability of its citizens to repay. And lastly, the stark reality will force the government to tell the truth to Federal employees whose salaries and benefits are unsupportable given our fiscal weakness.

But, on the other hand, if we raise the debt ceiling, we can postpone the crisis into an indefinite future. All of these tough choices could be avoided. Government pay and benefits will flow unabated, and our creditors will continue to get their interest payments now. But in the future, the value of principal repayments and government benefits and paychecks will lose purchasing power. That’s because if we keep raising the ceiling indefinitely, we risk destroying our currency. But the long slow death of a currency and the ebbing of a nation’s economic vitality doesn’t make for huge headlines.

It is for that reason I am 100% confident that Congress will do the wrong thing and raise the debt ceiling for the 75th time in 50 years. In the end there will be some kind of phony compromise with each side claiming victory.  But while the politicians celebrate another dodged bullet, the U.S. economy will continue to be shot full of holes.

Subscribe to Euro Pacific’s Weekly Digest: Receive all commentaries by  Peter Schiff, John Browne, and Michael Pento delivered to your inbox every Monday.Click here for free access to Euro Pacific’s latest special report: What’s Ahead for Canadian Energy Trusts?

For a great primer on economics, be sure to pick up a copy of Peter Schiff’s hit economic parable, How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes.

The politicians are trying to tax the Internet again. Let’s stop them.

I just sent the letter below using our “Hands Off the Internet” campaign.

The hardwired message on this campaign reads . . .

“Please oppose any attempts to undermine Internet freedom.”

To this I added the following personal comments, from which you can copy or borrow . . .

I request that you create a form letter to respond to letters like mine on the issue described below . . .

I want you to oppose the so-called “Mainstreet Fairness Act.” It’s only a proposal right now. Yet I will be angry if I see you become a sponsor of this bad bill.

Please create a form letter letting your constituents know where you stand. If your letter is vague and wishy-washy, that won’t satisfy me. I want you to be clear.

This bill would help to impose state sales taxes on Internet purchases. State’s already get enough taxes, thank you very much. The problem isn’t the lack of taxes, but NO PRUDENCE when it comes to spending money.

Limit the money states receive. State politicians will learn prudence. We also need . . .

* Tax competition between states, not tax collusion
* A free Internet to drive economic recovery — it ISN’T broken, so we don’t need you to fix it

Instead of advancing this bill, please take steps to balance the federal budget. That’s where your focus should be. I hope to receive a response informing me that you will not endorse this terribly, counterproductive legislation. Either way, please be specific and be clear.

END LETTER

NOTE: The Mainstreet Fairness Act does not seem to have a bill number yet. We’re hitting this one early. If you want to learn more about this bill the Competitive Enterprise Institute has written two informative articles about it:

* State Cartel Looking to Hike Internet Taxes
* An Alternative to California Proposal to Tax E-Commerce

You can send your letter to Congress using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

And we encourage you to follow us on Twitter and retweet this Dispatch: http://twitter.com/DDCDispatch

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

The Federal State’s price controls, paperwork, entry restrictions, environmental controls, and workplace regulations increase the prices you pay for everything you buy. These costs also discourage businesses from expanding and hiring. They often force lay-offs.

As the letter below indicates, the sheer size of the regulatory burden is shocking.

That’s why I sent a letter to Congress telling them to cut the invisible Regulation Tax.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

You should repeal as many regulations as you can, and abolish the unconstitutional regulatory agencies that are obstructing economic growth. Here’s why . . .

A study by Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain for the Small Business Administration estimates that federal regulations cost $1.752 trillion in 2008. (http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371tot.pdf)

* These costs are passed on to consumers, and average $15,586 per household
* This is an increase of over $5,000 since 2000

As Clyde Wayne Crews of CEI points out (http://bit.ly/l7oRVw) . . .

* Regulatory costs already equal 11.9% of GDP
* This almost twice the burden of the personal income tax
* There have been 38,700 new regulations since 2001, and the 2010 federal register had 81,405 pages — a record
* These numbers DON’T include the looming regulatory tsunami that Obamacare and Dodd-Frank will cause
* And the costs of lost innovation and productivity are impossible to measure

Federal regulations hit small businesses especially hard, and make them less competitive. The Crains point out that regulations cost businesses with fewer than 20 employed about $10,500 per worker, compared to mid-$7,000s for larger companies.

How can our economy recover when the Federal State makes it so expensive to do business?

I will NOT be afraid if Congress immediately de-funds most regulatory agencies.

* Manufacturers and sellers already have an incentive to provide safe products, and respectable industries will maintain standards
* Firms who compete for employees already have an incentive to provide safe working conditions and good pay
* The courts will still punish negligence and fraud even without the regulatory apparatus

Regulations force businesses to divert resources to please bureaucrats INSTEAD of serving the best interests of customers. Moreover, complicated regulations provide greater opportunity for fraud. Free markets, on the other hand, promote transparency.

A market free from federal regulation will also create . . .

* More jobs
* Lower prices
* More money in my pocket
* Economic growth

Shrink the Regulatory State!

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

And we invite you to “like” us on Facebook and share our posts. http://www.facebook.com/downsizedc

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

Some are saying it was a disaster for Rand Paul. I don’t see it that way. What do you think? Check out the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeWOEASzVnY