When speaking of deficit spending, it is common to hear the complaint that we are saddling future generations with the bill for what we enjoy today. Why not let those in the future help pay for what will benefit them also? Don’t be deceived. That is a misconception encouraged by politicians to calm the public. When money is fiat, as the colonists discovered, every government building, public work, and cannon of war is paid out of current labor and current wealth. These things must be built today with today’s labor, and the man who performs that labor must be paid today. It is true that interest payments fall partly to future generations, but the initial cost is paid by those in the present. It is paid by loss of value in the monetary unit and loss of purchasing power for one’s wages.— G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve (162).
The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit…—
The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy’s books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes…
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold…. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the “hidden” confiscation of wealth. It stands as the protector of property rights.
Alan Greenspan in 1967, long before he abandoned the principles of sound money.
The more I read, the more I realize that the Federal Reserve and its destructive shenanigans are behind much of the economic and geopolitical strife of the last 100 years.
It turns out that the NSA’s domestic and world-wide surveillance apparatus is even more extensive than we thought. Bluntly: The government has commandeered the Internet. Most of the largest Internet companies provide information to the NSA, betraying their users. Some, as we’ve learned, fight and lose. Others cooperate, either out of patriotism or because they believe it’s easier that way.
I have one message to the executives of those companies: fight.
Do you remember those old spy movies, when the higher ups in government decide that the mission is more important than the spy’s life? It’s going to be the same way with you. You might think that your friendly relationship with the government means that they’re going to protect you, but they won’t. The NSA doesn’t care about you or your customers, and will burn you the moment it’s convenient to do so.
The reasons to support limited government continue to stack up. They aren’t new, but more people are starting to pay attention to them now.
The first three comments at the end of this article about the NSA surveillance program.
So Thacker is exactly right that the Preamble to the Constitution, and Article I, and the other stuff in there like it, left a bunch of unlocked constitutional doors that would have gotten us unbridled statism long before we actually got it. That is why it was so controversial at the time, and that is why the debate (as represented by the mere existence of the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers) was all about how best to guarantee the protections afforded by limited government. That is what the central debate was about — how best to ensure limited government. The classic center of the debate was how — to paraphrase Madison — we could give the government enough power to govern the people and enough restrictions to compel it to govern itself.— Douglas Wilson
Both sides agreed that [limited government] was a civic good. The Federalists were less cynical than the anti-Federalists, and both parties less cynical than they should have been, but their differences concerned how much rope was necessary to tie down the giant. They all agreed that tying down the giant was a good thing. And everybody was wrong about how much rope it would take.
A law granting special privileges to the press effectively gives the government the power to license the press by deciding who qualifies.— James Taranto
Durbin acknowledges this problem but doesn’t really grapple with its implications. For instance, he doesn’t spell out whether the protection would belong to individual journalists or only to news organizations. If the latter, then he is in a funny position for a leftist Democrat: He is claiming that a constitutional right belongs only to corporations, not individuals.
Further, a government that grants privileges also has the power to take them away. A shield law would make those designated as “legitimate journalists” beholden to powerful politicians—especially when, as today, most journalists are ideologically sympathetic to the party in power. The Durbin shield proposal looks less like real protection than a protection racket.
The patient is not the customer—the insurance company is. As long as there’s such an institutional separation from the consumer of services and the payer of services (i.e. as long as the employer-provided, government-incentivized healthcare system continues), there is little chance of change occurring—short of the national economic shit hitting the fan of inviolable math principles.— Me, on FB a few minutes ago, commenting on this article.
[Ezra] Klein is analyzing this in terms of ordinary political gamesmanship. But he has it backward. Suppose the IRS’s abuses were not ordered or explicitly encouraged by the White House. That would mean, as Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin puts it, that the agency “has so thoroughly absorbed the views of its political masters that it doesn’t even recognize when it has crossed the line into illegal activity.”— James Taranto
In other words, if this is the case, the left’s hateful and slanderous campaign against its political foes, especially the Tea Party—the demagoguery of Obama, his fellow Democrats and their supporters in the media, led by the New York Times editorial page—was sufficient to prompt the IRS agents to cast aside their professional obligations and embark on a campaign of political abuse whose effect was to ease Obama’s re-election.
In his testimony to the Senate Watergate Committee—whose hearings opened 40 years ago today—John Dean famously called that scandal “a cancer on the presidency.” If Obama, his campaign or his White House aides are directly implicated in the IRS’s abuses, this will be another cancer on the presidency, remediable by resignation or impeachment.
But if the IRS acted without direction from above—if it “went rogue” against the Constitution and in support of the party in power—then we are dealing with a cancer on the federal government. That, it seems to us, is a far direr diagnosis, one whose treatment is likely to be radical and risky.
Americans should remember that this same corrupt IRS will be in charge of enforcing Obamacare.—
I seldom quote her, but she nails it here.
…into the arms of America
Can we stop voting for 1%ers, already??
I don’t get why this is so hard to understand.
The Fed and Wall Street enjoy a moment together.
Amen. We don’t have free market capitalism in this country; we have crony capitalism due to government intervention (i.e. meddling).
Merline’s charts and analysis is generally right in implying that Obama’s interventions didn’t just fail in their intentions but that they extended and exacerbated the problems.
But here’s something for Republicans to drill into their heads: It’s also true the George W. Bush bears a good chunk of responsibility, both for pursuing policies that inflated the housing bubble at the heart of the recession and for going nuts in terms of his own bold, persistent experimentation, especially in the last year of his presidency when he infamously “abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.”