Liberty Maven

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.

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.

Kentucky Republicans should be asking themselves if they want another Lindsey Graham who compromises and capitulates to the Left in the name of big government bipartisanship or if they’d like a true conservative Senator who will fight for low taxes and free markets? It’s still quite early but judging from recent comments it seems Trey Grayson is sounding more and more like Graham and Rand Paul is sounding more and more like a Republican.

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.

Judge Andrew Napolitano on his radio show this morning pulled no punches when discussing the viability of Sarah Palin as the next President of the United States. I couldn’t agree with his blunt assessment more. He said:

“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)

Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR.1207) has over 300 cosponsors, well above 2/3rds of the House, including every single House Republican. A few days ago an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal arguing that the Federal Reserve is already transparent enough and that a full audit would be overkill and dangerous. They write:

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.

Many people just assumed that Rand Paul would be an afterthought going into the Kentucky GOP Primary against establishment favorite Trey Grayson. Many people were wrong.

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.

Republicans displaying their “Red State pride” following the results of Tuesday’s elections need to face reality. The two GOP gubernatorial election victories in Virginia and New Jersey were unsurprising and expected. Now if a true limited government conservative beat out Bloomberg in the New York mayoral race there would be a reason for celebration.

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.

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”.

The neo-conservative principles found in much of today’s establishment Republican Party are purely Machiavellian. They will lie, cheat, and steal to maintain power or stomp on anyone in their path. This has me concerned about the Rand Paul vs. Trey Grayson Kentucky GOP primary. The war of words are beginning to fly between the candidates. A potential larger problem is brewing though that has little to do with the campaign. It has to to with the election itself.

No, I’m not talking about the voting machines. What I’m talking about is this:

This is what we find at the top of Kentucky’s State Board Of Elections web site. Rand Paul’s opponent in the primary is the Chairman of the Board of Elections. I’m not familiar with Kentucky law, but I can only assume that this position is automatically filled by the Secretary of State.

Trey Grayson is Kentucky’s Secretary of State.

By pointing this out I’m not suggesting that Grayson will commit some kind of voter fraud and “adjust” the election result numbers to his own benefit. In fact, I doubt he could get away with it. What I am suggesting is that if Grayson ends up winning by a small margin things could get quite ugly. Accusations from the more “vocal” Ron Paul / Rand Paul supporters would likely follow, perhaps even a lawsuit or two.

Read More »

Immediately after Barack Obama won the election last November I published an article revealing my own rather cursory investigation of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. I wanted to know more about him because I thought he had the potential to be a viable liberty-loving Presidential candidate in 2012. While I did discover some potential chinks in his armor, I concluded with the following:

It would be very difficult for me to not support Johnson if he were to run for President in 2012. As of right now, In my view he is the best positioned candidate to carry forward the message of liberty within the Republican Party. He may not be perfect on specific issues here or there, but Ron Paulians would be hard pressed to find another Republican candidate with his record and political viability. He served as a Governor for eight years. He didn’t raise taxes as Governor once. He promoted private business and free markets over government corporatism and regulation. Finally, and perhaps most pertinent, he enthusiastically endorsed Ron Paul for President.

There has been very minimal evidence for a Johnson 2012 bid until now. Jason Pye at UnitedLiberty.org reports that Johnson has formed a PAC and is set to release a book in December entitled “Seven Principles For Good Government”.

A few web sites have been set up by supporters in an effort to coax Johnson into running for President such as JohnsonForAmerica.com.

With this latest news it appears that Johnson is warming up to jump in the fray. I can see it now at the first GOP primary debate sometime in 2011:

Fox News Debate Moderator: Governor Johnson, you’ve been an outspoken critic of the drug war and support the decriminalization of marijuana. These positions don’t seem like Republican positions. This raises questions about your electability. Do you have any sir?

Gary Johnson: Who am I, Ron Paul?

Let us hope so, but this time, let us hope he wins.