Campaign For Liberty: PainesPain33

PainesPain33
Local Coordinator
Location: Sewickley, PA
Last login: 01/23/10
RSS feed

<!--StartFragment-->

<!--StartFragment-->

Hello, I am a 23 year-old proud citizen of Pittsburgh, born and raised.  I am a huge proponent of limited government (if any government at all), and outright individual liberty.  As to what party I belong to I turn to Milton Friedman, “I believe that I can do more good by having influence with the Republican Party than I can by joining the Libertarian Party, although I have great sympathy with the Libertarian Party. I believe it's very desirable that they do well.”  At the same time, because of what the party has become, I do not want in any way to be considered a “Republican.”  Therefore, I suppose I am a party of one, as per the original plan.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have” – Gerald Ford

Although I have always tightly held the principles of Liberty, I have just now begun to truly fight, spurred by my outrage at recent events and subsequent revolution of thought.  I was enrolled in a Ph.D. program for Biological Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University.  It quickly became clear to me there was no way I could live my life doing anything other than fighting for the liberty and freedom of myself, my fellow countrymen, and our children.

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” – Thomas Paine

Recently, I have started a financial service practice, helping individuals and families gain and maintain complete financial independence and freedom on a daily basis.  I am torn because I wish to make the biggest political impact possible, but in my current position I help people daily, make a living, and make great connections along the way.  I look to continue to meet with fellow patriots and volunteer and write as much as possible.  ANY suggestions, connections, or opportunities would be so greatly appreciated.

“Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it?” – Thomas Jefferson. 

We must fight to keep it, because, make no doubt about it, we are losing it. 

I have a home in Sewickley and hope to make contacts in and around the Pittsburgh area. I have become a Precinct Leader and hope to find more opportunities to make a difference.

 

In Liberty,

Jonathan Blake Raso

 

 

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."

  --  Thomas Paine





PainesPain33's weblog


Bookmark and Share
Posted by PainesPain33 on 02/09/09
Last updated 02/09/09


The following is the description from the April 15th National Action Group on restoretherepublic.net.  I have created a Pittsburgh group as there was not one previously:

http://restoretherepublic.net/group.php?group_id=496

Basically its is a call for four action steps, the first being placing magazines in public areas such as waiting rooms etc.  You can get the magazines at http://RepublicMagazines.com

MAGAZINES ARE ONLY $1 AN ISSUE!!!

 

 

http://restoretherepublic.net/group.php?group_id=486

Welcome to the April 15th national action Group... the central hub for all actions leading up to and including April 15th this year!

Please join this group then create an "April 15 [insert ZIPCODE]" group in your state group category to begin to get organized.


Operation Walk the Talk (phase 1)

It's tax season again! Let's open the eyes of John Q. Public to the Federal Income Tax scam. Starting immediately, Restore the Republic and our coalition partners will take to the streets in a four-phase nationally coordinated effort to spread the truth about the income tax. We need you to join our campaign so we can eliminate the IRS!

Your mission, if you choose to accept it starts with:

------ Step one: Join http://RestoreTheRepublic.net, Already a member? Skip step one.

------ Step two: Join the April 15th National Action Group at http://restoretherepublic.net/group.php?group_id=486 

------ Step three: Begin Operation Walk the Talk

Mission #1: Operation Walk the Talk

Drop a copy of Republic Magazine Issue 5 in every local waiting room-- doctor's offices, auto repair/lube shops, fitness centers, office building lobbies, and so on. Be nonchalant, have fun and if possible, grab a friend and make a YouTube video capturing the magazine drops and the ensuing conversations!

The timeline is now through February 18th. On the 18th, we'll be launching Operation Earhorn! Stayed tune for the details on your next mission.

Get your Magazines at http://RepublicMagazines.com

 





Categories: Ron Paul, Campaign For Liberty, Education, Finance, Civil Liberties, Domestic Policy, Grassroots News, Action Item, US Constitution, Federal Legislation, Just For Fun, Current Events, Revolution, Miscellany, Social Issues, Socialism, State Legislation, Video, Voting, Economy, Monetary Policy
Tags:

Showing comments 1—1 of 1

Posted 04/23/09

Melina4Paul
Blawnox, PA
Sweet profile thanks for your invite it is honor to be friends with patriot like you melioped (at you tube)


You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by PainesPain33 on 02/12/09
Last updated 02/12/09


These numbers just shocked me.  Thanks to Savage for this.  You want a stimulus bill...how bout a fence? (or whatever would actually solve this problem)

 

 

Posted by Don Lavetter on January 10, 2009 at 8:09am in General FairTax Topics

 

WHY ARE WE BANKRUPT?

 

Informative, and mind boggling! You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:

 

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

    Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

    Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

    Verify at : http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of       English!

    Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

    Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

    Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

    Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

    Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.  

    Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their           children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .

     Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens           from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern             border.

     Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average         cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'

     Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.

     Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm >

14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ..'

     Verify at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml


The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

 

 




Poll: What's Your Answer to Illegal Immigration

Guest Worker Program
Fence
Bring the Military home from abroad to enforce border
Stop the War on Drugs
Amnesty
Create more "Front Doors" on the border to increase legality
Do noting

You must be logged in to vote in polls.

2 votes so far. [View Results]





Categories: Foreign Policy, Civil Liberties, Law, Domestic Policy, Action Item, Federal Legislation, Just For Fun, Current Events, Miscellany, Social Issues, State Legislation, Video, World Affairs, Economy, Monetary Policy, Congress
Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by PainesPain33 on 02/09/09


Been meaning to post this for awhile, I am quickly becoming a reluctant market anarchist as well...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/chu/chu16.html

 

The Myth of Checks and Balances

by Bevin Chu

A Pernicious Myth

One of the most pernicious myths about democracies, and it pains me to say, even constitutional republics, is the Myth of Checks and Balances.

Most of us were indoctrinated with this myth in junior high school and high school social studies class. I know I was.

According to this myth, also known as the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers, distributing the powers of a government among several branches prevents the undue concentration of power in any single branch.

As the Encyclopedia Britannica explains:

[The Separation of Powers is the] division of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government among separate and independent bodies. Such a separation limits the possibility of arbitrary excesses by government, since the sanction of all three branches is required for the making, executing, and administering of laws. The concept received its first modern formulation in the work of Baron de Montesquieu, who declared it the best way to safeguard liberty; he influenced the framers of the Constitution of the United States, who in turn influenced the writers of 19th- and 20th-century constitutions. See also checks and balances.

A Google Images search for "Separation of Powers" yields dozens of diagrams purporting to explain how the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers protects us from government tyranny.



Google Images search: Separation of Powers

 

 

 

The Myth Exposed

Unfortunately political systems in the real world do not function as illustrated in these diagrams.

Unfortunately the division of the functions of government into legislative, executive, and judicial branches does not prevent arbitrary excesses by government.

Unfortunately "separating the powers" doesn't really separate the powers, and doesn't really result in "separate and independence bodies checking and balancing each other."

The Separation is Illusory, The Power is Real

The reason why is not mysterious. The reason why is quite simple.

The reason why "separating the powers" doesn't result in separate and independent bodies checking and balancing each other, is that the separation is not real. The separation is illusory. The separation is nothing more than wishful thinking.

In fact the "separate and independent bodies" remain inseparable parts of the same government, the one government, the only government that the limited government, "minarchist" paradigm permits within any given jurisdiction.

This government perpetuates its existence by robbing individuals at gunpoint. It refers to these acts of armed robbery as "taxation," as if calling its crime by some other name absolved it of guilt.

As an old joke has it, "The only difference between the Mafia and the government is a flag." The joke is funny because it is true.

Every member of an organized crime family lives off the same protection money extorted at gunpoint from hapless shopkeepers and working men unfortunate enough to live within the crime family's reach.

In what sense can the bosses, underbosses, consiglieri, and soldiers of the same crime family be considered "separate and independent" from each other?

By the same token, every official of a monopolistic state lives off the same tax revenues extorted at gunpoint from hapless "taxpayers" unfortunate enough to live within the government's reach.

In what sense can members of such a criminal enterprise be considered "separate and independent" from each other?

Can we really expect officials who are part of such a criminal enterprise not to perceive each other as fellow predators, and us, the taxpayers, as their common prey?

Can we really expect officials who are part of such a criminal enterprise not to perceive each other as members of the same pack of wolves, and us, the taxpayers, as members of the same flock of sheep?

Can we really expect officials who are part of such a criminal enterprise to perceive each other as natural enemies and therefore check and balance each other?

Resistance against such a unified "crime family with a flag" is virtually impossible. The proximate reason is that it has more goons with guns. But the ultimate reason is that the overwhelming majority of citizens in "advanced nations" believe they can't live without a monopolistic state, and their collective behavior perpetuates its existence.

Citizens who believe they can't live without a monopolistic state are the political counterpart of battered wives, who believe they can't live without their abusive husbands, and who insist that "deep down" their abusers "really love them."

The difference is that a battered wife who rationalizes away her husband's abusive treatment of her victimizes only herself.

Citizens who believe in and demand the perpetuation of monopolistic states victimize not only themselves, but also fellow citizens who know better.


The Godfather (1972, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, written by Mario Puzo)

Michael Corleone: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.

Kay Adams: Do you know how naïve you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed.

Michael Corleone: Oh. Who's being naïve, Kay?

Why the Executive Branch always becomes The Government

In theory, a democratically elected president is merely the highest-ranking official in one of three or more coequal branches of government, the executive branch.

In reality, in any monopolistic state with a presidential system, the president is an elective dictator, the legislature is a debating society, and the judiciary is a rubber stamp. Real world experience has demonstrated that over time, the executive invariably co-opts the judiciary and marginalizes the legislature.

In theory, the coequal branches of government provide "checks and balances" upon each other, preventing them from ganging up upon the individual citizens they have sworn to protect and serve.

In reality, because the executive is the branch that has been delegated the power to "execute" policy (pun intended), it invariably usurps any and all powers delegated to the other branches of a monopolistic state. Real world experience has shown that "limited government" inevitably morphs into unlimited government, and that the executive is always the branch that winds up monopolizing that limitless power. It makes no difference whether the executive was popularly elected, self-appointed, or hereditary.

As George W. Bush put it quite bluntly, "I'm the decider and I decide what's best."


The Decider: Bush as Caesar


The Decider: Bush as Superman, by R. Sikoryak

Baron de Montesquieu was dead right when he noted that there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates or if the power of judging is not separated from the legislative and executive powers.

James Madison was dead right when he noted that the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Montesquieu and Madison unfortunately, were dead wrong about how far mankind would have to go to prevent the uniting and accumulation of all powers in the same hands.

Montesquieu and Madison earnestly believed that establishing constitutional republics with tripartite divisions of powers would be sufficient.

Given their historical context, Montesquieu and Madison's failure to champion market anarchism was understandable. The history of medieval Iceland had been lost to mainstream political awareness.

Montesquieu and Madison did not realize that only a market anarchist system, featuring voluntarily funded Private Defense Agencies (PDAs), vigorously competing against each other in the open market place, could ensure a genuine separation of powers and provide genuine checks and balances against tyranny.

A Thought Experiment

To better understand why the "separation of powers" doesn't really result in "separate branches of government" checking and balancing each other," let's try a little thought experiment.

Believers in Big Government, particularly self-styled "champions of democracy," love to portray government as a "public service," and government officials as "public servants."

Market anarchists know this is nonsense, but let's pretend we buy this "service provider" nonsense for the moment, and see where it leads.

Let's say for the sake of argument that government is a service provider, and that the service it provides is the use of force, specifically, a military to defend against foreign invaders, police to protect against domestic criminals, and a court system to adjudicate legal disputes.

Now suppose that instead of military, police, and courts, the service or product provided is computer software and software support services.

How many netizens would accept an arrangement in which a single software company, say Microsoft, would be granted a territorial monopoly in the provision of computer software and software support services where they live? In other words, no other company would be permitted to provide computer software and software support services, only Microsoft.

How many netizens would be mollified by solemn assurances from founder Bill Gates that Microsoft's exclusive franchise would not result in arbitrary excesses because the Microsoft corporation would be divided into three "separate and independent" divisions, each charged with different functions?

One division would be in charge of formulating Microsoft policy. Another division would be charge of executing Microsoft policy. Another division would be in charge of verifying whether the Microsoft policy being formulated and executed was in conformance with the Microsoft company charter.

How many netizens would trust such an arrangement to ensure that Microsoft would deliver well-coded software at competitive market prices?

Wouldn't they scream their heads off, insisting that Microsoft as a de facto monopoly is already sitting on its behind, doling out bug-ridden bloatware behind schedule at exorbitant prices, and that as a de jure monopoly it would be infinitely worse?

And wouldn't they be right?

See: What's so Bad about Microsoft?

So why don't they scream as loud or even louder about the government's de jure monopoly in the use of brute force?

After all, Microsoft may be able to flood the market with overpriced, bug-ridden bloatware, but it certainly can't force us to buy it. It can't compel us to upgrade to Windows Vista upon threat of arrest and imprisonment, at least not without favoritism from a monopolistic state.

Contrast this with so-called democratic governments, which have been empowered by self-styled "champions of freedom and human rights" to compel us to subscribe to its products and services – or else.

A Reluctant Anarchist

I never wanted to become an anarchist, even a free market anarchist. I wanted to remain a constitutional republican in the tradition of the French Physiocrats, the British Classical Liberals, and the American Founding Fathers.

I became an advocate of market anarchism reluctantly, after concluding that the limited government "minarchist" paradigm simply does not work as advertised.

Until three years ago, around 2004, I still held out hope that Checks and Balances would in fact check and balance, and that the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers would be vindicated.

Political evolution, or rather, devolution within the American Imperium of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush; and within the Taiwanese kleptocracy of Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian, disabused me of any such hopes.

The harsh reality is that the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers, within the context of a monopolistic state, is a contradiction in terms.

The harsh reality is that as long as a nation is ruled by a conventional monopolistic state rather than Private Defense Agencies, any allegedly "separate and independent branches" of government will always perceive themselves as integral parts of the same government, the one government, the only government within any given jurisdiction.

No matter how one attempts to divide a monopolistic state into "branches" the reality is that all such "branches" live off the same "tax revenues," better known as protection money, extracted by force from "taxpayers," better known as victims of extortion.

The Separation of Powers was supposed to be the primary firewall between constitutional republicanism and democracy. Tragically it has proven to be inadequate. Given enough time, it burns right through.

Constitutional republicanism is unquestionably superior to democracy. Unfortunately, that's just not good enough. Constitutional republicanism, given enough time, degenerates into democracy, aka elective dictatorship.

Democracy meanwhile, takes no time at all to degenerate into dictatorship. That's because democracy isn't separated from dictatorship by any firewalls whatsoever. That's because democracy is a form of dictatorship. It always was, and it always will be.


A terrific political cartoon. But an even better caption would be: "We think people should be separated from power so that they can't commit crimes."

It is high time defenders of natural rights and individual liberty forsook their irrational attachment to that discredited system known as "limited government." Limited government never remains limited. It always becomes unlimited.

As long as a government, any government, wields a legal monopoly in the use of brute force within a given territorial jurisdiction, that government's powers can never really be separate.

It is high time aspiring nation builders began drafting constitutions predicated on a system that truly separates the powers – free market anarchism.

 

 

March 2, 2007

Bevin Chu [send him mail] is an American architect of Chinese descent registered to practice in Texas. Currently living and working in Taiwan, Chu is the son of a retired high-ranking diplomat with the ROC (Taiwan) government. His column, "The Strait Scoop" is published on his website, The China Desk.

Copyright © 2007 Bevin Chu

 





Categories: Ron Paul, Campaign For Liberty, Globalism, Civil Liberties, 3rd Parties, Republican Party, Democratic Party, Grassroots News, Action Item, US Constitution, Executive Power, Federal Legislation, History, Just For Fun, Current Events, Philosophy, Revolution, Social Issues, Socialism, State Legislation, Congress
Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by PainesPain33 on 01/16/09


To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. 

However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. 

Let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.

First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a Back Story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.

However, what you don't see is the BACK STORY: I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9 A.M., mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5 P.M., I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the Back Story and the sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.

Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero.. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.

The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. 

Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this?

It's quite simple.

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I'll fire you. I'll fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore.

Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about...

Signed, THE BOSS





Categories: Civil Liberties, US Constitution, Current Events, Social Issues, Socialism, Economy, Monetary Policy
Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by PainesPain33 on 01/09/09
Last updated 01/09/09


 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9880

Not-So-Great Depression

by Jim Powell

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on January 7, 2009


Which U.S. president ranks as America's greatest depression fighter?

Not the fabled Franklin Delano Roosevelt, since unemployment averaged 17 percent through the New Deal period (1933–1940). What banished high unemployment was the conscription of 12 million men into the armed forces during World War II. FDR actually prolonged high unemployment: he tripled taxes; he signed laws that made it more expensive for employers to hire people, made discounting illegal, and authorized the destruction of food; and he launched costly infrastructure projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority that became a drag on states receiving TVA-subsidized electricity.

America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt.

Harding inherited Wilson's mess— in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million.

Harding had a much better understanding of how an economy works than FDR. As historian Robert K. Murray wrote in The Harding Era, the man who would become our 29th president "always decried high taxes, government waste, and excessive governmental interference in the private sector of the economy. In February 1920, shortly after announcing his candidacy, he advocated a cut in government expenditures and stated that government ought to 'strike the shackles from industry. . . . We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation.' "

One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.

Powerful senators, however, favored giving bonuses to veterans, as 38 states had done. But such spending increases would have put upward pressure on taxes. On July 12, 1921, Harding went to the Senate and urged tax and spending cuts. He noted that a half-billion dollars in compensation and insurance claims were already being paid to 813,442 veterans, and 107,824 veterans were enrolled in government-sponsored vocational training programs.

In 1922, the House passed a veterans' bonus bill 333-70, without saying how the bonuses would be funded. The senate passed it 35-17. Despite intense lobbying from the American Legion, Harding vetoed the bill on September 19— just six weeks before congressional elections, when presidents generally throw goodies at voters. Harding said it was unfair to add to the burdens of 110 million taxpayers.

Harding's Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover wanted government intervention in the economy— which as president he was to pursue when he faced the Great Depression a decade later— but Harding would have none of it. He insisted that relief measures were a local responsibility.

Federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922. Federal taxes fell from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and $4 billion in 1922. Harding's policies started a trend. The low point for federal taxes was reached in 1924; for federal spending, in1925. The federal government paid off debt, which had been $24.2 billion in 1920, and it continued to decline until 1930.

Conspicuously absent was the business-bashing that became a hallmark of FDR's speeches. Absent, too, were New Deal-type big government programs to make it more expensive for employers to hire people, to force prices above market levels, or to promote cartels and monopolies.

With Harding's tax and spending cuts and relatively non-interventionist economic policy, GNP rebounded to $74.1 billion in 1922. The number of unemployed fell to 2.8 million— a reported 6.7 percent of the labor force— in 1922. So, just a year and a half after Harding became president, the Roaring Twenties were underway. The unemployment rate continued to decline, reaching an extraordinary low of 1.8 percent in 1926. Since then, the unemployment rate has been lower only once in wartime (1944), and never in peacetime.

The Roaring Twenties were a time of unprecedented prosperity. GNP expanded year after year without inflation. Productivity improved, and real wages increased. The stock market tripled. There was a dramatic expansion of the middle class. The Great Migration occurred during the 1920s, with some 7 million African-Americans moving north for better schools and job opportunities. Women had the vote. Millions of Americans began to buy cars, originally a luxury of the rich. People bought radios that enabled ordinary people to hear the finest entertainers in their own homes. Movies became popular. Frozen food made possible a more varied diet year-round. Doctors developed new medicines to fight deadly diseases like diphtheria and tuberculosis.

While Harding can hardly be considered a champion of laissez-faire economics (he supported tariffs, after all), the pro-growth policies he implemented are directly responsible for the astonishingly rapid growth in prosperity— and widely shared prosperity— America enjoyed throughout the Roaring 20s.

Unfortunately, Harding's stunning success as a depression fighter was overshadowed by the Teapot Dome scandal that engulfed his administration after his death in August 1923. This resulted from "progressive" era conservation policies in which the government owned land known to have petroleum reserves— at Teapot Dome, Wyoming, and Elk Hills, California. Since the beginnings of recorded history, government involvement in the economy has led to corruption, and Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall accepted bribes for leases enabling private companies to extract the oil. There wouldn't have been a scandal if the reserves had been privatized, as more than 250 million acres of government land had been privatized during the previous century.

Rather than follow the model of FDR— whose policies raised only Americans' spirits— President-Elect Obama ought to consider the model of Warren G. Harding, whose policies raised Americans' standard of living, and lifted the nation itself out of a depression— before it had a chance to become Great.

 

 

 

Jim Powell, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, is the author of FDR's Folly, Bully Boy, and Greatest Emancipations

More by Jim Powell

 





Categories: Finance, Media, Globalism, Presidential Race, US Constitution, Federal Legislation, History, Current Events, Revolution, Miscellany, Socialism, Economy, Monetary Policy, Trade
Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]


Recent Entries

April 15th ACTION
The High Cost of Illegal Aliens
The Myths of Checks and Balances
From the Boss
Harding NOT Roosevelt
Get Real Money Now!
Executive Order
"If the first amendment doesn't work...

Entries PainesPain33 recommends

Supporter Blog Spotlight      by Matt Hawes


PainesPain33's contacts

Showing contacts 1—10 of 38

View all of PainesPain33's contacts


topper981


Bodish


Ben Bradley


R R I M M L P BATMAN


Mike1536


AmericanEagleWON


deadlybuda


Melina4Paul


r99991234567890


mybug67





Locations of visitors to this page






"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson





Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no
responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as
representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]