Archive May 2010
All of the articles archived for the month that you have specified are displayed below.
The New Jersey Plan
By Bill Wilson
Last week, without much ado, Barack Obama’s $23 billion bailout for state education spending was promptly taken off the table by Congressional Democrats, first in the Senate, when Senator Tom Harkin could not muster the votes, and then in the House, when the AP reports that House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey “abruptly canceled a committee meeting to put the money in a war spending bill.”
The AP attributed the bailout’s failure to “election-year jitters among moderate Democrats over deficit spending and only lukewarm support from the White House.” Really, the plan fell flat because it epitomized the failed spend-now, pay-later approach to governing that has come to embody the Obama Administration.
It is the same approach that got insolvent states like California and New York in trouble in the first place, and now threatens the nation’s very solvency with a $13 trillion national debt.
The truth is, the American people much prefer a different approach. Call it the New Jersey Plan.
Balancing the budgets of insolvent states with borrowed money from China, Japan, and the Federal Reserve is nothing more than payback for the political loyalty of public employee unions to the Congressional majority at the expense of taxpayers who would be forced to pay for it, with interest, when the bill comes due. In the meantime, California and New York lawmakers have forestalled making tough decisions to slash spending.
In contrast, in New Jersey, Governor Christie reports that because of the spending freeze he has undertaken, New Jersey will not have to raise taxes to balance the budget. But, to come to pass, the legislature will still have to act on Christie’s proposed $23.9 billion budget that closes a $10.9 billion budget shortfall from the previous year.
Just consider that: before Chris Christie came along, New Jersey was some 31 percent over-budget.
Lawmakers want to forestall tough decisions in New Jersey for another year, too. But, standing tough, Christie already has vetoed a so-called millionaire’s tax and a $618.74 million supplemental appropriations bill. When confronted with an angry teacher who wanted taxpayer compensation for her student loans, Christie responded, “Well, you know what, then you don’t have to do it… Teachers go into it knowing what the pay scale is. Teachers go into it knowing all of that.”
Christie through his vetoes is forcing the legislature to work within the framework of revenues as they are, not as lawmakers wish them to be. The legislature has until June 30th to complete the budget process by law, and they lack the votes to override Christie’s veto.
That leaves them with but one choice: cut spending. As Christie noted in an address unveiling a proposed constitutional amendment capping taxes and spending to no more than 2.5 percent increases annually, “Over the last ten years, municipal spending has grown by 69 percent, and property taxes have grown by 70 percent, until New Jersey property taxes are now the highest of any state in the nation.”
If taxes go any higher, or if job creators are punitively targeted, Christie warns that people will simply leave the state. He’s right. With such high taxes already, New Jersey really does have to make the necessary cuts, even if lawmakers don’t want to. It’s the only choice that makes any sense.
Fortunately, now that Obama’s $23 billion states bailout is dead — for now — troubled states like New York, California, and New Jersey are actually going to have to balance their budgets. Call it tough medicine.
Call it the New Jersey Plan.
Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.
.jpg)
Damning Admissions by White House on Sestak Job Offer
By Robert Romano
Apparently, Barack Obama learned nothing from Rod Blagojevich’s attempted sale of his own Illinois Senate seat. Perhaps this is just the Chicago way.
First, there was no offer at all, according to the Obama Administration, which denied that Joe Sestak’s charge that he had been offered a “high-ranking” presidential appointment in exchange for withdrawing from the Pennsylvania Senate race. Then, there were some conversations that had taken place, but they weren’t “problematic.” Now, an offer for an appointment was made, but it wasn’t high-ranking, it was only an “uncompensated” position on a Presidential advisory board.
And it was “fully consistent with the relevant law”.
Right.
There are, of course, many problems with the White House’s story. For example, unpaid roles on commissions, advisory boards, or the like in the Administration are not “high-ranking”. When asked by journalist Larry Kane the job offered was “high-ranking,” Sestak said yes. That indicates a senior position, such as Secretary, Assistant Secretary, or a Czarship or the like.
There are other problems with the cover story. Does anyone really believe that Congressman Sestak doesn’t know that an advisory panel is not “high-ranking”? Why would somebody give up being a Senator for six years in exchange for a seat on some advisory board? That seems like a rather poor deal to be offered.
Moreover, does anyone believe that the White House would make such a poor offer?
Finally, and most importantly, even if all Sestak was offered was an advisory panel — which is to be doubted based on Sestak’s statement confirming that it was a “high-ranking” job offered — it still violates the law.
According to 18 U.S.C. § 600, entitled “Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity”:
“Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
A full year in prison and/or fined for selling a presidential appointment, whether directly or indirectly. Both former President Bill Clinton and top Obama advisor Rahm Emmanuel have already been implicated in this clear violation of law. But the authority had to come from somewhere. Only one person has the power to make a Presidential appointment, and that’s Barack Obama.
And whether a paid or unpaid post, the relevant statute is crystal clear, and much broader — it extends to any appointment or position, or any benefit at all.
The Legal Counsel has admitted that the White House engaged in “discussions of alternatives to the Senate campaign” and at least promised an appointment in exchange for Sestak pulling out of the race.
That is a damning admission by the White House. They’re opening statement on this matter has been to overtly admit to violating the law.
The White House even illuminates as to what the rationale for offering Sestak the appointment was: “The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the Congressman vacating his seat in the House.” Obama may have had a perfectly political rationale for offering this job, but that does not change the clear language of the law.
Offering Joe Sestak anything of value, including an appointment, as a “reward for any political activity,” in this case to pull out of the Pennsylvania Senate, is against the law. It’s a bribe. Barack Obama is supposed to be enforcing the law, not making bribes.
This story is not going away. Eric Holder should appoint a special prosecutor, even if it is to look into his own boss. And the House of Representatives should be immediately launch investigations, including an ethics inquiry into Sestak, and subpoena every person thus far implicated in this case: Rahm Emmanuel, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.
Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of ALG News Bureau.
Scared to Death of the Estate Tax
By Rebekah Rast
“In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” --Benjamin Franklin
Franklin was right. There is nothing more certain in this life as death and taxes, but I don’t think he ever intended one to encourage the other.
Come December 2010 the estate tax might just drive some people to their deaths if not abolished.
On January 1, 2011, the estate tax may reach 2001 levels with a top rate of 55 percent and a $1 million exemption that existed before President George W. Bush took office and set new restrictions on the tax.
A severe consequence of reinstating the estate tax to its 2001 levels is looking at what the tax encourages. It gives incentive to elderly wealthy Americans to die before January 1, 2011, so their families aren’t indebted to the government. The tax sits completely repealed for this year. Meaning if wealthy family members die before the end of this year, their families will have their entire estate tax free.
By Congress not taking action on this tax, they are giving the message to our greatest generation that they either die now so their wealth can be passed down, or take the gamble and possibly be forced to give their children’s inheritance to the government. This is morally reprehensible.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman dubbed the bill the “Throw Mama from the Train Act of 2001” when finding out it would expire come Dec. 30, 2010. “So in the law as now written, heirs to great wealth face the following situation: If your ailing mother passes away on Dec. 30, 2010, you inherit her estate tax-free. But if she makes it to Jan. 1, 2011, half the estate will be taxed away. That creates some interesting incentives,” he said.
Never should a tax provide incentive for one to end their life.
“A government tax policy should never motivate grandma to end her life,” says Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG). “Our greatest generation should not face the choice of whether to make the ultimate sacrifice to ensure their wealth is given to their families and not the government. It is abhorrent that Congress hasn’t made the elimination of the death tax permanent.”
If the estate tax were to go back to 2001 levels, possible assisted suicide wouldn’t be the only consequence.
The impact of this tax on the American people would be devastating. Family-owned businesses would have to be sold, destroying family legacies. People would lose their land and farms—being forced to sell them only to companies that could afford them.
The majority in Congress like the estate tax because it is an easy way for the federal government to make money. Under the Bush tax cuts in 2009, The Tax Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C., states that only about one in 460 deaths result in a taxable estate and 99.8 percent of deaths trigger no estate tax. The estate tax will raise almost $14 billion from 5,500 estates from the same year. To some, this isn’t enough.
The majority of democrats would like to see the estate tax back at its 2001 levels, as stated in an article in the Washington Post. The article goes on to say that by keeping the estate tax levels where they are is costing the federal government an estimated $234 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.
In the same article, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) was reported as saying, “abolishing the estate tax would add billions and billions to our deficit—and while a small number of wealthy families would benefit, the growth of our economy as a whole would suffer.”
In other words, several in Congress would like to see the wealth of Americans be given to a wasteful and irresponsible federal government instead of to the American families of those who earned it.
Land and farm owners would also be in jeopardy of losing their livelihood if the estate tax was reinstated to high levels. A briefing by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) states, “The return of estate taxes will strike a blow to farm and ranch operations trying to transition from one generation to the next. A $1 million exemption is not high enough to protect a typical farm or ranch able to support a family and when coupled with a top rate of 55 percent can be especially difficult for farm and ranch businesses.”
When forcing such extreme taxes on farmers and ranchers, it not only hurts them but also hurts the communities and businesses they serve.
In an article in The Hill, Chris Walters, manager of legislative affairs at the National Federation of Independent Business stated, “We still believe that full repeal is where we need to go.”
It is time for Congress to stop the nonsense and make the repeal of the death tax permanent. If Congress fails to act and lets the death tax skyrocket to 2001 levels, the government could have a lot of blood on its hands—not to mention closed businesses, empty farmland and higher unemployment.
Rebekah Rast is a contributing editor to ALG News Bureau.
Too Hot Not to Note: Stimulus flop - Reality vs. the hype
ALG Editor’s Note: As noted in the following featured editorial from the New Hampshire Union Leader, the $826 billion “stimulus” is not all it was cracked up to be:
Stimulus flop: Reality vs. the hype
The Obama White House told us again and again that federal stimulus money would create 16,000 jobs in New Hampshire. Democratic Party officials spread the number as if it had been handed to them on a stone tablet personally chiseled by Moses.
"It will create more than 16,000 new jobs for New Hampshire families," Rep. Paul Hodes wrote in a column for this newspaper in February 2009.
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter was one who did not mindlessly parrot the Obama line. The same month Hodes dutifully followed orders and repeated the 16,000 figure, Shea-Porter said, "We are actually hoping for 22,800 jobs."
Count us 20,600 jobs short of Shea-Porter's guess.
New Hampshire's stimulus director told the Executive Council on Wednesday that the $720 million in stimulus money Obama and Congress so graciously gave us has funded 2,200 jobs. That comes to $327,273 per job. Well done, Mr. President!
As inflated with political puffery as the "16,000 jobs" figure was, the 2,200 figure is, as they say in Hollywood, "based on a true story." Stimulus money might have gone to 2,200 jobs, but just because a job got a stimulus subsidy does not mean it would have disappeared without the subsidy.
Among the New Hampshire jobs supposedly "created or saved" with stimulus funds are eight visual artists and 16 performing artists who got grants through the New Hampshire Arts Council. Would those artists have been otherwise entirely unemployed without the stimulus subsidies? Doubtful.
None of this should be surprising. Obama's preposterous job-creation claims were never remotely realistic. The stimulus was another one of his overhyped, oversold, Rooseveltian scams to hoodwink the people into thinking he was actually doing something useful. If you think the dramatic difference between the promise and the reality of the stimulus bill is disappointing, just wait until the results of the health care reform come in.
Video and Editorial: In Memory of Heroes
- By: admin
- On: 05/31/2010 00:37:49
- In: Uncategorised
“They are dead; but they live in each Patriot's breast, And their names are engraven on honor's bright crest.”—Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Memorial Day commemorates those who have sacrificed to keep America free.
Men like John Finn, who died this past week. Retired Navy officer Finn was the last remaining Medal of Honor recipient for actions during the Japanese attack of December 7, 1941. According to his Medal of Honor citation, during the attack by Japanese forces at Kaneohe Bay, Lt. Finn secured and manned a .50-caliber machinegun mounted on a completely exposed section of the parking ramp, which was under heavy enemy machinegun fire.
Although painfully wounded many times, Finn continued to man this gun to return the enemy's fire vigorously, and with telling effect. He did so throughout the enemy strafing and bombing attacks and with complete disregard for his own personal safety. It was only by specific orders that he was persuaded to leave his post to seek medical attention. Despite his irrefutable courage and valor, Finn continuously refused the accolade of hero.
When called a hero during a 2009 interview, Finn responded, "That damned hero stuff is a bunch crap, I guess. [...] You gotta understand that there's all kinds of heroes, but they never get a chance to be in a hero's position."
Finn, like many Medal of Honor from World War II chose instead to identify the many others who died in the Pacific Islands, fields of Italy, jungles of Vietnam, sands of the Middle East and hills of Pennsylvania. Those valiant souls, who not knowing what enemy waited outside or overhead, chose to press forward, sacrificing their lives for the liberty of all.
Heroes like 1st Lt. Alonzo Cushing, whose valiant stand protecting the Union on July 3rd, 1863 will never be forgotten. With his men from the Battery A, 4th U.S. Artillery, the West Point graduate was defending Union ground on Cemetery Ridge against General Pickett in what has come to be known as “Pickett’s Charge.” Though having been wounded in both the groin and shoulder during the two-hour onslaught, Cushing stood his ground and the Confederate forces eventually retreated, having taken a large number of casualties from which the Confederacy could not recover.
And United States Army Sgt. Leslie Sabo, who in 1970 died in Cambodia while trying to save his fellow soldiers from a North Vietnamese ambush. Sabo kept his men from being surrounded, threw himself on top of a wounded soldier to protect him from a grenade. While shot and wounded from the grenade, Sabo made the ultimate sacrifice while providing covering fire for a medical helicopter to airlift wounded soldiers.
Memorial Day is about young 19-year old Spc. Ross McGinnis who, when an enemy grenade was thrown into his Humvee in Iraq, rather than leaping from the gunner's hatch to safety, Private McGinnis made the courageous decision to protect his crew. A selfless act of bravery, in which he was mortally wounded, Private McGinnis covered the live grenade, pinning it between his body and the vehicle and absorbing most of the explosion.
Memorial Day is exemplified by the names of all heroes — known and unsung — etched on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall, the survivors who gather in remembrance every May, the families who hold vigil for lost loved ones.
Theirs is the greatest work that can be done in a world where tyranny still exists, and such service has made it possible for freedom and independence to spread into regions where once it did not exist. For fighting, not just in the defense of Americans’ liberty, but of all peoples speaks of the nobility of our fighting men and women. They do not have to fight, but they volunteer anyway; our guardians of freedom and the American way of life. May their remembrance be as lasting as the land they honor.
On this Memorial Day, each of us should take time to remember those whose sacrifice has made each of our freedom possible, and rededicate ourselves to defending freedom both at home and abroad.
Union Power Grabs in their Own Words
By Rick Manning
I love labor union spokespeople.
Brazen, unflinching, almost no spin, just pure raw political ambition oozing from every pore.
After Americans for Limited Government focused attention on the nine Republican House members who are supporting the union pension fund bailout, the naïve among the nine claimed that this wasn’t a bailout for unions.
Perhaps they should have listened to Teamsters Local 776 shop steward Dave Wolf, who believes he is entitled to a bailout and left no doubt about it when he said, “The government says it has to bail out the banks when they get into trouble because they’re ‘systemically important.’ Well, we’re the people who move the goods and pay the mortgages and support our communities. I think we’re ‘systemically important’ too.”
Where did we find Wolf’s statement? Right on the Teamsters website in an article written about Senator Bob Casey’s introduction of the Senate version of the very bill that the naïve nine claim doesn’t bailout anyone.
If these Republicans won’t listen to Americans for Limited Government, perhaps they will listen to the Teamsters union.
That’s why I love labor union spokespeople – they make it very simple to educate the unrepentant.
Now, in a desperate attempt to keep hold of political power, Obama, Pelosi and Reid are trying to convince America that we need more campaign finance reform. The DISCLOSE Act is nothing more than a nicely titled attempt to freeze out the opposition’s First Amendment rights, but leave it to the AFL-CIO to get caught in the truth about it.
The Hill newspaper quotes the AFL-CIO’s Josh Goldstein on the Democrats campaign finance bill as saying, “We do agree that the final bill should treat corporations different than Democratic organizations such as unions.”
Thanks Josh. No hiding behind the fig leaf “big money corrupts” argument. No dancing around declaring the evils of spending. Just a flat statement that unions should be able to shovel S400 million into supporting their political allies, but their political opponents should be prohibited from doing so.
Josh Goldstein’s disclosure that the Disclose Act should reinstate the legal prejudice against company owners and non-unionized workers in favor of those who represent 7% of the privately employed labor force tears away the good government façade the Democrats depend upon to create campaign finance rules that perpetuate their own power.
During the Supreme Court arguments prior to the ruling that opened the doors for U.S. companies to participate on an even playing field with big labor (Citizen United decision), Obama Supreme Court appointee Elena Kagan argued that if an individual corporation paid for the distribution of pamphlets, books or videos that engaged in the political arena, they should continue to be banned. Kagan argued this knowing full well that union’s like Josh Goldstein’s AFL-CIO were legally allowed to engage in these very activities.
I don’t blame big labor for wanting to keep this competitive advantage over those who they seek to gain power over. I am just grateful that they were kind enough to publicly state that this was their objective in the Democrats desperate push for new campaign “reform”. The admission really just saves everyone a lot of time and energy trying to make the case that the law is nothing more than a power grab.
That’s why I love union spokespersons. They make it so simple.
Rick Manning is the Director of Communications for Americans for Limited Government and the former Public Affairs Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of Labor.
When Somethings Wrong in Your Neighborhood, Who Ya Gonna Call? Headbusters!
By Dave Cribbin
While you might expect, no, make that take for granted, the thuggish display put on by the 500 strong SEIU Goon Squad who showed up recently at the home of a Bank of America senior attorney to terrorize his teenage son, shouldn’t we at least expect the police to obey and enforce the law?
I’ve got two questions for the Goon Squad and their protectors in Blue. The first is: Who do you think you are? The second is: Who do you think you’re fooling?
Let’s start with the D.C. Police who provided the escort for the 14 bus loads of SEIU Goons beyond the limits of their jurisdiction. Is it possible to escort someone if you don’t know where they are going? I don’t think so! Are we supposed to believe the Police don’t know the boundaries of Washington D.C.? Are you supposed to believe that when the patrolmen reached the city limits they just continued on because they didn’t know what to do next?
Does anyone believe they acted on their own? No! Someone in authority gave the D.C. patrolmen, who were present at the demonstration, an order to escort the Union protesters outside D.C. city limits and their jurisdiction, or else the D.C. Police department has a rogue unit who act not on orders from their superiors but instead do the bidding of the SEIU. Either way it’s a problem, and someone needs to get to the truth.
Their actions were wrong, and we need to know who is responsible. What if you find yourself in Montgomery County and have an Emergency don’t you want to know who to call? Do you call the local police, the D.C. police or should you call the guys who are really giving the orders the SEIU?
The D.C. police cover story, that’s right they are backpedaling at light speed trying to deny any part in this outrageous behavior, are not putting forth a convincing argument. In an interview yesterday a spokesperson for the D.C. Police said they escorted the SEIU protesters only to the city limits, which they noted were only several blocks from the executives’ home and called the MCPD to meet them there in order to give them the “heads up” about the protest.
A Captain from the MCPD says that after meeting with the D.C. Police at the city line they then responded to the incident at the home but did not witness anyone trespassing or disturbing the peace as the crowd was already dispersing. The Police officer’s story doesn’t add up!
Is it possible that 500 union intimidation specialists filed out of 14 buses, marched several blocks, held their protest rally and did it in such short order that by the time the MCPD had completed their own journey of several blocks with their lights flashing and sirens blaring the rally was over and the peaceful union thugs were heading back to the Union Hall for some milk and cookies? Well no, not really, not according to the MCPD’s own 911 tapes which say that the DC police were on the scene and were in fact speaking with the person who had made the 911 call and was still on the line with the operator. Talk about not getting your story straight.
If any other organization, like maybe the Tea Party, had tried to dump 500 protesters in a suburban neighborhood, the MCPD would have been there in advance asking to see their permit and when they couldn’t produce what they didn’t have they would have sent them back to where they came from. Why the special treatment for SEIU? Why don’t the laws apply to them? Thankfully no one was sent to the hospital as a result of this rally. It’s not always the case when these goons show up in public; for some reason beatings seem to break out. Ask Kenneth Gladney, or Ken Hamidi or Dianne Feeley if you don’t believe me.
It’s not like this was a spontaneous gathering of folks in the neighborhood, the Union knew well in advance that there would be a protest that day as one SEIU protester had bragged about flying in from California to join the merry band of Social Justice Merchants for the day’s festivities. He told his personal story of woe about how he lost his job and his house is in foreclosure. What was his purpose for being there? What was the Union’s real purpose for being there? What did he expect the general counsel of Bank of America would do for him?
The last time I checked the bank was not unionized, so this slug wasn’t there for a job and he couldn’t possibly have been there for another loan, as his foreclosure status provides all the evidence one needs to determine he is a deadbeat when it comes to honoring his debts, and besides everyone knows the loan department isn’t open on Saturdays.
These modern-day shakedown artists seemed to have taken a page from Willie Sutton, a notorious bank robber from the thirties who is quoted as having said, “You can’t rob a bank on charm and personality,” as there was certainly none of that on display that day. What we saw was arrogance and the ultimate in chutzpah. The SEIU went to intimidate a bank official from a bank that holds millions of dollars of the Union’s outstanding debt and they brought their own police escorts. That’s extremely rich, don’t you think?
Dave Cribbin, President of Tailwind Capital, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer for Americans for Limited Government.
Broadening the conversation
By Michael Swartz
With his win earlier this month in Kentucky’s Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by the retiring Senator Jim Bunning, Rand Paul termed it a victory for the Tea Party movement. In the May 18 election Paul trounced “establishment” candidate Trey Grayson by a 59% – 35% count, stunning observers with his margin of victory over a candidate backed by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, among others.
For becoming the new darling of the conservative movement, the younger Paul – son of two-time Presidential candidate and libertarian hero Rep. Ron Paul – immediately became the target of the progressives who inhabit the mainstream media. Just as Sarah Palin was bushwhacked by interviews she did with network news personalities Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson during the 2008 campaign, Paul stepped in it just days after winning the primary election with an interview on NPR’s “All Things Considered,” which led to Rachel Maddow browbeating him on her MSNBC show. The line of questioning regarded Paul’s view on civil rights and laws passed a half-century ago.
Obviously the intent of this cross-examination was to play into the media’s template of Tea Partiers as racist hicks far outside the mainstream. You wouldn’t catch those journalists asking a Democrat about his party’s historical opposition to those same civil rights advances dating back to the Civil War, but when they get the opportunity to score points against a rising star of the conservative movement they’re sure to take them.
Perhaps, though, the time has come to make civil rights an issue and ask about the progress we’ve truly made toward a colorblind society. After all, once we elected a President with a multi-racial background it was thought the issue would fade away into a post-racial era – apparently it hasn’t yet sunk in with the media who asked these questions of the Kentucky victor.
Rand Paul brings up a good point about the status of civil rights in America. While the topic of race was the shovel used to try and bury the newly-minted candidate, we could ask the question about a number of other forms of discrimination as well.
One example is the city of Kinston, North Carolina. In 2008 the voters there overwhelmingly supported a change in their municipal elections from partisan to nonpartisan, but they were overruled by the Justice Department based on the Voting Rights Act. Apparently the minority community (which is actually a majority in Kinston) wouldn’t know to vote for the proper candidates if they didn’t have a “D” by their name, according to DOJ logic.
Laws can and do outlive their usefulness. In truth, a business which didn’t provide accommodations for or cater to a portion of their potential clientele would likely find itself closing its doors in short order. As a whole, society is growing more and more tolerant so the prospect of segregated lunch counters is fading into the dustbin of history regardless of whether a law prohibiting the practice exists on the books.
It’s only those who continue to survive on the division of society by race, class, and gender who try to perpetuate the need for outmoded legislation designed to promote a particular party by presenting a facade of tolerance while denying colorblind equality in practice. He may not have made the point in the most eloquent way, but Rand Paul is correct to encourage a hard look at whether equality is better promoted without laws originally designed to keep us equal but evolving into making certain citizens more equal than others.
Michael Swartz used to practice architecture but now is a Maryland-based freelance writer and blogger whose work can be found in a number of outlets, including Liberty Features Syndicate. His e-mail address is lfs.mswartz@gmail.com.
Too Hot Not to Note: The Recovery Starts With Sound Money
- By: admin
- On: 05/28/2010 12:10:04
- In: Monetary Policy
ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured oped from the Wall Street Journal, Judy Shelton makes the case for the gold standard in a world where the investing public is losing confidence in paper money:
The Recovery Starts With Sound Money
By Judy Shelton
The euro is beset with fiscal calamities that threaten its downfall, and markets in the U.S. are roiled by uncertainty over the government's financial regulatory legislation. But don't worry. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner meets with European finance officials today to discuss the economic situation. According to a Treasury Department statement, they will focus on "measures being taken to restore global confidence and financial stability." So everything is under control.
Right.
What government policy makers in the U.S. and Europe fail to realize is that far from being seen as capable of delivering economic salvation, they are increasingly perceived as primary contributors to global financial ruin. Whether it's the fiscal recklessness of spendthrift politicians or the refusal of government officials to acknowledge failings—distorting mortgage markets through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, skewing assessments of credit risk through loose monetary policy—the influence of government over the real economy is proving disastrous.
No wonder people are flocking to gold as they flee government-supplied money. Neither the dollar nor the euro inspires much global confidence; despite the dollar's relative safe-haven status, neither currency holds out the promise of financial stability.
