Liberty Maven

by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse

Two dissatisfied customers comment about a restaurant. One says, “The food here is terrible.” The other replies, “I know, and such small portions!” In many ways, they could be describing our current employment picture. Not only are the portions shrinking, but the jobs themselves are steadily losing quality.

Today’s release of the October jobs report showed the loss of another 190,000 jobs had pushed the official unemployment rate to 10.2%, only the second time since the Great Depression that unemployment was quoted in double digits (factoring in workers who had given up job hunting altogether or have settled for part-time work would push that rate to 17.5%). That didn’t stop Wall Street pundits from trying to fashion a silk purse of this sow’s ear. The ‘green shoots’ crowd focused on the slowing pace of job losses, the nascent economic ‘recovery’ (even if it is jobless), and the projected improvement in 2010. No mention was even made of the quality of what few jobs were being created.

The analysts completely ignored the continued trend of replacing goods-producing jobs with those jobs that require production from other sources. For example, we lost 61,000 manufacturing jobs last month, but added 45,000 jobs in education and health services. In particular, the addition of health workers is nothing to celebrate. Just as a family’s economic position is not improved by higher medical bills, the country as a whole does not benefit from increased health-care spending. Until this trend reverses, our unbalanced economy will not regain its stability, a real recovery will never take hold, and the overall job outlook will get much bleaker.

Read More »

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

The bill is an unprecedented attack on personal liberty.

Please send a letter to Congress demanding they oppose Pelosi’s bill.

Here’s what I wrote:

HR 3962 will hamstring our finances. But it’s also full of blatant attacks on individual liberty.

For instance, chain restaurants and vending machine owners will be forced to publish calorie information on their menus. That’s not interstate commerce… unless the state line cuts through a McDonald’s counter. Congress can’t order private property owners around this way, and the Free Press clause of the First Amendment also clearly forbids this mandate. Calorie reports may be nice, but that’s outside of the government’s lawful scope.

HR 3962 also violates the broad 9th Amendment protection of individual liberty, and the 10th Amendment’s requirement that federal power be limited to only those functions listed in the Constitution.

Even though the Supreme Court has blown a gaping hole through many Constitutional protections of economic freedom — and blamed their lawlessness on the Commerce Clause power to regulate interstate commerce — it’s apparent that even this wide hole is too small for Congressional ambitions. Does anyone on Capitol Hill even know what interstate commerce is?

Read More »

Ron Paul appeared on Fox Business News tonight with David Asman on the “Nightly Scoreboard”. They discussed several topics in a nearly 10 minute segment. As usual, Ron Paul just delivers the truth.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

The latest example is the 1,900 page healthcare monstrosity the House leadership unveiled last week. They want a vote on it this week!

I believe they’re overreaching, and helping to build our movement.

Please send Congress a letter demanding that they introduce and pass DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act.

This is what I wrote in my personal comments . . .

Congress passed the Patriot renewal bill in 2006, only to discover later that someone had inserted a provision allowing the President to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval. This year, Congress passed the stimulus bill with the AIG bonuses.

Nearly everyone in Congress was shocked when they learned what they had passed. This happened because Congress didn’t read these bills before they voted on them. This is irresponsible.

Read More »

The House Democrats released their latest attempt at a health care bill yesterday. Feel free to read all 1990 pages of it here in PDF form. I’ve been perusing it all day long because I, apparently, enjoy pain. So much pain that I’m starting to feel sick. Man, they better pass this bill soon or I may die.

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”.

As noted in a story by James W. Harris at The Advocates for Self-Government, a group that wants to provide free medical care to out nation’s poor is being blocked by government bureaucrats:

An organization of volunteer doctors and other health care professionals wants to provide free medical care to tens of thousands of poor people across America.

But — incredibly — government bureaucrats won’t let them.

That’s the extraordinary story told by journalist David Freddoso in the Washington Examiner newspaper.

The article begins this way:

“Stan Brock just wants to help. The former co-star of ‘Wild Kingdom’ wants to deliver free medical, dental and vision care to the poor. … Brock simply wants to provide care free of charge, at the hands of unpaid volunteer doctors and dentists using donated equipment.

“Brock’s group, Remote Area Medical, wants to bring its services to Washington [D.C.], and soon. He wants his volunteer eye doctors to grind new glasses on the spot for those having trouble seeing.

“He wants his dentists to pull rotten teeth and perform root canals in badly neglected mouths. He wants to give checkups and HIV tests to the uninsured and the underinsured. No questions asked.

“The only question is whether the bureaucrats will let him do it.”

Continue the story…

Ron Paul appeared on Larry King Live tonight following Michael Moore to refute (and agree) with some of what Moore said. It was a very good appearance by Paul. He spoke about health care, foreign policy, and the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

Check it out below.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

“The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” — Frederic Bastiat, French economist of the 19th Century

“How did I go bankrupt? Two ways. Slowly, and then all of a sudden.” — paraphrased from “The Sun Also Rises” by Ernest Hemingway

“May you live in interesting times.” — a proverbial Chinese curse

• Retained, and in some cases expanded, all the Bush-era policies — the wars, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless spying, REAL ID, imprisonment without due process, extraordinary rendition, etc.
• Begun to extend the already existing foundations for a future socialist state with things like direct government ownership of businesses, the health care bill, cap and trade, and a host of other measures big and small

Put the Bush and Obama policies together, sprinkle in a couple more terrorist attacks, and one or two more state-caused financial calamities, and you have a recipe for . . .

• The destruction of American liberty
• The blossoming of a Leviathan State

Read the signs . . .

We are living through a Statist revolution.

Statism is a mindset that prefers coercion to cooperation. Statists love the State because they are blind to its fundamental nature . . .

• The State is a monopoly that you cannot easily fire, replace, or even control
• Everything the State does relies on coercion

If you decide that . . . Read More »

“All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to stand by and do nothing.” - Edmund Burke

My rebuke to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and my comments on the Constitution and federal powers of Congress in regards to health care and the “Commerce Clause.”

Originally published October 26, 2009 at http://towneforcongress.com/economy/to-nancy-pelosi-on-health-care-are-you-serious-1

Last week, the U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, responding to a reporter’s question of whether the Constitution gave Congress the authority to enact individual health insurance mandate, kept repeating, “Are you serious?”

Now, let’s give Speaker Pelosi the benefit of the doubt and attribute her impolite reply to simple disbelief. In fact, from her point of view her authority is unchallenged per a September press release, and many others such as Politico’s Erwin Chemerinsky and even the contemporary Supreme Court agree. From her press release, Pelosi states:

“The Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.“

The Speaker is certainly correct that federal Congress has certainly legislated on “many aspects of American life.”  In fact, there is a lot more at stake with the Commerce Clause than “just” our health care – the entire authority for economic central planning rests on this single clause. I strongly disagree with Pelosi that the Constitution allows Congress broad power in this respect. First, the exact language from my job description in Powers of Congress, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“The Congress shall have Power… to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Pelosi believes that she has the power to “regulate Commerce… among the several States” and I suggest that in blunt language she instead literally means to “control the economy… of the States.”  Pelosi and her ilk accomplish this by confusing the modern meanings with the legal meaning and contemporary context of the founders.

Read More »

Ron Paul is a hypocrite on health care along with 54 other Republicans, according to House Democrat Anthony Weiner (NY).

WASHINGTON, DC—A new study by Representative Anthony Weiner (D – Queens & Brooklyn), member of the Health Subcommittee and Co-Chair of the Caucus on the Middle Class, revealed that 151 members of the House and Senate currently receive government-funded; government-administered single-payer health care – Medicare.

On the list of recipients are 55 Republicans who have steadfastly opposed other Americans getting the public option, like the one they have chosen.

Weiner said, “Even in a town known for hypocrisy, this list of 55 Members of Congress deserve some sort of prize. They apparently think the public option is ok for them, but not anyone else.”

And Ron Paul is on his list. Why?

It is extremely difficult for me to believe that Ron Paul’s name appears on this list legitimately. According to many sources he refused to accept Medicare while practicing medicine. He’s known as a man with integrity who practices what he preaches. I could find no other sources refuting and explaining why Paul’s name appears on the list, but admittedly, I didn’t look very hard.

I’m curious if there is a reasonable explanation from Paul such as the argument he uses for putting in earmarks for his constituents and then voting against them. Or maybe Weiner’s “study” is the equivalent of quoting people out of context and Paul doesn’t accept Medicare at all. In any case, I think an explanation is warranted.

What is hiding in plain site about Weiner’s argument though, is that he is making the assumption that the health care public option is equivalent to Medicare, which is broke. Yet they also argue that the public option will lower health care costs. Hypocrisy is an epidemic in the halls of Congress.