tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83936128454332276632024-03-14T01:59:52.927-07:00Lysander Spooner Institute...reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose. To advance this platform, the institute conducts policy research which may be used by political parties and candidates to design platforms, programs, and resolutions.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-37944340918768722222012-03-11T09:46:00.000-07:002012-03-11T09:46:08.372-07:00Holder to Americans: We Can Kill You Without Trial<center><object height="85" width="440"><param name='wmode' value='transparent'></param><param name='menu' value='false'></param><param name='movie' value='http://freepatriotpress.podomatic.com/swf/joeplayer_v18c.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='minicast=false&jsonLocation=http%3A%2F%2Ffreepatriotpress.podomatic.com%2Fentry%2Fembed_params%2F2012-03-10T18_09_06-08_00%3Fcolor%3Dundefined%26autoPlay%3Dfalse%26facebook%3Dtrue%26height%3D85%26minicast%3Dfalse%26objembed%3D1%26width%3D440'></param><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><embed src='http://freepatriotpress.podomatic.com/swf/joeplayer_v18c.swf'
flashvars='minicast=false&jsonLocation=http%3A%2F%2Ffreepatriotpress.podomatic.com%2Fentry%2Fembed_params%2F2012-03-10T18_09_06-08_00%3Fcolor%3Dundefined%26autoPlay%3Dfalse%26facebook%3Dtrue%26height%3D85%26minicast%3Dfalse%26objembed%3D1%26width%3D440'
wmode='transparent'
menu='false'
type='application/x-shockwave-flash'
allowscriptaccess='always'
allowfullscreen='true'
version='10.0.0'
width='440' height='85'></embed></object></center><br />
<br />
Attorney General Eric Holder <a href="http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2012/ag-speech-1203051.html" target="doj">recently gave a speech</a> in which he said the U.S. military can execute American citizens without trial, because “'[d]ue process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.” Holder added, “[t]he Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”<br />
<br />
Holder additionally said, “The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential – but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war – even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen.“<br />
<br />
The Attorney General laid out the conditions that allow for an execution without trial:<blockquote>“First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.”</blockquote>The first two criteria assume the target is, in fact, guilty and relies solely on the input of the Executive Branch, without judicial or Congressional oversight, and it is impossible for the operation to be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable laws of war. Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says that willful killing and willfully depriving a person of the rights of fair and regular trial are grave breaches of the Convention and thus war crimes.<br />
<br />
Holder does not explain how due process is ensured absent the use of a judicial court. To put it another way: How can anyone defend themselves against accusations of being a terrorist without the ability to face their accusers in court?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-45444553107859830322012-01-24T19:11:00.000-08:002012-01-24T19:11:07.050-08:00BTP Response to the 2012 State of the UnionPresident Obama wants us to imagine an America that is within reach. I would rather have you imagine a world a little further down the road. The President wants “[a] country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.“<br />
<br />
I prefer to imagine a world in which governments allow you to educate your children as you see fit, without interference. A world in which governments allow you to start and run your own business and create jobs without interference from bureaucrats. A world where you are allowed to purchase energy from any number of sources or companies that do not have special government privilege, or supply your own energy from wind or solar and be able to share the excess with your neighbors without government regulation. A world where you are able to use the currency of your choice without threat of violating a legal tender law. Such a world would have an economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.<br />
<br />
The President also said “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”<br />
<br />
If the President were serious about having an economy where everyone plays by the same set of rules; he would immediately ask Congress to revoke all government contracts, abolish the IRS, abolish the Federal Reserve which serves to protect the large banking institutions, and work with the Governors of the 50 States to abolish the use of eminent domain, abolish special privilege given to “corporations,” repeal zoning laws & abolish welfare and licensing laws which do little more than stifle the free market. A world without government interference would be a world where everyone gets a “fair shot.”<br />
<br />
President Obama additionally said that he will “fight obstruction” in Congress. As long as bills that create more laws, continue funding the military occupation of foreign nations, take away more rights of the people and increase spending are being proposed, I believe that obstruction is the only admirable action that any member of Congress could commit.<br />
<br />
In closing, the President says “[m]illions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that does the same.” I am curious what President Obama means by this statement. I doubt that he intends to remove the special privilege given to the Federal Reserve System. I doubt he will remove government contracts and privatize all government agencies. I doubt he will ask Congress to abolish the postal monopoly that prohibits competition on delivery of first class mail. I also doubt that President Obama will request the repeal of “sovereign immunity” which protects governments from civil suits when a government (or government employee) violates someone's rights.<br />
<br />
As long as there is a central bank (whether private or government run) there will be “phony financial profits” and “bad debt;” two things Obama says he wants to eliminate. If the President were serious about moving forward with a blueprint for an economy built to last; he would heed the advice I've already mentioned. The only way forward, is to remove the obstacles – placed by government at all levels – from the road.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-45429039491513235592012-01-16T19:13:00.000-08:002012-01-16T19:48:03.924-08:00Policy Round-Up 2.5We are throwing in a special edition issue for some great stuff we found today:<div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/11">Why the United States Is Destroying Its Education System</a></div><div>Chris Hedges, Common Dreams, 04/11/2011</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://mises.org/daily/5866/In-Praise-of-Homeschools">In Praise of Homeschools</a><br />Aaron Smith, Mises Institute, 01/16/2012</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/05/nearly-half-of-households-receive-some-government-benefit/">Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefit</a><br /></div><div>Sara Murray, Wall Street Journal, 10/05/2011</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://money.msn.com/tax-tips/post.aspx?post=63c403d6-0a2f-4506-a8b8-25124d49889b">U.S. households getting more from Uncle Sam than they pay in</a><br /></div><div>Amey Stone, The Fiscal Times, 04/20/2011</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2012/Leefederalspending.html">Reducing Real Output by Increasing Federal Spending</a><br /></div><div>Dwight R. Lee, Library of Economics & Liberty, 01/02/2012</div><div><br /></div><div>We covered this Dwight Lee essay in our <a href="http://spoonerinstitute.blogspot.com/2012/01/2012-presidential-election-update.html">most recent election update</a>. This is a nice addition to the growing list of arguments against Keynesian economics and government stimulus. As much of the nation is starting to question the Keynesian system, now is the time to show them that alternative economic approaches are out there, and those based on Austrian school economics offer prosperity without compromising liberty.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-81435790606893611402012-01-16T13:49:00.000-08:002012-01-16T18:19:57.921-08:002012 Presidential Election Update<div>In South Carolina, Ron Paul picked up a coveted endorsement from Senator Tom Davis, just as he was finishing a $1.2 million money bomb and reaching 2nd place in the polls. Expect a surge for Ron Paul to start this week in South Carolina. We are waiting to see if Senator Jim DeMint, who speaks positively of Paul, will also endorse him.</div><div><br /></div><div><iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/X0AOy5wgMMo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><br /></div><div><br /></div>The harsh criticism of Romney's statist platform and inconsistent history continues. David Boaz and Michael F. Cannon explain, "ObamaCare is RomneyCare 2.0":<div><br /><div><iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9IJsiBHYTFg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div>We <a href="http://spoonerinstitute.blogspot.com/2012/01/2012-presidential-campaign-news.html">reported last week</a> about Green Party candidate for nomination Jill Stein's Keynesian economic stimulus plan. It is, of course, more progressive than President Obama's plan, but still true to Keynesian principles none-the-less. The basic premise of Keynesian economic stimulus is that government spending increases aggregate demand, which leads to an increase in production. Dwight R. Lee, for the Library of Economics and Liberty, <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2012/Leefederalspending.html">argues the opposite</a>. There are many economic papers out of the Austrian school which challenge the Keynesian theory with purely economic arguments. Lee uses a little history. In the periods following the Civil War and World War II, federal government spending significantly decreased, and the country was flooded with unemployed former soldiers. Under these conditions, the Keynesian economist would urge for government spending to employ the veterans and create demand for production. However, the government cut spending and used the surpluses to pay off war debt. Rather than a slowed economy, in both cases, the economy boomed. When the production is forced to come from the free market, rather than the government, the economy grows. In the post-Civil War era, it grew almost for 28 years with only one short recession. Federal spending was under 3% of GDP, there was a surplus every year, rather than big government spending, and we had 3 of the most economically prosperous decades in American history. Perhaps this has something to do with Lee's point that government spending <i>reduces</i> real output. First, the government wastes $0.65 for every $1.00 collected in taxes. After that wasteful process, the average taxpayer is left with a product they didn't want or need. It was most likely chosen to satisfy a special interest group or strategic voting block. All the economic potential of that dollar was cut by 2/3rds and then turned into a product that serves very little purpose to the involuntary investor. Keynesian economics just doesn't work. No matter how you spin it, the principles are just plain wrong. Anti-establishment progressives must understand that free economy is a prosperous economy.</div><div><br /></div><div>Candidate for the Libertarian Party nomination, Gary Johnson, discussed his platform and Ron Paul's campaign on MSNBC. It was a positive discussion of libertarianism. However, it wasn't clearly explained that Johnson is not the LP nominee–at least not yet. He has to win the nomination at the national conference in Las Vegas in May.</div><div><br /></div><div><iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/P-eXkCYu1SI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>In other Green Party news, Jill Stein will join Kent Mesplay and Harley Mikkelson on the presidential primary ballot in Massachusetts.</div><div><br /></div><div>It has been an up and down week for the Boston Tea Party presidential campaign. Accusations were made that presidential nominee Tiffany Briscoe <a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/01/candidate-defeated-for-boston-tea-party-presidential-nomination-accuses-nominee-of-falsifying-resume/">falsified her resume</a>. Party chair Darryl W. Perry <a href="http://bostontea.us/node/1089">demanded a response</a> from the campaign, which <a href="http://tiffanybriscoe2012.weebly.com/1/post/2012/01/statement-on-my-candidacy.html">came from Briscoe today</a>. It appears that <a href="http://bostontea.us/node/1090">matters are all cleared up</a>, and the party can resume working for ballot access in what it anticipates will be as many as <a href="http://bostontea.us/node/1074">17 states</a>. The Briscoe-Barrick campaign will release its platform later this month. We advise that Briscoe no longer give her campaign manager, Pierre Creveaux, so much liberty to speak or write on her behalf without oversight. Libertarian campaigns have enough of a struggle to get on ballots and have their platforms heard by the voters. In this uphill battle, they do not need to give their opponents easy opportunities to discredit them.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-20742004800639413862012-01-14T13:53:00.001-08:002012-01-14T14:16:18.425-08:00Weekly Policy Round-Up 2<div><a href="http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/10/3-reasons-conservatives-should-cut-defen">3 Reasons Conservatives Should Cut Defense Spending Now!</a></div><div>Nick Gillespie & Meredith Bragg, Reason: Hit & Run, 01/10/2012</div><div><blockquote>The Congressional Budget Office projects that if we keep spending the way we have been, federal debt held by the public will grow from around 60 percent of GDP to a whopping 82 percent of GDP over the next decade, with no end in sight. That’s the sort of borrowing that can ruin a country's economy.</blockquote></div><div><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obama-proposes-new-department-of-corporate-welfare/">Obama Proposes New Department of Corporate Welfare</a></div><div>Tad DeHaven, Cato@Liberty, 01/13/2012</div><div><blockquote>As I discuss in a <a href="http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/sba">Cato essay on the SBA</a>, rather than helping small businesses compete against big businesses, the SBA’s loan guarantees mainly help a tiny share of small businesses compete against other small businesses. In reality, the biggest beneficiary of the SBA is the banks, which reap the profits from the loans guaranteed by the agency.</blockquote><a href="http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/merging-wasteful-agencies-wont-shrink-government">Merging Wasteful Agencies Won't Shrink Government</a> (audio)</div><div>Cato Daily Podcast, 01/13/2012</div><div><blockquote>The real purpose of these agencies is politics. Every member of Congress wants to say that they support small business, because they support funding to the SBA.</blockquote>The inefficiency of merging agencies was demonstrated by the failure of the Department of Homeland Security, which only added a new level of bureaucracy. Contrary to what many fake conservative politicians will tell you, consolidating government does not shrink government. In almost every case that we have observed, it has lead to an increase in government.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-39611008949659330462012-01-12T20:29:00.000-08:002012-01-12T20:51:13.069-08:00Rethinking Anti-spending RhetoricOn yesterday's <span style="font-style:italic;">The Daily Show</span>, Jon Stewart didn't interview Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) as expected. He debated him. He challenged him and made the most convincing case in favor of government spending that I have ever heard. While I continue to disagree with Jon Stewart in principle on the issue of government spending, I think he raises some good points in criticizing the "apocalyptic" and polarizing language used by "Tea Party" activists and questioning the motives behind government spending cuts. Are we making cuts just for the sake of making cuts, or are we considering the value of each program and finding smartest way to create alternatives?<div><br /></div><div>This debate is well worth considering for those of us who side with Sen. DeMint on seeking significant spending cuts at the federal level. Jon Stewart won this debate. Let's be honest, he completely owned Sen. DeMint. The "Tea Party Movement" and others seeking federal spending cuts must watch this debate and rethink our rhetoric:</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-january-11-2012-jim-demint">http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-january-11-2012-jim-demint</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-88598894350359324342012-01-08T14:41:00.001-08:002012-01-16T18:12:59.660-08:002012 Presidential Campaign NewsAt the center of attention in the 2012 Presidential race is the Republican nomination. After a tight 3 way race in Iowa between Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul, Romney is the clear front-runner in New Hampshire. However, a <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/278420/20120108/new-hampshire-primary-2012-shocker-paul-15.htm">poll released today</a> shows a drop for Romney to 35%, only 15% ahead of Ron Paul. Ron Paul positioned himself well in the <a href="http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-manchester/paul-and-romney-a-different-class-new-hampshire-debate?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150477416378026_20512964_10150478161283026">NH debates</a>, drawing a clear distinction between himself and 3rd place Santorum and 4th place Newt Gingrich.<div><br /></div><div>Gary Johnson left the race for the Republican nomination, <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/gary-johnson-exits-republican-race-seeks-libertarian-nomination/">saying</a>,</div><div><blockquote>Frankly, I have been deeply disappointed by the treatment I received in the Republican nomination process. Other candidates with no national name identification like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman were allowed to participate in the debates.<br /></blockquote><blockquote>Incredibly candidates with no executive experience like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum were allowed to participate while I, a successful two-term governor with a solid record of job creation, was arbitrarily excluded by elitist media organizations in New York. My appeals to the Republican National Chairman for basic fairness were ignored.</blockquote>Johnson's switch is to the benefit of "small L" libertarians everywhere. It provided the <a href="http://www.lp.org/">Libertarian Party</a> with a high profile candidate, while it united libertarian Republicans behind one candidate, Ron Paul, who jumped into the top tier at about the same time that Johnson dropped out of the race. The Republican Liberty Caucus <a href="http://www.rlc.org/2011/12/30/republican-liberty-caucus-endorses-ron-paul-for-president/">endorsed Ron Paul</a> only 2 days after Johnson's departure.</div><div><br /></div><div>Other <a href="http://2012.libertarian-party.org/">prospective candidates</a> for the Libertarian Party's nomination include <a href="http://www.rjharris2012.com/">RJ Harris</a>, a 3-tour Army National Guard combat veteran who ran for Congress in 2010 with Rand Paul's endorsement. <a href="http://carlperson.org/">Carl Person</a> is an attorney and was a candidate for Attorney General in New York. Air Force veteran <a href="http://wrights2012.com/">Lee Wrights</a> is another war veteran, anti-war candidate, running with the slogan, "Stop all war." He recently wrote a <a href="http://wrights2012.com/2012/01/the-fair-tax-isnt-fair-its-a-farce/">criticism of the Fair Tax</a>, proposing that we eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with nothing (one of the top principles of Ron Paul's 2008 campaign).</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.jillstein.org/">Jill Stein</a> announced her candidacy for the <a href="http://www.gp.org/">Green Party</a> in October. Stein <a href="http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2011/12/26/10883">criticizes the Obama stimulus plan</a> for costing $288,055 per job created. She advocates a $666 billion plan to create $17.5 million jobs. She claims that she can create jobs at a net cost of $28,600. Since she advocates infrastructure investments as a significant portion of the jobs plan, how would she supply the necessary materials to support the projects and still spend only $28,600 per laborer? Stein makes an interesting point, citing Rutgers University professor <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:oa9bjQLAou4J:www.philipharvey.info/newdeal.pdf+Learning+from+the+New+Deal&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjd7htv56Ygn8C_MQbT4F9BWX08TgAV8B-ydRWW9lW4klsneRhAoGbJaGRyaD_ahiXr9hr1lOmabo50ZFtyJPfZs8ShmaNiHzSbxVv6JeHztlGqr5ZVCRnYp_G7oWXkxvYd3soA&sig=AHIEtbTg7p00gyMOEt1a_WLKQ5y6h0thaA">Philip Harvey</a>, <blockquote>Harvey notes that all these jobs increase tax revenues that defray the costs of the program. Government saves money on unemployment insurance and other safety net programs.</blockquote>Harvey's work is something we intend to research, as we will probably see it come up again in the campaign.</div><div><br /></div><div>Green Party activist <a href="http://www.mesplay.org/">Kent Mesplay</a> is also running for the party's nomination, <a href="http://www.mesplay.org/node/2">announcing</a>:</div><div><blockquote>I run to counter-balance the wrath of the “right” toward immigrants, toward Mexicans, toward Native peoples. I am a life-long advocate of rain-forest dwellers and First Nations folk within our borders. Greens value diversity, justice and representation. I do this from my cross-cultural basis, my upbringing</blockquote>In late December, the <a href="http://bostontea.us/">Boston Tea Party</a> nominated <a href="http://tiffanybriscoe2012.weebly.com/">Tiffany Briscoe</a> along with VP candidate Kimberly Johnson. Briscoe has a platform that should be well received by libertarians. The Briscoe campaign has unfortunately faced criticism by her former BTP nomination opponent <a href="http://www.robertwmilnesforpresident.com/">Robert Milnes</a>. Milnes has <a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/01/candidate-defeated-for-boston-tea-party-presidential-nomination-accuses-nominee-of-falsifying-resume/">accused her</a> of lying on her resumé. This was no surprise, considering Milnes' history of aggressive pursuit of a "Progressive Libertarian Alliance" candidacy for President. His PLA plan has not been well received by the Libertarian, Green, or Boston Tea parties in the 2008 or 2012 presidential campaigns. Briscoe finally <a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/01/btp-nominee-tiffany-briscoe-responds-to-falsification-allegations/">cleared up the allegation</a>, but I am sure that isn't the last she will hear from Robert Milnes. Another obstacle for Briscoe will be cleaning up her platform. It is overall very well organized, but there are a few conflicts in her <a href="http://tiffanybriscoe2012.weebly.com/taxes.html">tax policy</a> which were brought up by a <a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/01/candidate-defeated-for-boston-tea-party-presidential-nomination-accuses-nominee-of-falsifying-resume/#comment-724621">commenter at Independent Political Report</a>. Taxation is one of the hottest issues in this campaign, so she will need to better define her policies on the flat tax and estate tax. The Spooner Institute would advocate the elimination of both the federal income tax and the estate tax. As a minimum we should bring federal taxation back to the pre-income tax system that we used for over 100 prosperous years.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-90145900379825754482012-01-08T10:15:00.000-08:002012-01-08T11:40:48.379-08:00Weekly Policy Round-Up<blockquote></blockquote>Our new Weekly Policy Round-Up will feature the best policy analysis, studies, talking points, and proposals that we find each week at the Spooner Institute. For the first week of 2012:<div><ul><li><a href="http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/a-guide-presidential-candidates-proposals-cut-spending">A Guide to the Presidential Candidates' Proposals to Cut Spending</a><br />Ted DeHaven and Chris Edwards, Cato Institute<br /><br /></li><li><a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v33n6/cprv33n6-1.html">The Case for Cuts</a><br />Chris Edwards, Cato Institute<br /><br /></li><li><a href="http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/01/06/digital-textbooks-offer-students-schools-significant-savings">Digital Textbooks Offer Students, Schools Significant Savings</a><br />Abigail Wood, Heartland Institute</li></ul></div><div>On the issue of digital textbooks, it should be noted that many states have restrictions on education spending, so that textbooks are funded from a specific pool of money. Educators in Indiana, for example, have to fight for their district or the state department of education to approve purchases that they feel to fall within the textbook category. If the material is not a traditional textbook from one of the big textbook publishers, it is either difficult to get funding or the proposal goes unfunded. Many teachers are creating their own materials, saving the taxpayers money, while they receive no extra compensation for their work. The availability of digital materials and the prospect of saving money by paying teachers to create original materials makes a new education talking point that should be pushed by libertarians running for school boards and state government offices.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-30869663739463823452012-01-01T23:11:00.000-08:002012-01-01T23:24:06.330-08:00How America Started More Than Six WarsThis excellent presentation by the Corbett Report explains how the U.S. government and the media have worked together to start six wars within the last 120 years. These strategies have been used so many times throughout American history, there is little doubt that they will be used again.<br /><br /><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ofrf2ZEEQtE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.corbettreport.com/faking-it-how-the-media-manipulates-the-world-into-war/">Read the full text with source links here.</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-66472159569325265052011-12-27T09:12:00.000-08:002011-12-27T09:33:44.035-08:00GridlockA few years ago, Drew Carey of Reason.tv put together this excellent <a href="http://reason.tv/video/show/6.html">video about traffic in Los Angelas</a>. After addressing the horrible traffic issues that L.A. residents battle every day, he suggested some solutions that have already succeeded in major cities around the world at reducing traffic problems. All of these examples were created by private companies. Often, all a city has to do to solve its biggest problems is reduce the limitations that are keeping private companies from solving them.<div><br /></div><div><iframe width="420" height="240" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AsVMAP0zVgo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-47174111180117787542011-12-25T23:06:00.000-08:002011-12-25T23:31:43.155-08:00The Social Security Ponzi SchemeThe Cato Institute published a <a href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13864">Policy Analysis paper</a> by Michael D. Tanner in November, which compared social security to a ponzi scheme:<blockquote>like a Ponzi scheme, Social Security does not actually save or invest any of a participant's payments. When a worker pays taxes into the system, that money is used to pay current beneficiaries. Therefore, participants receive payments, not from returns on their own investments, but directly from inflows from subsequent participants.</blockquote>A highlight from the paper is a graph comparing return on capital to return on labor. Over the last 40 years, capital has outperformed labor consistently with only one exception (c.a. 1982).<div><br /></div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibQc2cVzkCtgVCxb6RiYmYKGygZHj2Ju0xeJHz5MCtEik6f2t6EhUgr8p3gJksDU3kdqqHxVYB2vr5FVf4DYr1gHz1OvCGeaibrhJKe_1-y_Q7-dDRh8cLpCSU1JYVZVFei2OBji1iMpA/s1600/Picture+21.png"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 273px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibQc2cVzkCtgVCxb6RiYmYKGygZHj2Ju0xeJHz5MCtEik6f2t6EhUgr8p3gJksDU3kdqqHxVYB2vr5FVf4DYr1gHz1OvCGeaibrhJKe_1-y_Q7-dDRh8cLpCSU1JYVZVFei2OBji1iMpA/s400/Picture+21.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5690333434614332242" /></a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-11292647441067860042011-04-12T18:40:00.001-07:002011-12-25T23:33:37.180-08:00Budget? We Don't Need No Stinking Budget!For the second time since the beginning of the 112th Congress, a temporary “stop-gap” budget has been passed, leaving a full budget for another day. Senator Rand Paul has <a href="http://paul.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=332380&" target="srp'">introduced a bill that would prevent a shutdown of the federal government</a>. According to Sen. Paul “My proposal seeks to alleviate the worries of people who rely on important services, and fill the gap created by non-passage of spending bills, while forcing Congress to deal with the unsustainable spending. In my bill, we keep obligations made to our military personnel, seniors, children, and federal workers maintain an adequate level of pay, but Members of Congress and the President do not get paid unless they actually work out a resolution.”<br /><br />In my opinion the proposal by Senator Paul fails to go far enough. One of the positive features of the bill is the provision that neither the President nor members of Congress are to be paid for the period of time in which there is no budget. However, the bill still allows the federal government to continue collecting and spending tax money.<br /><br />Writing about the possibility of a government “shutdown” <a href="http://knappster.blogspot.com/2011/04/advice-for-republicans.html" target="tk">Tom Knapp writes</a>, “every time this thing comes up, the Democrats run the table. They raise the roof over 'draconian' cuts in government spending. They say the Republicans want to take away the geezers' Social Security checks. They say it's personal petulance (remember the 'this is all about Newt Gingrich feeling left out on Air Force One' meme in 1995?).<br />The Democrats get away with it because Republicans bend over backward trying to 'look reasonable' and 'craft compromises' and end up playing the losing end of the blame game -- so much so this time around that their starting proposal for budget cuts came to less than 1/25th of the projected deficit. Not 1/25th of the spending, 1/25th of the <b>over-spending</b>... That's not draconian, it's the punch line to a bad joke.”<br /><br />One commenter (<a href="http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com/" target="atc">screenname "AngelaTC"</a>) on <a href="http://knappster.blogspot.com/2011/04/informal-poll.html" target="tk">Knapp's blog writes</a>, “their idea of a government shut down is different than mine. For example, they'll shut the National Parks down instead of just walking away from them. And if it threatens to go on for much more than a week, they'll be sure to start making sure to slash benefits to the mundanes instead of sending Homeland Security on an extended vacation.”<br /><br />If the Congress were sincere about wanting to prevent a shutdown of the federal government – though I doubt they are – they would remain in session without recess until a full budget is passed. Maybe then, they would be able to come to a “compromise” on what agencies of the federal government need to be abolished and/or privatized.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-5067065548161538932010-09-08T21:27:00.000-07:002010-09-08T21:28:54.162-07:00Ben Bernanke wants to "End the Fed"?Not exactly, though he did tell the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which is looking at the 2008 financial crisis, “If the crisis has a single lesson, it is that the ‘too big to fail’ problem must be solved. Too-big-to-fail financial institutions were both a source ... of the crisis and among the primary impediments to policymakers’ efforts to contain it,” Bernanke said. “We should not imagine ... that it is possible to prevent all crises. To achieve both sustained growth and stability, we need to provide a framework which promotes the appropriate mix of prudence, risk-taking and innovation in our financial system.” He even commented that the FED should shutter financial institutions if they threaten to bring down the financial system. What financial institution threatens the system more than the Federal Reserve? I think Ben Bernanke alluded to ending the FED, or maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight.<br /><br /><sub><a href='http://www.fcic.gov/hearings/pdfs/2010-0902-Bernanke.pdf' target='read'>Read a transcript of Bernanke's testimony</a><br /><a href='http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/09/02/HP/A/37719/FCIC+Meeting+on+Too+Big+to+Fail+Day+2.aspx' target='read'>Watch Bernanke's testimony</a></sub>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-47318012119573685212010-09-07T16:32:00.000-07:002011-12-25T23:32:14.880-08:00It Doesn't Matter if Congress Extends the "Tax Cuts"There is a lot of talk about the expiration of the “Bush tax cuts” at the end of the year and what that means. The most common excuse given for allowing the tax rate cuts to expire is that it was a “tax cut for the rich.”<br />It was actually a rate cut for nearly everyone that files with the IRS. Additionally, the rate cuts, still didn't reduce tax rates to below the George HW Bush tax rate increases signed in 1990 and took affect in 1991 that eliminated the “33% rate bubble” and raised the 28% tax rate to 31%. Though tax rates are much lower than the high of 91% the rates are nowhere near the initial tax rates that ranged from 1-7% in 1913.<br /><img style="text-align:right" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1pqNFS3tqvYUUlmidt84cQTe0BAWtmjWHZgBvNlMHtzkoFJZnZiI-rxxDZ8vZL0o1ii9Pp-QLmzZFpeZJ659ZZfHFEqAc4Yr7VqgbKmFYMMHomsIYX5UoQmHuXwLYaJVDff4A-QgJTuE/s320/tax-rates+1913.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5513323242901856226" /><br /><sup>Tax rate information courtesy <a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html" target="tf">The Tax Foundation</a></sup><br /><br />Let's for one minute forget about whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. Let's forget the claim that the IRS was incorporated in Puerto Rico. Let's forget the claim that only 14th Amendment citizens are subject to an income tax. And ask a few real questions, questions that led former IRS agent Joe Banister to quit his job.<br /><b>Where is the law making the typical working American liable for any income tax?<br />Why are businesses only taxed on profit (receipts minus expenses), yet individuals are taxed as if 100% of their earnings are profit?</b><br /><br />These two questions have never been answered by the IRS or by any member of the federal government of the United States of America.<br /><br />Bob Schulz of <a href="http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/" target="wtpf">We The People Foundation</a>/<a href="http://www.wethepeoplecongress.org/" target="wtpc">We The People Congress</a> filed a petition with both the IRS & federal government asking for answers to these questions and more. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia acknowledges, “they have engaged since 1999 in “a nationwide effort to get the government to answer specific questions” regarding what plaintiffs view as the Government’s “violation of the taxing clauses of the Constitution” and “violation of the war powers, money and ‘privacy’ clauses of the Constitution.” In the end, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, thus upholding the lower court ruling that while you have a Constitutionally protected right to petition the government for a redress of grievance, the government is not obligated to answer. I'd like to remind you of one of the complaints of the Founding Fathers listed in the Declaration of Independence, “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”<br /><br />Regardless of whether the Congress decides to extend the “tax cuts” or allow the rate cuts to expire, unless they also reduce the size, scope & power of the federal government, the federal government will continue down an unsustainable path of taxing, borrowing, inflating & spending.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-84342198409288142672010-06-15T20:37:00.000-07:002010-06-15T21:13:22.144-07:00Rep. Paul: Free Market Would Have Kept BP ResponsibleIn an interview today on CNBC's <i>Street Signs</i>, Congressman Ron Paul discussed who is responsible for the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. While many conservatives and libertarians blame the government and President Obama for the disaster, Rep. Paul (who identifies himself as both conservative and libertarian) puts the primary blame on BP.<div><br /></div><div>Rep. Paul said that Obama and Bush both took too much heat for the disasters that happened during their terms. "There are sort of limits on what the government can do," Paul said. "I just think that we've developed a culture where everything is to be solved by the government."</div><div><br /></div><div>The Congressman suggested a free market scenario that would have prevented the disaster:</div><div><blockquote>If you would have had property rights, somebody would have owned the fishing rights, and oil drillers couldn't go in there unless they had permission from the fisherman... There would be bonds put up, and there would have to be provisions for accidents like this.</blockquote><blockquote>But no, government gives them permission. They limit the liability of the oil companies, and then they say the taxpayer will pick up. That's a moral hazard, by saying the government is going to inspect and give the license and protect everybody. So it is the system that is wrong, rather than saying, 'well, the government just hasn't done enough.' They probably did too much too soon, and we would should think about another approach to problems like this.</blockquote></div><div>Dr. Paul also talked briefly about the <i><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/putting_their_money_where_thei.html">Washington Post</a></i><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/13/AR2010061304881.html"> allegations</a> that his investments in gold create a conflict of interest with his position on the House Financial Services Committee. You can watch the entire interview below.</div><div><br /></div><div><object width="400" height="300"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yxh2CaQLRMM&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yxh2CaQLRMM&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="300"></embed></object><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-12997063858831372902010-06-14T15:51:00.000-07:002010-06-14T15:55:59.040-07:00Slow Down Government, Part II: Congressional Reform<div>Over the last decade, we have seen a disturbing trend of unaccountability in Congress. The bills have gotten longer, costlier, and more blatantly unconstitutional, and they seem to pass them faster than we can read them. This post is Part II of a two-part series on legislative reform. <a href="http://spoonerinstitute.blogspot.com/2010/06/slow-down-congress-part-i-state-reform.html">Part I</a> dealt with reform of state assemblies. Let's look now at how we can slow down the U.S. Congress.</div><div><br /></div><div>The leading authority on downsizing Congress is, fittingly, the organization <a href="http://www.downsizedc.org/">Downsize DC</a>. Downsize DC has authored four bills which could be passed to reform the U.S. Congress. These would require legislators to pay more attention to what they pass, effectively slowing down the process and allowing the public to be more informed about what is in the bills.</div><div><br /></div><div>The first of these is the <a href="http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/27">"Read the Bills Act" (RTBA)</a>. RTBA requires that each bill be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate. It requires each legislator to sign a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that they have read a bill before they vote on it. It requires that every bill be published online for at least a week before a vote, with the date of that vote publicized in advance. RTBA does not allow Congress to waive these requirements.</div><div><br /></div><div>Downsize DC also proposes the <a href="http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83">"One Subject at a Time Act" (OSTA)</a>. OSTA requires that each bill cover only one subject of policy change and that each bill's name specifies what the bill actually does. OSTA would avoid rider bills that sneak controversial measures into unrelated bills. For example, in 2005, the REAL ID Act, establishing a national identity card, was hidden within the "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief." REAL ID is not a military defense or tsunami relief appropriation. It is also a controversial proposal that would have been heavily debated if proposed as its own bill. REAL ID passed through the appropriations bill, and was undiscovered by the public until after the bill had passed. OSTA also requires that a bill's name describes what it actually does. This might replace a marketing slogan like "No Child Left Behind" with an honest title like the "Act to Require Standardized Testing to Receive Federal Education Funding." The bill could only do what it says it does, and it would be difficult to spin it to be interpreted as otherwise.</div><div><br /></div><div>Next on the Downsize DC agenda is the <a href="http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/51">"Write the Laws Act" (WTLA)</a>. WTLA requires Congress to write specific legislation, rather than delegate the responsibilities of regulation and punishment responsibilities to bureaucrats. Congress would have to specify each regulation, and it would have to be enforced by the courts. This means the EPA can't suddenly decide that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that causes global warming and start charging companies fees for CO2 output. Congress would have to pass a law, and I imagine the citizens would not make it easy for them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, Downsize DC's <a href="http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/87">"Enumerated Powers Act" (EPA)</a> would require Congress to cite the constitutional authority it has to pass each law. The "enumerated" legislative powers of Congress are in <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html">Article I, Section 8</a> of the Constitution. As the 10th Amendment specifies, any powers not specified in Article I, Section 8 "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If the enumerated Powers Act were passed, Rep. <a href="http://www.indytruth.org/videos/2010/0402-const.html">Phil Hare might have to "care"</a> about whether a bill like Obamacare is constitutional.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of these four bills, the one with perhaps the best chance of passing is the Enumerated Powers Act. It has been introduced to the current Congress by Rep. John Shadegg as <a href="https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/87/background">H.R. 450</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>If Congress believes that they have the authority to regulate us out of doing anything without their permission, it is only fair that we do the same to them. It would be nearly impossible to pass something like Obamacare, another stimulus package, or whatever other monstrosities our congressmen are concocting if Downsize DC's legislation were passed. Congress should be forced to read the bills, write them responsibly, specify the laws within the bills without delegating powers, and justify the constitutionality of every law they try to pass. If we want to reduce the size and scope of government, we should start by putting Congress on a leash.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-51879569503043889992010-06-13T20:46:00.000-07:002010-06-14T15:55:44.585-07:00Slow Down Government, Part I: State ReformCongressional reform is a perfect starting point for the Lysander Spooner Institute's efforts to reduce the size and scope of government at all levels. Right now, it is simply too easy for legislators to pass massive bills that spend and regulate us without limitation or accountability. By putting more limitations on the way our federal and state legislatures do business, we can slow down the expansion of government. This post is Part I of a two-part series on legislative reform. Today, we'll address reform of state assemblies, using Pennsylvania as an example. Part II will discuss reform of Congress at the federal level.<br /><b><br /></b>Pennsylvania has one of the largest state assemblies in the country with 253 members. This has led many advocates of smaller to government to consider shrinking the size of the state's over-staffed, over-priced legislature. Research by Penssylvania's <a href="http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/">Commonwealth Foundation</a> has found that reducing the number of legislators <a href="http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/research/detail/does-legislative-size-matter">does not substantially change</a> the cost, effectiveness, or accountability of the assembly.<div><br /></div><div>The problem in Pennsylvania is not the number of legislators, but how they legislate. The Pennsylvania assembly legislates full time. They are literally professional politicians, making a salary of $78,314. This lucrative establishment has helped earn Pennsylvania the Department of Justice's ranking of the 11th most corrupt state in America. Nathan Benefield of the Commonwealth Foundation <a href="http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/research/detail/the-case-for-a-part-time-legislature">reports</a>,</div><div><blockquote>While the cost of the General Assembly has skyrocketed, Pennsylvania's economy has remained stagnant. For the period 1991-2009, the Keystone State ranked: 43rd in job growth, 48th in personal income growth, and 47th in population growth. In 1977, with a part-time legislature, the Commonwealth had the 22nd heaviest tax burden; today, Pennsylvania ranks 11th in state and local tax burden per capita and 45th in economic freedom.</blockquote>A Commonwealth Foundation <a href="http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/research/detail/the-case-for-a-citizen-legislature">analysis</a> found that "each increase in the level of professionalization [of legislators] results in an estimated $441 increase in spending per person, and a 0.4% increase in taxes as a percentage of income. Benefield compares PA to Texas, which has a part-time assembly that meets 140 days over a two-year term. The Texas assembly passes more bills (probably smaller, easier-to-read bills) and maintains better job growth than Pennsylvania's "professionals."</div><div><br /></div><div>As a starting point for downsizing state-level government, lets put an end to "professional" state assemblies and go back to the republican system of representative assemblies.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8393612845433227663.post-25565836933747923652010-06-13T20:41:00.000-07:002010-06-14T15:56:15.081-07:00Mission StatementThe Lysander Spooner Institute supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose. To advance this platform, the institute conducts policy research which may be used by political parties and candidates to design platforms, programs, and resolutions. The institute also educates public officials and the general public about its platform through publications, op-eds, press releases, and responses to media inquiries.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0