But is it true? What percentage could Gary Johnson receive should Paul not get the GOP nomination and would it be enough to help re-elect Barack Obama? I suspect it is. To add more fuel to this fire Obama is starting to campaign as an anti-war president to difference himself from the GOP field of likely nominees. This “Campaigner-In-Chief” move could be completely stymied by Republicans making Ron Paul their nominee. Who would be the real anti-war candidate if it were a Ron “non-interventionist” Paul vs Barack “drone bomber” Obama contest? This is yet another reason to make Paul the nominee.

Let’s see what you think about the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson factor.

The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.

The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations withdrones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has wagedan unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.

Read it all at Salon.com.

Paul Krugman sounded the war cry this Sunday on Fareed Zakaria’s program Global Public Square. After all, he asserted, only spending equivalent to another World War could lead us back to prosperity. That, and a healthy dose of inflation.

Krugman argued that inflation would address our debt problem by reducing our bill in current dollar terms and that the Second World War was a giant stimulus plan that actually worked. Thankfully, he added the refrain, “Hopefully we don’t need a world war to get there,” but I sensed a tinge of regret in his voice. After all, the Keynesian economist’s favorite pastime is seeing people waste their lives digging holes in the ground or sacrifice their lives in war. Both acts create economic growth according to the topsy-turvy logic of men like Krugman.

The truth is that wars are a miserable misallocation of capital and usually leave financial ruin in their wake. The US did not boom in the ’50s because we fought World War II, but because we resoundingly won. It was the byproduct of having an unscathed manufacturing base, solid infrastructure, an intact military, most of the world’s gold, and the only reserve currency.

The logical implication of Krugman’s arguments remains that working in productive employment is not at all necessary. If this is true, why not have people just save gas and stay home? The government could simply borrow and/or print money and send it to foreign countries that are dumb enough to produce goods and services for US consumption. Christina Romer, former Chair to Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, also sided with Krugman in a commentary posted in Sunday’s New York Times finance section. In it, she pontificated on the lessons to be learned from the Great Depression, saying: “It would be a mistake to respond by reducing the deficit more sharply in the near-term. That would almost surely condemn us to a repeat of the 1937 downturn.” This misdirection demonstrates her lack of understanding of what causes economic depressions in the first place.

The cause of the Great Depression in the 1930s and the Great Recession beginning in December 2007 were one and the same – an over-leveraged economy. Easy money provided by the banking system eventually brings debt in the economy to an unsustainable level. At that point, the only real and viable solution is for the public and private sectors to undergo a protracted period of deleveraging. The ensuing depression is, in actuality, the healing process at work, and is marked by the selling of assets and the paying down of debt. Unfortunately, our politicians today are focused on fighting the natural healing process of deleveraging by promoting the accumulation of even more debt.

During this latest economic contraction, the Federal Reserve has taken interest rates to near 0% for the past 2 ¾ years, and it has just promised to keep them there for an additional 2 years! Meanwhile, the Obama administration is leveraging up the public sector to record levels in an effort to re-leverage the private sector. The government’s philosophy is tantamount to sticking a frostbitten man in the freezer so he won’t have to suffer the pain associated with the thawing of his extremities.

During the Great Depression, real GDP plummeted 32%. The Great Recession, through which we are still struggling, began in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. But, in contrast to the 1930s, GDP during this recession shrank only 3.6% from the fourth quarter of 2007 through its low point in the second quarter of 2009.

The contraction in GDP during the Great Depression was the direct result of consumers paying down debt and selling off assets. Household debt as a percentage of GDP reached nearly 100% in 1929. To put that number in perspective, household debt did not go back above 50% of GDP until 1985. And it was not until the first quarter of 2009 that household debt once again approached the 1929 level.

Between the start of the Great Depression and the end of World War II, household debt fell from 100% to just above 20% of GDP. Getting there was a painful process, but such de-leveraging was the only real cure for an economy swimming in debt. Thanks to government efforts to carry on our debt-fueled consumption binge, during today’s Great Recession, household debt has barely contracted at all – it has only been reduced to 90% of GDP as of Q1 ’11.

To make matters even worse, during this current crisis our government’s response has been to dramatically increase its own borrowing. At the start of the Great Depression, gross national debt was 16% of GDP. It peaked just below 44% when the Depression ended. While the national debt did increase significantly during that period, it was still relatively benign compared to other Western governments. The US entered this current Great Recession with gross national debt equal to 65% of GDP. It has since exploded to 98% of GDP!

US federal debt did rise dramatically during World War II, topping out at 120% of GDP in 1946. But consumer debt plunged concurrently. So, while Washington was adding debt to fight and win a global war, households were taking the necessary steps to ensure their balance sheets were well prepared for the aftermath of the battle.

Today, for the first time in our history, gross national debt and household debt are both at least 90% of GDP.

Mr. Krugman and his allies believe that we can grow our way out of this recession like we have in the past few. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with a completely different animal. In every past recession, the government, under the guidance of Keynesians, decided to put off deleveraging in return for artificial growth. Well, that tab has come due.

Since these economists keep trying to spend like it’s World War III, we are moving inexorably closer to causing Great Depression II. If policymakers and mainstream economists fail to understand that the progenitor of a depression is debt, they will also be unable to provide a genuine solution. Instead, by pushing public debt past the point of our creditors’ willingness to lend, they may ensure that this next Great Depression will be accompanied by runaway inflation. If history is any guide, this is a truly lethal combination.

On May 31, the House rejected President Obama’s request to raise the debt limit with no spending cuts. In addition to every Republican, 46% of Democrats opposed this bill.

* This demonstrates the power of polls, which shows even a substantial percentage of Democrats oppose raising the debt ceiling
* But it also demonstrate the power of your RELENTLESS PRESSURE on Congress

More and more Democrats realize the U.S. is on an unsustainable path and that reforms must be implemented NOW instead of putting them off any longer.

The vote was good news, but this is only the beginning of the fight. WE ARE HOLDING THE LINE . . .

NO increase on the debt ceiling.

Unless you tell your Representative and Senators where you stand, they may be tempted to cut a deal which will raise the debt limit while making only symbolic and marginal spending cuts.

Both Democrats and Republicans need to learn from history, particularly the Democratic Truman Administration. That’s why I sent this letter to Congress, from which you may borrow or copy . . .

I understand the concern you have about making the drastic spending cuts necessary to balance the budget and maintain the current debt ceiling.

However, the last time the national debt was this high relative to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was at the end of World War II.

Economists Jason E. Taylor and Richard K. Vedder tell us what a Democratic-controlled White House and Congress did to the budget after World War II. They . . . .(http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v32n3/cpr32n3-1.html)

* slashed spending by more than 50% in one year
* removed ten million servicemen and one million civilian employees from the federal payroll
* lifted wartime economic controls, AS WELL AS many New Deal era regulations

Instead of a new Depression, the opposite occurred . . .

* The economy grew by 10% in two years
* Unemployment was under 4.5% in the first three postwar years
* By 1947, budget surpluses reached 6% of GDP, and the U.S. started paying down the debt

This isn’t surprising. It makes economic sense . . .

* More money is available for capital investment and economic growth, when government spends, taxes, and borrows less.
* It is less expensive to hire new workers, when regulations are reduced.

Please do now, what Congress did then:

1. End the wars, cancel defense contracts, and bring the troops home.
2. Cut spending to balance the budget, AND lift regulations that strangle the economy.

Follow the 1946, Truman formula, and America will adapt quickly to a more free and more prosperous reality.

Cap the debt!

END LETTER

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

And we invite you to our Cap the Debt Facebook page. “Like” it and tell your friends! http://www.facebook.com/CapTheDebt

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.

In it we learn that neo-conservatives philosophy is based on Machiavellianism. It’s the elitist mentality that neo-cons know what is good for all citizens and can morally (in their eyes) use all means necessary to reach that perceived good. We also learn that the roots of neo-conservatism come from the left.

Now that Usama bin Laden nightmare is dead the neo-conservatives need a new nightmare to justify the continued global war on terror. At first they tried to spread general fear about a retaliatory strike. This is a real and genuine fear; however, it isn’t quite enough for them. They need a face of terror–a single person. Initial indications are this new face of terror will be Usama’s 20 year old son Hamza. He already has a nickname, “The Crown Prince of Terror” as evidenced in this recent article from The Telegraph:

Hamza, thought to be the youngest of the Saudi-born warlord’s sons, has been described as the “crown prince of terror”. He featured on an extremist website to mark the third anniversary of the July 7 London bombings in which 52 people died. He read a poem called for “destruction” of America, Britain, France and Denmark.

Intelligence agencies believe he was being groomed as a possible future leader of al-Qaeda.

He was implicated in the assassination of moderate Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto in 2007.

Well, it didn’t take them very long did it? Hopefully it won’t take 10 years, billions of dollars, and countless lives, to find bin Laden 2.0. No doubt we will begin hearing about how the son is even more evil than the parent was.

In any case, I long for the day when our troops can come home from all over the world and we can expend our resources on true defense and better intelligence-gathering rather than the expensive nation-sitting we do now.

I don’t agree with a lot of what Herman Cain says, but I have to admit he has charisma that will give him a lot of support. Expect the other candidates to start attacking him if his poll numbers go up. I think they will.

Gary Johnson did very well with a few odd moments. If I’m looking at him through social-con or neo-con eyes voting for him would likely be impossible. He did come off as a very honest “make the hard choices” candidate. Sort of like Cain without the charisma.

Pawlenty seems to be channeling John McCain a bit too much and Santorum just comes off as angry. Both seem to be going after the George W. Bush voting block; however small that is these days.

Enjoy the entire debate below.

…how about we get the hell out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and everywhere else and save some money we don’t have?

The most likely scenario will be that we will be told how we now need to be extremely alert due to the potential for retaliation so we’ll need to send more troops and spend more money on the never-ending war on a tactic.

More thoughts to come as more information is spoon-fed to us via an untrustworthy media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeKoDZ_MkS0

We’ve each sent a letter to Congress demanding that they stop Obama’s Libyan war.

If you agree with this position you can copy or borrow from our personal comments . . .

The President’s Monday speech was (poorly) used to justify his unconstitutional, undeclared war on Libya.

I’m disappointed — even angry.

He made assertions, with zero evidence, that Qaddafi was hell-bent on slaughtering his own people. The truth may well be the opposite . . .

* Qaddafi’s threatening words appear to have been directed at rebel insurgents, not the people.
* We have no idea whether the insurgents would be any better than Qaddafi — they might be as bad, or worse.
* Just days before Obama launched air strikes, Qaddafi had offered amnesty to insurgents if they laid down their arms. http://bit.ly/hfwdi8

Still, the President rushed in and chose sides.

I’m in no way defending or excusing Qaddafi. But going to war with him is a tremendous strategic blunder. As Paul R. Pillar notes at The National Interest Blog . . .

* The longer the war drags on, the greater the likelihood that anger toward American intervention will create more terrorists throughout the Islamic world.
* Qaddafi will no longer cooperate in counter-terrorist activities like information-sharing.
* Qaddafi may very well retaliate against America’s unprovoked attack by reverting to terrorism himself. He’s done it before, and now he has nothing to lose.

Most important, as Mr. Pillar notes,

* Qaddafi had come to terms with the West on issues like terrorism and unconventional weapons
* Yet Obama attempted “regime change” in Libya at the first opportunity
* Which teaches Iran, Syria, and other countries in the region that “regime change” in their countries is America’s goal
* Which gives them NO incentive to negotiate with the West on terrorism or nukes

This war is a strategic blunder that has made America less safe. Do your best to undo the damage.

* Withhold funding for operations in Libya.
* Pass a resolution telling the President to withdraw, pointing out that he has no Constitutional authority for his action.
* You might even consider impeachment.

END LETTER

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

And we invite you to join us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/downsizedc

Jim Babka, President
& James Wilson, Assistant Communications Director
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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLY19PnY2m8

What are the American people to care if their government’s missile strikes land in the bedroom of a young boy who was guilty only of being born in the wrong nation, to the wrong family, at the wrong time? That missile was far enough away from the American’s suburban home not to leave an impression in his more sophisticated brain – you know, the one with the attention span that lasts longer than 10 seconds only when celebrity gossip or local rumors or evening sitcoms are on the agenda. The same brain that can comprehend the suffering of an upper-middle income child who needs more government grant money to get that Bachelor’s degree in Political Science, so they can go to Washington, DC and feel self-important, lobbying a tiny cell of the organism that is the American war machine.

That machine is marching, left foot following right.

That young boy looks down in spirit alongside a newfound friend from a faraway land called Afghanistan. Thousands of miles away, a child’s family is no longer weeping. The older brother has given his life a new meaning, driven by the emotion that could only be delivered from a plane high above. He doesn’t know who the missile was intended for, but he knows where it came from, and he is determined to exact revenge within his lifetime, for his brother, for his family, for his God. He’s training with a group he had no interest in just a year ago, far away from his family, who quietly, tearfully told him they understand.

His parents see the men in uniform patrolling the streets where they grew up. They march by in lockstep, left foot following right.

They’ve seen the strange men before – different uniforms, hammer and sickle where stars and stripes now sit – and they wait for the day when their homeland will once again be theirs, and theirs alone. They rush home to meet curfew as the sun fades below the barren mountains to meet the other side of the globe, giving rise to a morning that will see political speeches on the glory that democracy has bestowed upon such an ungracious people who are unwilling to accept responsibility for it.

Americans greet the day with a fill-up and a subsequent lament about the outrageous price of oil over their five-dollar lattes. In the corner of the marble-floored coffee shop, a muted television shows a talking head offering his take on the political ramifications for the next election cycle. Trendy twenty-somethings are too busy discussing the imminent danger of global warming for sea otters to look up and notice. Fiscally conservative thirty-somethings on the opposite side of the street are voicing their contempt at another tax dollar wasted on health care.

The missiles are too far away to matter – if a Libyan dies in the chaos and no American is around to hear it, he apparently doesn’t make a sound. Left side of the street agrees with right.

War isn’t personal, especially those of the humanitarian variety. Profiteering government contractors, self-righteous politicians, and Americans on Main Street have one thing in common: they all want to keep it that way. They all march in lockstep, left foot now following right. Previous generations have dragged their feet and forced the gears of the war machine to come to a halt, if only long enough for the leg in power to flex and leap forward once more. Nothing close exists in the modern-day war machine. Our generation has needed no story about the humanitarian causes for their violence, for they’ve managed to pretend it simply doesn’t exist. Of apathy and outrage, apathy was the easier pill to swallow, poison though it may be. The government and the media won’t stop selling it, FDA regulations be damned.

One day, the realities of war will set in, and it will be far too late to take back the lives, the money, the apologetic excuses for why the politician on my side means well, unlike the politician on the other side who did the same thing. That day can’t come soon enough.

“No Intervention!” banner displayed by Libyan insurgents

“We have to get him ourselves.” – Libyan demonstrator

“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her (America’s) heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. – John Quincy Adams, then-Secretary of State, 1821

We are inspired by the desire of the Libyan people to overthrow Muammar Qadhafi. Sadly, Qadhafi has reacted violently to their protests, and a civil war is now being waged.

We hope the insurgents are committed to freedom, and if so, we hope they will prevail.

But they must to do it without our help. This is THEIR struggle, not ours. As the letter below shows, a U.S. military presence may only undermine the insurgency, not help it.

The good news is that the Obama Administration has shown skepticism toward intervention.

The bad news is that the advocates for intervention are prominent and vocal.

To counter their pressure, we need more members of Congress to speak out in opposition.

But they will NOT stand up unless they hear from YOU. Please tell your Representative and Senators to oppose intervention in Libya.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

I want to see the Libyan tyrant Muammar Qadhafi deposed. I also hope the Libyan insurgents are pro-freedom, because I want a better future for Libya. But the Libyan people must secure their own future without the help of the U.S. military. U.S. politicians should NOT impose a “No Fly Zone” or otherwise intervene in Libya . . .

* Cato’s Ted Galen Carpenter points out, No Fly Zones in Kosovo and Iraq led to deeper and more protracted involvement. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12841
* Imposing a “No Fly Zone” is an act of war, and Libya has done nothing to provoke war with the United States
* Many Arabs, including many Libyans, will view intervention as an act of U.S. imperialism, and nothing will undermine the insurgents more than the perception that they are U.S. stooges
* As we have learned from interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new boss might be as bad as the old boss
* Intervention is NOT vital to America’s security
* Instead, intervention would create new enemies for the American people

Finally . . .

The U.S. faces a longterm fiscal crisis. We could help meet this crisis by reducing our military presence in the world. If the Arab League, Britain, and France want to set up a No Fly Zone in Libya, they can go right ahead. But they shouldn’t expect the U.S. to borrow money from the tyrants in China in order to depose the tyrants in Libya.

END LETTER

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

And we encourage you to follow us on Twitter. 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.