Last week, in the wake of another uptick in the official unemployment rate, the administration continued to claim that their economic policies were working, just not fast enough. This administration inherited an unemployment rate of 7.7% and promised a peak of no higher than 8% if their policies were followed. Not only does the administration have a funny way of ending a war, but now they claim their economic policies are successful. For whom, I wonder?

These policies are not working for the 9.6% of Americans who are out of work, nor for the over 16% underemployed. They are not working for nearly 3 million Americans who have declared bankruptcy in the last two years, or the 40 million currently on food stamps. Nearly 1 in 6 Americans depend on those and other government anti-poverty programs such as Medicaid and unemployment benefits. As more Americans are added to the unemployment rolls, the tax base from which to hand out their benefits is shrinking. Still, businesses are being taxed and regulated out of the market, adding to the problem. What solutions are put forth? More government spending — even as each citizen’s portion of the public debt is over $43,000 and expected to increase by $250,000 over the next 40 years.

No, this economy is not working for these people. But current economic policy does “work” for some people. For example, it has worked out very well for certain bankers and large corporations, who took on too much risk and got themselves in hot water, and were declared “too big to fail” which is really a euphemism for “friends in high places.” It works well for large, well-connected military industrial corporations, who can always count on perpetual war and conflict to keep them in business. It also works for those on the government’s payroll, which is increasing as the tax base is decreasing.

So where does the government get all this money even as its most obvious stream of revenue dries up? How can it keep spending seemingly indefinitely? Once it steals as much from you as it can get away with through taxation, it steals even more from you through what central bankers like to call quantitative easing, which is more or less the same thing as counterfeiting. When the money is no longer based on a finite quantity of something of value, like a store of gold or silver, the amount of money in circulation is not limited by anything but the restraint of those in control of the printing presses, in our case the Fed and the US Treasury. When increasing pressure is put upon them by irresponsible politicians, it is predictable that out of thin air, more money will be created to satisfy the insatiable appetites of those on political spending sprees. As money becomes more plentiful, it becomes less valuable, and the average citizen suffers again as the value of their savings evaporates. It has happened over and over in history, and what usually follows is the total debasement of the currency, hyperinflation and chaos.

Sound economic policy would be to take our foot off the gas and apply the brakes to government spending as the economic cliff approaches. We must get back to where our economy produces actual wealth, rather than mere paper wealth. The road back to fiscal sanity and a strong economy is simple: Congress just needs to get back to following the Constitution.

In this show, Gardner Goldsmith teams up with Brett Veinotte, of the excellent School Sucks Project and the School Sucks podcast. Brett started this audio series over a year ago, and has made it one of the most popular podcasts in the world.

In this conversation, Gard and Brett discuss the impetus of the series and project, and why public education must be stopped. Good stuff, all! Make sure you visit the School Sucks website at www.schoolsucksproject.com!

Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Amid much fanfare last week, the last supposed “combat” troops left Iraq as the administration touted the beginning of the end of the Iraq War and a change in the role of the United States in that country. Considering the continued public frustration with the war effort, and with the growing laundry list of broken promises, this was merely another one of the administration’s operations in political maneuvering and semantics in order to convince an increasingly war-weary public that the Iraq War is at last ending. However, military officials confirm that we are committed to intervention in that country for years to come, and our operations have in fact, changed minimally, if really at all.

After eight long draining years, I have to wonder if our government even understands what it is to end a war anymore. The end of a war, to most people, means all the troops come home, out of harm’s way. It means we stop killing people and getting killed. It means we stop sending troops and armed personnel over and draining our treasury for military operations in that foreign land. But much like the infamous “mission accomplished” moment of the last administration, this “end” of the war also means none of those things.

50,000 US troops remain in Iraq, and they are still receiving combat pay. One soldier was killed in Basra just last Sunday, after the supposed end of combat operations, and the same day 5,000 men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Hood were deployed to Iraq. Their mission will be anything but desk duty. Among other things they will accompany the Iraqi military on dangerous patrols, continue to be involved in the hunt for terrorists, and provide air support for the Iraqi military. They should be receiving combat pay, because they will be serving a combat role!

Of course the number of private contractors — who perform many of the same roles as troops, but for a lot more money — is expected to double. So this is a funny way of ending combat operations in Iraq. We are still meddling in their affairs and we are still putting our men and women in danger, and we are still spending money we don’t have. This looks more like an escalation than a draw-down to me!

The ongoing war in Iraq takes place against a backdrop of economic crisis at home, as fresh numbers indicate that our economic situation is as bad as ever, and getting worse! Our foreign policy is based on an illusion: that we are actually paying for it. What we are doing is borrowing and printing the money to maintain our presence overseas. Americans are seeing the cost of this irresponsible approach as our economic decline continues. Unemployed Americans have been questioning a policy that ships hundreds of billions of dollars overseas while their own communities crumble and their frustration is growing. An end to this type of foreign policy is way overdue.

A return to the traditional American foreign policy of active private engagement and non-interventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health.

["Deadliest Roadside Bombing" photo by James McCauley; CC BY 2.0]

Recently there have been some encouraging signs that Congress is finally willing to admit what should have been evident two years ago. Even after a $150 billion bailout, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still bankrupt and should be abolished. Indeed Rep. Barney Frank, a longtime champion of Fannie and Freddie has made a few statements alluding to this and I have signed on to a letter asking him to clarify his remarks and hold hearings on this topic. There seems to be a growing consensus in favor of abolishing Fannie and Freddie. This is the good news.

The bad news is that instead of simply returning to the free market, Fannie and Freddie will probably be replaced with something equally damaging, and at this point we can only guess what that will be. One possibility is that instead of these two giant Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) the government will deputize thousands of smaller banks to do the same thing — that is to securitize mortgages with taxpayer guarantees to encourage lending that otherwise would not happen. In other words, there will be a myriad of smaller Fannies and Freddies, and government involvement will reach even deeper into the financial sector.

Fannie and Freddie, and thus the taxpayer, has an alarming $5 trillion exposure to the mortgage market. To some, spreading out this risk might seem tempting, and a smart thing to do. But the fact remains that if a bank expects to lose money on a loan, so will the taxpayers. Playing around with structures and definitions will still not deal with the root problem — government meddling in the housing market, playing fast and loose with our tax dollars, and central planning by the Federal Reserve.

Banks have complex risk assessment strategies in place that help them forecast if a particular loan will make them any money or not. If they expect to make money, they will approve the loan. If they have doubts, sometimes they will ask for a co-signer to improve their odds. You might do this willingly for a friend or a relative if you didn’t mind losing some money on their behalf, but current government policies essentially force taxpayers to become cosigners for risky borrowers that are complete strangers, who the banks have already determined to be bad risks. Taxpayers have no choice in the matter because politicians decided a few decades ago that dangling homeownership in front of more people seemed like a good way to garner votes.

That was sold to voters as a compassionate gesture to the poor and beneficial to society as a whole. After all, how could giving more Americans an ownership stake in society be bad? The combined policies of loose credit and government backing increased the demand for housing and drove prices sky high. When the housing market heated up to the breaking point everything came crashing down. Those suddenly facing foreclosure saw the reality of government compassion. Truly, when government offers you a gift, you should eye it with great suspicion.

Another tragedy is that many job seekers are now tethered to their locations because of upside down loan obligations. It takes a lot of effort with their bank and damage to their credit scores to figure out how to get out and move to a place where there are jobs. Will the government now be seeking ways to subsidize renters in some way because of this lack of mobility? Some think so.

My hope is that for the long term stability and health of the economy, the government will extricate itself from the market altogether and let it normalize. My fear is that in its usual misguided efforts at solving one crisis, it will create a thousand others.

["Sign of the Times - Foreclosure" photo by Jeff Turner; CC BY 2.0]

In this special Fundamentals program, Gardner Goldsmith explains major aspects of the Austrian School of Economics approach to understanding the so-called “means of production”, time valuation, and interest. Subjective marginal utility theory is also explored, so that the members of the Conspiracy can refute the claims by their statist pals that the “owners of the means of production exploit the workers.”

We’ll discuss this more in the next pod, and check out some contemporary issues as well in the shows to come!

Join us at www.libertyconspiracy.com!

Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

It has been months now since the new healthcare reform bill was passed into law. As is so typical, this massive piece of legislation was passed with a sense of urgency so acute that leadership declared America could not afford to wait until legislators, their staff and the general public had time to thoroughly read the bill.

The truth comes out eventually, however. Much like the recently discovered exemption from Freedom of Information Act requirements for the SEC that was slipped into the equally massive and “urgent” financial reform bill, we are finally seeing what other insidiousness has been hiding in the fine print of the healthcare reform bill. It seems that all provisions in this poorly written and poorly conceived monstrosity need to be repealed as soon as possible.

One such disaster-waiting-to-happen is one of the revenue generating provisions used to claim that the healthcare reform bill was “paid for.” $17 billion in additional tax revenues is supposed to come from an onerous new IRS reporting requirement that any taxpayer with business income who spends over $600 in one year with one business will have to report those expenditures to the IRS. Mind you, this is a cumulative total of $600 in transactions in one year. This will involve so much extra accounting and paperwork that the IRS claims it will be unable to deal with it effectively, and even the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (to whom it should be a boon) has come out against it! Apparently they realize they will actually lose customers, especially small businesses, to bankruptcy because of this!

Gold dealers are especially alarmed by this provision, as most of their transactions easily top $600. This represents a significant outlay of time and paperwork and no additional revenue for businesses with which to hire people. Not to mention this makes every business a de facto IRS agent, as if they didn’t have enough to worry about already!

Of course, there is a tremendous outcry against this. Several other legislators also see how unreasonable this is and are trying to repeal it. However, this would simply mean that $17 billion in healthcare funding will have to come from somewhere else, and there are no good options. Taxes from some other equally bad collection scheme? Borrowing and more debt? Creating more money from thin air and adding to inflationary pressures?

The best answer, of course, would be to repeal the entire health care law, along with all other unconstitutional spending. But Congress is more likely to continue the shell game to cover the fact that we are broke and can afford none of this.

This whole idea of “paying for” new programs is a political euphemism that suggests that raising taxes is just as good as cutting spending since neither one increases the national debt. Raising taxes and overwhelming small businesses with paperwork and regulations still increases governmental burden on our fragile economy. But this is our government’s idea of “fiscal restraint” in action. Washington needs to stop creating new programs and spending so much money. That would be true fiscal restraint.

Check out the information provided by the Conspiracy as we look at how a current issue — that there are murderers on the run in Yellowstone Park — sheds light on a larger principle: the right to self-defense. Here, Gardner Goldsmith reviews some of the history of the Second Amendment, and he goes further, asking a simple moral question: Why should some people tell other people whether they can hold a weapon, or anything else, in their hands?

Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Howdy!

Welcome back to the Conspiracy, where we plot and plan and scheme and conspire for a freer world. In this program, El G Grande nails down many of the breaking stories that are key to seeing beyond the curtain of gubment, that help us understand the difference between a free society and the government. In this show, Gard discusses the news that more Afghan civilians dies in July than in the month prior, the news that Americans are being photographed naked in airports and the pics are being kept by the gubment, and the fact that the number of federal mortgage “aid” recipients who are defaulting on their loans is six times higher than originally reported!

NICE!

Enjoy, and work for freedom!

Join us at www.libertyconspiracy.com!

Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Last week the National Bureau of Economic Research published a report on the effect of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq that confirmed what critics of our foreign policy have been saying for years: the killing of civilians, although unintentional, angers other civilians and prompts them to seek revenge. This should be self-evident.

The Central Intelligence Agency has long acknowledged and analyzed the concept of blowback in our foreign policy. It still amazes me that so many think that attacks against our soldiers occupying hostile foreign lands are motivated by hatred toward our system of government at home or by the religion of the attackers. In fact, most of the anger towards us is rooted in reactions towards seeing their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and other loved ones being killed by a foreign army. No matter our intentions, the violence of our militarism in foreign lands causes those residents to seek revenge if innocents are killed. One does not have to be Muslim to react this way, just human.

Our battle in Afghanistan resembles the battle against the many-headed Hydra monster in Greek mythology. According to Former General Stanley McChrystal’s so-called insurgent math, for every insurgent killed, 10 more insurgents are created by the collateral damage to civilians. Every coalition attack leads to 6 retaliatory attacks against our troops within the following six weeks, according to the NBER report. These retaliatory attacks must then be acted on by our troops, leading to still more attacks, and so it goes. Violence begets more violence. Eventually more and more Afghanis will view American troops with hostility and seek revenge for the death of a loved one. Meanwhile, we are bleeding ourselves dry, militarily and economically.

Some say if we leave, the Taliban will be strengthened. However, those who make that claim ignore the numerous ways our interventionist foreign policy has strengthened groups like the Taliban over the years. I’ve already pointed out how we serve as excellent recruiters for them by killing civilians. Last week I pointed out how our foreign aid, to Pakistan specifically, makes it into Taliban coffers. And of course we provided the Taliban with aid and resources in the 1980s, when they were our strategic allies against the Soviet Union. For example — our CIA supplied them with Stinger missiles to use against the Soviets, which are strikingly similar to the ones now allegedly used against us on the same battlefield, according to those Wikileaks documents. As usual, our friends have a funny way of turning against us. Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein are also prime examples. Yet Congress never seems to acknowledge the blowback that results from our interventionism of the past.

Our war against the Taliban is going about as well as our war on drugs, or our war on poverty, or any of our government’s wars — they all tend to create more of the thing they purport to eradicate, thereby dodging any excuse to draw down and come to an end. It is hard to imagine ever “winning” anything this way.

We have done enough damage in Afghanistan, both to the Afghan people, and to ourselves. It’s time to re-evaluate the situation. It’s time to come home.

New Yorkers are rolling in the aisles. The summer of our discontent (economic, political, you name it) has been made glorious circus by the race for the governor’s seat. A clown car of candidates is lurching round the ring. This year’s Volkswagen — or is it a Volt? — is almost totally filled by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. His war chest is bulging, his poll numbers mighty. When New York’s venerable Republican machine chose former Congressman Rick Lazio as challenger to Cuomo they knew what they were doing. Who can forget how Lazio wiped the floor with Hillary Clinton in the alternate reality version of the 2000 senate race?

Annoyingly, Lazio won’t be the sole candidate in the Republican primary. Carl Paladino, a wealthy Buffalo-based developer, has managed to shoulder his way onto the ballot.

Paladino paints himself a political outsider. Using the Tea Party as launching pad, recycling Howard Beale’s “mad as hell” line from Network. (I wish populists, genuine and otherwise, would give that line a rest; they never seem to realize that Beale, though a sympathetic character, was supposed to be insane.) Political outsider Paladino rents miles of office space to government in a state where public contracts are typically 4 Cronies Only. Tenants include the Department of Transportation, the Department of Environmental Conservation, the State Thruway Authority, the State University of New York (SUNY) and the state Assembly. Paladino’s multi-million dollar leases are long time affairs. Think decades. Taxpayers can’t renegotiate. The Department of Transportation alone pays $94,000 a month for digs in depressed post-industrial Buffalo. Paladino’s other properties include commercial strips and residential developments blessed with tax breaks such as Empire Development Zone (EDZ) property tax abatements.

(New York’s EDZ program was recently jettisoned; too much waste, too few results. Taxpayers who picked up the slack won’t receive refunds.)

Carl Paladino gives as good as he gets. The almost half-a-mil in known donations he’s doled out directly and through assorted corporations and partnerships to a host of pols from both parties for the last ten years were “donations to good government.”* Take heart cynics! If Paladino managed to find so many worthy public servants in New York, reform must be just around the corner. Paladino’s political philosophy includes the belief that reform might best be accomplished by “a benevolent dictator.”

Like, how fresh an attitude is that for a New York pol?

Almost as fresh as madcap political consultant Roger Stone. His minions have been spotted advising Paladino. Stone goes back to Nixon. (Nixon’s face is tattooed on his back I kid you not.) Stone has another horse in the race; Manhattan madam Kristin Davis. Davis is running on a libertarian platform, though not the official Libertarian ticket. (The official Libertarian candidate is Warren Redlich, an attorney from Guilderland in Albany County.) Davis was allegedly one of the pimps and pimpettes who supplied X Governor Eliot Spitzer with hookers. Despite her qualifications and an upbeat platform focused on legalizing drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage, Davis doesn’t look likely to win. At present she’s not even on the ballot.

Carl Paladino is currently behind Rick Lazio in polls. But the gap is closing. (Losing the primary might be a silver lining for Lazio. Word has it he’s been offered a role on Mad Men, playing a Don Draper underling.) Both are far behind Andrew Cuomo. But Cuomo’s numbers have dipped slightly. Hey — anything can happen in New York. See Eliot Spitzer.

In 2006, when Andrew Cuomo was running for state attorney general, the office Spitzer held before becoming governor, Cuomo campaign lit featured a pic of a large pair of shoes headlined “Elliot Spitzer is Leaving Some Very Big Shoes to Fill.” No mention of Spitzer’s black socks. Which he allegedly kept on while trysting with hookers. Spitzer fessed to his ho habit after a paper trail of his laundered payments surfaced but the sock story may be apocryphal. It was spread by his obsessive arch foe, Roger Stone. (Stone’s blog still dishes Spitz.) Despite the foe thing, Stone hung in the same hooker circles as Spitzer and claimed to have heard the sock story straight from the horse’s mouth.

New York pols are nothing if not classy.

Though Andrew Cuomo seems shovel-ready for office, contributions continue to swell his war chest. (Lazio is sweeping up peanuts and Paladino is largely self-propelled.) Hard to figure why Cuomo’s contributors, an inordinate number of whom represent NYC real estate interests, think he still needs to campaign. He’s been stumping for years. Take those listening tours he went on as attorney general under his Community Partnership Initiative. I attended his August, 2008 appearance in Albany, the seat of state government. The crush of pols, bureaucrats, public contractors, and nonprofit players obviously saw Attorney General Cuomo as governor-in-waiting. Fealty was necessary. In Cuomo’s speech he inveighed against the growing trend of cynicism about government. He also joked about the $100 million he’d delivered to Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings when he (Cuomo) was head of HUD. A cynic sitting behind me (We Are Everywhere!) hissed “I’d like to know where it all went.”

Cuomo’s generosity to Albany/Jennings wasn’t singular. As HUD head, Cuomo made 25 visits to New York, about 5 times more than he made to other states.** In 2001, Cuomo’s final year at HUD, he announced that New York would receive $170 million for economic development along the Erie Canal. In 2002, Cuomo attempted to become Democratic candidate for governor of New York but lost out to Buffalo-based H. Carl McCall, the former state comptroller. As for the Erie Canal, info surfaced in 2003 that the quasi-public Canal Corporation, a sub entity of the quasi-public New York State Thruway Authority, had sold the shoreline development rights to a supporter of Republican Governor George Pataki for $30,000 via a bid process shrouded in murk. State Comptroller (then) Carl Hevesi rescinded the deal and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, after investigating the matter thoroughly, gave the execs at the Canal Authority in Buffalo a real tongue lashing.

Earlier this year it seemed as if Andrew Cuomo might gift Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings anew. Making Jennings his running mate in the lieutenant governor slot. But Rochester Mayor Robert Duffy got the nod. (Cuomo cares about the whole state not just NYC.) This wasn’t the first time Jennings was rumored to be movin’ on up, only to remain mayor-for-life. 17 years and counting. Jennings was a big supporter of “Hillary!” for prez. Buzz was “Hillary!” would transport him to DC. Alas. No go. In my early blogging days I wrote quite a bit about Albany under Mayor Jennings. Then I got bored and moved out of town. How long can you go on about decrepit political machines, crony development deals, massive mortgage frauds, neglected blue collar neighborhoods, police scandals, drug trade, and violent crime? Who wants to be carper-for-life? Still, Jennings as potential lieutenant governor would have revitalized my interest.

Being lieutenant governor of New York is a laid back gig. Not much work, swell perks. State senator David Paterson said it all when Eliot Spitzer picked him for the job in 2006, “You get to fart in the executive bathroom.” (New York pols are nothing if not classy.) Spitzer’s resignation in early 2008 under a heap of scandal — but no criminal charges — forced Dave out of the bathroom and into the governor’s mansion. When Paterson mounted the throne it looked as if he might be the right man for the job. He seemed at ease with himself, able to work with others. A refreshing change after Spitzer, who’d been revealed as a petulant carpet chewer better at creating bad blood than being a negotiator or leader.

The relief was brief.

By 2009, after a series of political missteps Paterson’s popularity was seriously sagging. None the less, he was planning to run for governor in 2010. Which would have meant a primary contest for Andrew Cuomo against New York’s first African-American governor. Not only does Cuomo dislike contests (he prefers to be crowned) the racial politics would have been sticky. Cuomo played coy, making no formal announcement. Meanwhile other folks got busy. President Obama urged Paterson to drop out of the race, ostensibly fearing Paterson would hurt other NY Democrats come election day. Paterson refused. In early 2010 the New York Times, after weeks of hinting at bombshell revelations, pooped out a few Paterson scandals that by Empire State standards were barely there. But the cloud lingered in the minds of corruption-weary New Yorkers. And as the state budget collapsed on Paterson’s head he morphed into yet another petulant carpet chewer better at creating bad blood than being a negotiator or leader. Take his dealings with the state employee unions…

Disclosure: I’m pro-union. In both the private and public sector. Which is one reason why I’ll never be totally on board with conservatism or libertarianism or with the type of liberalism that’s gonzo for globalism. Yeah, unions are sometimes excessive and/or contribute to public corruption. But I just can’t get past my cynical suspicion that if it weren’t for unions American workers — both unionized and non — would be doing the dollar a day rag. In the case of public employee unions, the rights of labor and the rights of taxpayers have to be balanced. The budget crisis in New York State is pressing and it’s fair for union members to make sacrifices. It would also be fair if the state’s government-empowered developers gave up their tax breaks. And how about clawing back a few billion from New York’s multitudinous quasi-public authorities and corporations? As Eliot Spitzer said re the Canal Corporation, “These public authorities are to government what the off-balance-sheet partnerships were to Enron: It’s where you hide stuff.”***

But I digress. The subject is Governor Paterson. Paterson has done much of his negotiating with state employee unions in the news media. Dropping policy announcements like bombs. Making threats one day, then backing off the next. His state worker furlough plan failed when challenged in court (which Paterson and his staff should have anticipated) but still cost state government time and money as managers and administrators prepared for a massive disruption which never occurred. Paterson has been equally smooth on other fronts. For example, he shut down dozens of state parks as a budget cutting measure. A number of the targeted parks are tourism engines in financially strapped rural areas or the only places for outdoor recreation near urban ones. After a public outcry Paterson reopened the parks, covering the cost of operation by dipping into the state’s Environmental Protection Fund. Which he could have done from the start. But holding the parks hostage made the dip go down more easily.

Governor Paterson took office with the public strongly behind him. Now most New Yorkers can’t wait to see him go. Paterson likes to say he’s had to make tough budget cuts and doing so is always unpopular. Some truth there, but the real turn-off was how poorly he handled the process. He’s no longer taken seriously, just seriously disliked. As a negotiator, Paterson is petty, bullying, and erratic. As a leader, he’s proved incapable of inspiring New Yorkers to pull together in a crisis. And oh yeah — he’s long gone from the governor’s race. Andrew Cuomo is the only Dem big dog left standing.

Incidentally, if you don’t think Cuomo is capable of being a carpet chewer you don’t know his history.

King Cuomo, Lazio the Lesser, Paladino For The People. Which will it be? Gee. If it weren’t for the Roger Stone connection (that Nixon tattoo spooks me) I’d go for Kristin. Even as a write-in. At least she looks good — in a pimpette sort of way. And did I mention that she supports gun rights?

Carola Von Hoffmannstahl-Solomonoff
Mondo QT

*Is New York Ready for Carl Paladino?, Robert J. McCarthy and Tom Precious, Buffalo News 04/04/10

**HUD Scandals, Tad DeHaven, Downsizing the Federal Government, Cato Institute

***The Govercutor, Chris Smith, The City Politic, New York Magazine, 05/21/05

Send comments or confidential tips to:

mailto:editor@mondoqt.com

Our foreign policy was in the spotlight last week, which is exactly where it should be. Almost two years ago many voters elected someone they thought would lead us to a more peaceful, rational co-existence with other countries. However, while attention has been focused on the administration’s disastrous economic policies, its equally disastrous foreign policies have exacerbated our problems overseas. Especially in times of economic crisis, we cannot afford to ignore costly foreign policy mistakes. That’s why it is important that U.S. foreign policy receive some much needed attention in the media, as it did last week with the leaked documents scandal.

Many are saying that the Wikileaks documents tell us nothing new. In some ways this is true. Most Americans knew that we have been fighting losing battles. These documents show just how bad it really is. The revelation that Pakistani intelligence is assisting the people we are bombing in Afghanistan shows the quality of friends we are making with our foreign policy. This kind of thing supports points that Rep. Dennis Kucinich and I tried to make on the House floor last week with a privileged resolution that would have directed the administration to remove troops from Pakistan pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

We are not at war with Pakistan. Congress has made no declaration of war. (Actually, we made no declaration of war on Iraq or Afghanistan either, but that is another matter.) Yet we have troops in Pakistan engaging in hostile activities, conducting drone attacks and killing people. We sometimes manage to kill someone who has been identified as an enemy, yet we also kill about 10 civilians for every 1 of those. Pakistani civilians are angered by this, yet their leadership is mollified by our billions in bribe money. We just passed an appropriations bill that will send another $7.5 billion to Pakistan. One wonders how much of this money will end up helping the Taliban. This whole operation is clearly counterproductive, inappropriate, immoral and every American who values the rule of law should be outraged. Yet these activities are being done so quietly that most Americans, as well as most members of the House, don’t even know about them.

We should follow constitutional protocol when going to war. It is there for a reason. If we are legitimately attacked, it is the job of Congress to declare war. We then fight the war, win it and come home. War should be efficient, decisive and rare. However, when Congress shirks its duty and just gives the administration whatever it wants with no real oversight or meaningful debate, wars are never-ending, wasteful, and political. Our so-called wars have become a perpetual drain on our economy and liberty.

The founders knew that heads of state are far too eager to engage in military conflicts. That is why they entrusted the power to go to war with the deliberative body closest to the people — the Congress. Decisions to go to war need to be supported by the people. War should not be covert or casual. We absolutely should not be paying off leaders of a country while killing their civilians without expecting to create a lot of new problems. This is not what America is supposed to be about.

I have often spoken about the excessive size of government, and most recently how waste and inefficiency needs to be eliminated from our military budget. Our foreign policy is not only bankrupting us, but actively creating and antagonizing enemies of the United States, and compromising our national security. Spending more and adding more programs and initiatives does not improve things for us; it makes them much much worse. This applies to more than just the military budget.

Recently the Washington Post ran an extensive report by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin on the bloated intelligence community. They found that an estimated 854,000 people hold top-secret security clearances. Just what are all these people up to? By my calculation this is about 11,000 intelligence workers per al Qaeda member in Afghanistan. This also begs the question — if close to 1 million people are authorized to know top secrets, how closely guarded are these secrets?

They also found that since the September 11 attacks, some 17 million square feet of building space has been built or is being built to accommodate the 250 percent expansion of intelligence organizations. Intelligence work is now done by some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private contracting companies in about 10,000 locations in the United States.

The former Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, has asserted that US intelligence now has the authority to target American citizens for assassination without charge or trial. How many of these resources are being devoted to spying on American citizens for nefarious reasons at home rather than targeting foreign enemies abroad?

It has been pointed out how much information we had about the impending attacks on 9/11, but because of layers upon layers of bureaucratic inefficiencies, our intelligence community was unable to act meaningfully on that information. Obviously we needed drastic change. But it was pretty clear that we did not need more bureaucracy, more confusion, more expenditures and more government.

It is even claimed by some leaders that the intelligence community has grown this way by design; that it is advantageous to have more than one set of eyes looking at the same information. With this logic, is there any number of intelligence employees at which we achieve diminishing returns? Can there ever be too many cooks in the kitchen, in their view?

Are there any problems at all that the government wouldn’t attempt to solve by throwing more money at them? Even now, the government is trying to solve our economic problems related to too much government spending and debt, with more government spending and debt.

The problem with our intelligence community before 9/11 was not an inability to collect information. Therefore, the post-September 11 build-up of the surveillance state does nothing to enhance safety. Instead what Americans have gotten in return for the billions of tax dollars spent on security is a surveillance state that reads our e-mails, wiretaps us without warrants, and strip searches grandmothers at airports. This is yet another instance in which Americans would be safer, richer and freer if our government would simply look to the Constitution and respect the boundaries it has set.

Last week ended with some promising news on finally stopping the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, the administration still seems to believe that shutting down working oil wells is a higher priority than effectively dealing with the broken one. They are again issuing a moratorium on off-shore drilling, while maintaining a de facto ban on new permits even for shallow water drilling, which they previously stated would be unaffected. The courts have twice declared this unconstitutional, over 70 percent of the people see this as unreasonable, yet the administration seems determined to simply end off-shore drilling, at least for those producers that cannot afford to sit idle for an unknown period of time until the ban is lifted.

Whether or not this latest effort will hold up in court is yet to be seen. Sadly, many smaller oil producers in the Gulf see the writing on the wall, and instead of waiting around and risking their livelihoods on the whims of American politicians and judges, they are leaving for friendlier business climates. What is happening to this country when the Republic of Congo is better for business than the United States? One big factor is regime uncertainty.

Regime uncertainty is the opposite of the rule of law. It is the rule of the whims of the people in charge and what mood they are in on any particular day. It is usually associated with third world dictatorships and plays a major role in why some countries remain poor. When a business cannot predict whether a government will issue a permit, confiscate or nationalize their capital investments, tax them into bankruptcy, or arbitrarily stall their operations, they tend to do business elsewhere. This type of government hostility is not conducive to wealth creation and it is tragic to see it chasing away businesses here when we need the jobs and productivity more than ever.

When the rule of law is respected, it provides business with some measure of predictability so they can plan and operate smoothly. When it is not respected, there are just too many variables, too much risk of loss or waste.

Of course, disregard of the rule of law creates other problems too. For the larger and better-connected businesses, it creates the opportunity of regulatory capture. If the government becomes too unpredictable, one business survival strategy is to become so involved in government and regulatory bodies that they effectively gain control over the very entities that are supposed to keep them in line. In other words, if you can’t beat the government, become the government. A business that achieves regulatory capture is also able to write and implement laws and regulations that it can deal with, but its competitors cannot. The eventual outcome is that companies use regulation to drive everyone else out of business until a monopoly is achieved, putting consumers at its mercy.

Meanwhile, the people develop a false sense of security, assuming that the many regulatory bodies in place are protecting them. Without respect for the rule of law, however, those bodies and their regulations are more likely protecting and enabling big business at the expense of small business and the consumer.

We see this not only with big oil, but big banking, big defense contractors, you name it. This is why, especially in a crisis, we should uphold the Constitution. It is the ultimate consumer protection from crony corporatism.

Last week, GOP chairman Michael Steele came under fire for daring to say what a lot of Americans already know — that our involvement in Afghanistan is an ill-advised quagmire with no end in sight. After nearly 10 years and approaching $1 trillion spent, the conflict is going nowhere because there is nowhere for it to go. After all, if victory is never really defined, defeat is inevitable.

With our economy at home in serious trouble, this wasteful occupation is something we clearly cannot afford. Each soldier costs us $1 million per year, and yet most in Washington are only considering how many more soldiers to send. Fuel costs an astonishing $400 per gallon for our military in Afghanistan! Yet somehow, many politicians feel it is acceptable to squeeze this money out of our taxpayers, who are truly struggling economically, to fund this non-war. Our economy here is not showing any real signs of improvement. Official unemployment is pushing 10% and getting worse. (Real unemployment is over 20% according to the free-market economists.) The growing debt and inflation used to fund this occupation only dooms us to more economic hardship for a long time to come. And — for what?

Where the money for Afghanistan comes from is one problem — where it goes is another. Recently, it has come to light that much of the aid money we send to Afghanistan is lost due to corruption. Billions of tax dollars from hardworking Americans are ending up lining the pockets of corrupt Afghan officials, and likely even filtering into the Taliban we are ostensibly fighting. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that curiously enough, billions more than the Afghan government collects in revenue is leaving the country in the form of cash on huge pallets and in suitcases and mostly ending up in Dubai, as well-connected Afghan officials buy up luxury homes and enrich their personal off-shore bank accounts. Investigations into corruption and graft have been blocked by the Karzai government, probably because Karzai’s own brother would have to be implicated. It is encouraging that the foreign aid appropriations subcommittee has attempted to block billions in aid as a response to these allegations, but this is likely temporary and may not even succeed.

The point is that sending aid money to Afghanistan is not making poor people over there better off. It is making poor people here worse off. Corruption is endemic to Afghanistan, with graft comprising about one fourth of their economy! Even though it is considered the second most corrupt nation in the world according to Transparency International, we still send the Afghan government billions of dollars in aid and are shocked to find it is not making its way out of the sticky fingers of the officials entrusted with it.

Robbing citizens here to fund corruption over there is not helping average citizens anywhere. We are sacrificing real economic opportunities at home for the opportunity to line corrupt pockets in Afghanistan. Not only that, but American soldiers are being killed and maimed. It is tragic and frustrating how much we have lost and wasted already. It is time to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans to sort out. I am glad more Americans are finally willing to face this reality.

["Money Hand" photo by David Neubert; CC BY 2.0]

In this the second special show devoted to unraveling the mythology behind the belief that a “Constitutional” government is the ideal to help society function, Gardner Goldsmith takes two modern issues and uses them as entry points.

Listen as he explains why even so-called “strict construction” libertarians and conservatives should take notice: Government cannot ever work to help society.

Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Last week I was pleased to see my Republican colleagues take up the cause to fully and completely audit the Federal Reserve by including my language from the Federal Reserve Transparency Act in a Motion to Recommit the financial regulation reform bill. Although this effort was defeated by the Democrat majority, there were many good reasons to support it.

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would eliminate restrictions on GAO audits of the Federal Reserve and open Fed operations to Congressional oversight. Additionally, audits could include discount window operations, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks, such as the ongoing dollar swap operations with European central banks.

Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight, while Congress has kept its hands off and its eyes closed. The Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve System.

However, House and Senate negotiators failed to include the full language of my legislation in the conference report for the financial reform bill, and the full Congress missed yet another opportunity to demand accountability from the Federal Reserve by defeating the Republicans’ motion to recommit. Over 320 members of Congress from both parties cosponsored my original bill, which was incorporated into that motion to recommit. Almost 200 members of Congress who care about Federal Reserve transparency voted for this motion to recommit. Unfortunately, they found themselves in the minority.

Any legitimate objections to the audit proposal were addressed in the language of the motion to recommit. Thus, it is clear that the real reasons for opposing it are unstated and indefensible. The real reasons are that politicians like to spend money far exceeding income and it is convenient to have an enabler of this in the Federal Reserve. The easier it is for the Fed to create money, hidden from public view and accountability, the easier it is for politicians to spend that money and make sure their friends and interests are taken care of through shady political processes.

The broader reasons for supporting this entire financial regulatory reform bill are just as sinister. This is not about cracking down on big banks as some claim. Rather, this is about not wasting a crisis. This is about using a traumatic event to increase government power and control over the economy. If it was really about addressing the causes of this recession, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have been dealt with, or abolished. Failed companies would just fail, rather than being bailed out. Instead, a permanent bailout mechanism is being established. The Fed, and its ability to control interest rates and create cheap money, would be reformed or better yet, abolished. But instead its power is being increased and this Congress refuses to even fully audit it!

So yet again in the midst of a crisis, government insists on acting, and in ways far outside the scope of the Constitution, hoping that the crisis gives them cover. The truth is that in crises is when we need Constitutional limitations the most.

[Photo by Arnaud Klamecki; CC BY-SA 2.0]

In this first of a series of programs, the Liberty Conspiracy begins to look more closely at the mirage of liberty the US Constitution has led many to believe they possess. Gardner Goldsmith takes the occasion of Independence Day to study how many icons and myths are now associated with the anniversary of the issuance of the Declaration of Independence, and how it was the acceptance of government in the first place that led the society of the United States on this path towards acceptance of the myriad government structures that have been created since that first era of the “founding”.

Stay tuned, all!

Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

That star-spangled banner no longer waves over the land of the free and the home of the brave. The banner is still there, of course, but the freedom and the bravery are long gone.

What remains today is a thinly veiled police state which has, over the past century, adopted some of the worst elements of both fascism and socialism in a unique American blend which, while it still retains a few of the old formalities of a freer society, is steadily losing them, until one day you will finally wake up to find that we are once again in bondage, with no idea how you got there.

The only aspect of those failed societies not yet fully adopted in the United States is the mass killing of dissidents, though President Barack Obama placed that option on the table earlier this year. That’s right, you now live in a country where the government can kill you without so much as a show trial, if you disagree with its policies and take any action that the government thinks will threaten its stranglehold on you and your fellow Americans, not to mention the rest of its world hegemony.

It has always happened like this throughout history. It starts with something seemingly small and reasonable, like “stopping terrorists” or “economic recovery.” Like every other government program, it expands. Ultimately, anyone who voices disagreement with government policy winds up blacklisted, in prison, or dead.

Oh, it can’t happen here? You think a goddamned piece of paper is going to protect you, when the government’s own courts redefine that piece of paper to mean anything that the government thinks is convenient? The Soviet Union had free speech in its constitution, too. We all know how well that piece of paper protected Russian dissidents. What makes you think your constitution is any more bulletproof?

It has already happened here. Today the government can take your home and give it to anyone it wants to, with no restrictions, as it did to Susette Kelo and her neighbors. It can imprison or kill you for taking medicine to save your life, as it did to Steve Kubby and Angel Raich. Its “law enforcement” agents can commit murder with impunity, as they did to Sean Bell, Frank Jude, Jr., and many others.

That’s what you were celebrating by launching those fireworks? I was mourning the failure of the so-called great American experiment. Or perhaps it was a success. After all, the experience of the United States did prove that a republic is no better than a monarchy, and in some ways is worse. Either way, the experiment is over.

Today the United States government is headed for either total collapse, an even bloodier civil war, or World War III. It’s still hard to predict which will happen first, though it’s no longer possible to say that none of them will happen. If we’re going to survive, it’s time for a new experiment.

The government of the United States has proved destructive to stability, justice and order. Indeed, all governments ultimately devolve into some form of tyranny, chaos, or both. It is time to discard government as we know it entirely.

The only viable system is the one by which everyone lives their lives most of the time: by voluntary interaction, mutual exchange and explicit consent. Much has been written already about how such a system would work. See for example The Market for Liberty, Complete Liberty and Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression (free downloads available).

On June 26 at the Porcupine Freedom Festival in Lancaster, N.H., dozens of people took the first steps toward such a voluntary society by signing a Shire Society Declaration which states the nature of human rights, holds that explicit voluntary association is the only legitimate social order, and the signer’s commitment to the outlined principles. I am proud to be one of the first people to have signed it, joining the Shire Society, a voluntary association of individuals who believe in “peace, individual sovereignty and independence” and are actively working toward building that society.

The only way to save ourselves now is to recognize government for the unnecessary evil that it is and to commit to living our daily lives on a voluntary basis. Down any other path lies only oppression, chaos and utter destruction.

["ObamaNation" image by Fletcher Warren; CC BY 2.0]

Question: Who’s an arse?

Answer: Joe Biden. You know, the guy who lifted a speech from Neil Kinnock?

Check out how Biden reacts to a man who asks him to lower taxes!

Short, to the point.

Be Seeing You.

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Although the “conservative” pop media hasn’t paid it any attention, Faisal Shahzad, the man who admits trying to kill people in Times Square, NYC with a truck bomb, has explained why he made the attempt, and why more terrorists will try to kill innocent Americans.

In his criminal trial (which is open to reporters, as opposed to the military commissions so many statists want to use for trials of terrorism suspects), Shahzad said that if the US government continues to meddle in Mideast affairs, there will me more killings.

Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with US culture. It’s about the US government messing in the middle east and killing people, or offering weapons to nation states to kill people, or money to kill people, etc., etc. . . .

Check out this audio, isolated from an earlier production in order to facilitate easier retention!

Be Seeing You!

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]