Government Needs To Stop “Stimulating” The Economy

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

empty wallet

As the recession grinds into its third year, calls for the president and congress to “do something” about it.

But, is it the federal government’s job to stimulate our economy? And, does such market intervention actually improve the average citizen’s financial condition?

While opinions vary on the first question, economic data shows that the government’s recent efforts to revive the economy have failed miserably.

For example, despite enactment of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other federal efforts to reinvigorate the housing market, average home values have declined from 9.5% (in the northeast) to 3.9% (in the south) over the past year, while the foreclosure rate has increased by over 24% since 2008.

In fact, Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for TARP (which was originally passed to protect home values and preserve homeownership), recently indicated that the program had “little merit.”

In his March 30, 2011 New York Times article, Barofsky wrote that “Congress was told that TARP would be used to purchase up to $700 billion of mortgages, and … modify those mortgages to assist struggling homeowners. Almost immediately … TARP shifted from the purchase of mortgages to the infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars into the nation’s largest financial institutions.”

In other words, the billions allocated to help financially distressed taxpayers instead went to the entities that helped create the crisis in the first place.

Unfortunately, government intervention distorts market forces and hurts those it’s designed to help. Such legislation is always administered by incompetent bureaucrats who make decisions based on political rather than economic considerations.

Though initially painful, the best approach would have been to allow the housing market to crash. For, while homes would have been lost and the net worth of many families would have suffered, true market values would have been established. Business people, investors and individuals would then able to make the informed economic decisions necessary to revitalize the economy.

If you’re skeptical, consider the fact that the President now wants to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. This incentive has made it economically feasible for people to buy instead of rent for generations.

Can you imagine the impact this political decision would have on the housing market?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

We Need To Vote Out All Members Of Congress

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)
THROW THE BUMS OUT!!! 

An irrational rant by hysterical, right-wing extremists?

Actually, it’s a very rational opinion held by nearly all conservatives, most independents and a growing number of liberals. In fact, an October 2010 Rasmussen Poll revealed that “voting out every single member of Congress” was favored by 88% of Tea Party members, 38% of Democrats, and nearly two thirds of Americans overall.

Little wonder the party controlling both the White House and Congress got “shellacked” in the 2010 elections (where Republican’s gained 63 seats in the House, five seats in the Senate and added of six governorships ).

Even incumbent Republicans aren’t safe, as evidenced by the successful primary challenges several faced (just ask Utah Senator Bob Bennett or Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski). The electorate is fed up with entrenched politicians who are more concerned with accumulating power and getting reelected than with the will of their constituents.

Never was this disdain for public opinion more blatant than during the ugly legislative process that gave us Obamacare. Despite poll after poll showing the country’s clear opposition to nationalized healthcare, outrageous deals were struck to secure deciding votes.

Who can forget the “Cornhusker Kickback”? In exchange for Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, Democratic leaders committed to full federal funding of expanded Medicaid coverage in the state (despite the fact that Obamacare slashes Medicare by $575 billion). Nelson provided the key 60th vote needed to overcome the Republican filibuster.

And, how about the “Louisiana Purchase”? In exchange for her support, Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu secured $100 million in extra Medicare subsidies (again, for voting for legislation that reduces Medicare subsidies for non-Louisiana residents).

So, what’s the answer to limiting the power of these imperial elected officials? Term limits would take a constitutional amendment, and would be vehemently opposed by the many vested interests that benefit from the current system.

An awakened and informed electorate is the best answer, and it increasingly appears that we have just that. We must continue to educate the public on governmental abuses and demand that those responsible be held accountable. And, when the elections roll around, we need to throw the bums out.

In the interim, maybe voters could secure waivers from destructive legislation. After all, over 1000 waivers from Obamacare have been granted so far.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Should The Government Fund NPR?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (1 vote cast)
national public radioIn an age of $1.5 trillion budget deficits and a national debt about to exceed $14 trillion, can we still afford to publicly fund National Public Radio?

Especially if — as its critics allege — NPR is an extremely biased broadcaster which not only suppresses opposing opinions, but holds in contempt the viewpoints of millions of the taxpayers forced to support it.

Those critics gained considerable ammunition recently through missteps made by NPR Foundation president, Ron Schiller, and his boss, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller (no relation).

When meeting with purported representatives of the Muslim Education Action Center (MEAC) to discuss a $5 million contribution the group wanted to make to NPR, Ron Schiller made a number of derogatory statements about Tea Party members, Republicans, Christians and Jews. The MEAC representatives were actually employees of conservative activist James O’Keefe (who ran similar stings on ACORN and Planned Parenthood), who secretly videotaped and distributed Schiller’s comments.

To whom he thought were members of MEAC (a self-described front group for the Muslim Brotherhood whose stated mission is to “spread acceptance of Sharia Law throughout the world”), Schiller described the Republic Party as having been “hijacked by Tea Party activists” who are “not just Islamaphobic but really xenophobic … They’re seriously racist, racist people.”

Mr. Schiller followed with statements that NPR supporters might consider even more damning. He indicated that “very little of NPR’s funding comes from the government,” and that “we would probably be better off in the long run without federal funding.”

Several months before Mr. Schiller’s recorded indiscretions, Vivian Schiller had fired longtime NPR contributor Juan Williams for commenting on Fox News that he felt nervous when he saw Muslim airline passengers.

The controversy over the Williams firing combined with the uproar caused by Ron Schiller’s remarks ultimately lead to Ms. Schiller’s resignation.

So, as congressional leaders look for ways to reduce the out-of-control spending that’s hurtling the country toward fiscal oblivion, should the federal government continue to write NPR its yearly $90 million check?

Should it keep funding an entity run by people who are hostile toward a grass-roots movement responsible for a 63 seat gain in the House, a five seat gain in the Senate and the addition of six governorships? A series of resounding victories based largely on the candidate’s pledges to restore budgetary sanity.

Perhaps congress should listen to the electorate. . . and to Mr. Schiller.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (1 vote cast)

Time is Running Out – By Ron Paul

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Ron Paul issued this article regarding our government’s proposal to bail out Wall Street:

“Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress’ throat is not just economically foolish.  It is downright sinister.  It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect.  It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder.  Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China!  “This is welfare for the rich,” he said. “This is socialism for the rich. It’s bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters.”

That describes the current bailout package to a T.  And we’re being told it’s unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it.  But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences – predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics – are being let off the hook.  The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

•    The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time.  That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.

•    Financial institutions are “designated as financial agents of the Government.”  This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

•    Then there’s this: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”  Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this “sadly necessary.”  Sad, yes.  Necessary?  Don’t make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people.  The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind – another example of the big choice we’re supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes.  Now, with a backlash brewing, they’re not quite sure what their views are.  A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we’ll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short.  Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow.  With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it.  Call them!  Let them hear from you!  Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom?  Do we care about responsibility and accountability?  Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for?  Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government?  Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.”

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)