Monthly Archives: December 2007

John Stossel Talks To Ron Paul On The Proper Role Of Government

Constitution, Election '08, Politics

In the second part of his web-only interview of Congressman Ron Paul, ABC’s John Stossel talks about the proper role of government:

When Paul is asked to count off the major responsibilities of the federal government should have, he arrives at a surprisingly short list.

“Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. … Protect our environment through private property rights. … That’s it,” Paul said.

Paul notes that when our country was founded, the role of the government was to protect the general welfare, enforce the rule of law in court, maintain property rights and allow for free markets and free trade — “not to run our lives, and run everything in the economy.”

It’s a habit of politicians to identify problems and try to “fix” them with new laws and bureaucracies.

While some of these reforms may be well-intended, says Paul, “good intentions won’t solve our problems,” and more often they encroach on the personal liberties that have made our country great.

And the Congressman doesn’t hold back when talking about just how far he’d cut back the size and scope of the Federal Government:

The Department of Education isn’t the only government bureaucracy that Paul would like to see go. He’d also get rid of the Department of Energy.

(…)

Paul would also eliminate the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency. He cites the disastrous handling of Hurricane Katrina and the avoidable tragedy of Sept. 11 as signposts of government ineptitude.

I asked him about other Cabinet departments.

The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development? Get rid of them all, says Paul.

The difference between Paul and other Republicans who say things like this is that you get the impression he actually would do it if given the power. Republicans have campaigned for far too long on the fiscally conservative/cut big government message only to drop the ball when actually given power. Even though he has no chance of winning, it’s nice to see that there’s at least one Republican who actually means it.

Here’s the full interview:

Previous Posts:

John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul On Legalizing Drugs And Prostitution

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

A Real Bailout For The Banking Industry

Economics, Government Regulation, Monetary Issues, Politics

Only a week ago, I was claiming that the Bush “plan” to streamline the mortgage-modification process wasn’t a bailout. A bailout is when the government actually spends money or drastically changes regulation in order to give an industry a helping hand. That plan wasn’t a bailout, for many reasons.

But the financial markets weren’t quite happy with this non-action. And today, the Federal Reserve and European central banks chose to cow to their demands, by injecting inflation liquidity into the system:

A day after the Federal Reserve disappointed investors with a modest cut in interest rates, central banks in North America and Europe on Wednesday announced the most aggressive infusion of capital into the banking system since the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

…

Economists and market specialists say policy makers are trying to reassure bankers that they will stand firm as the lenders of last resort. The coordinated action is being led by the Fed, which will lend $40 billion this month. The European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Canada will lend $50.2 billion this month and next.

“This is basically a reinsurance policy,” said William H. Gross, chief investment officer of the bond management firm Pimco. Central bankers “are saying, ‘We will stand behind you.’ ”

The market is reeling because the rapid expansion of credit is starting to come to an end, and the [necessary] resulting credit crunch will be nearly as painful as the heady days of credit expansion were joyful. The problem is, pain takes the form of recession, and central banks don’t want to stand idly by and let recessions occur, even if necessary. So they’re going to throw money into the system until lenders realize that a contraction won’t occur.

The Fed created this credit bubble. Now when it’s in danger of popping, they’re going to try to patch it up. Like many government actions, it might achieve its goal in the short term, but the long-term consequences will be far more damaging than allowing the system to correct today. Stocks may have rebounded today, but so did gold, an indication that this is a sign of future inflation, adding another story to the house of cards built upon a foundation of sand.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Republican Des Moines Register Debate Round-Up And Reaction

Election '08, Politics

This afternoon, the Republican candidates for President, including the quixotic and slightly odd Alan Keyes, met in Des Moines Iowa for their final debate before the January 3rd Iowa Caucuses.

To say that this debate was anti-climactic is an understatement. The moderator, Carolyn Washburn, is the editor of the Des Moines Register and, quite honestly, it’s quite easy to see why she’s made her career in the print media rather than on television; I don’t think I’ve seen a person with less passion in quite some time. That, combined with a set of rules that made it virtually impossible for any of the candidates to give a substantive answer to any question made for an incredibly boring affair that doesn’t seem likely to have any substantive impact on the race.

And, to make it worse, I actually watched this thing without the aid of a fine glass of wine. I’ve got to remember that politics and sobriety are a really bad mix.

Anyway, here we go:

Mike Huckabee: At least as far as Iowa is concerned, Huckabee came into this debate as the clear frontrunner. In the two short weeks since the CNN/YouTube debate, he has risen steadily and suprisingly in the polls both in the Hawkeye State and in other parts of the country to the point where he and Giuliani can both equally claim frontrunner status — and Huckabee would have the better argument.

As the frontrunner, all Huckabee had to do in this debate is not make any major mistakes and not let any of the other frontrunners touch him. For the most part, he succeeded in that task. The only time that I can really say I thought he went off the reservation was during the education discussion when he started talking about unbalanced brains and music and arts education. Apparently, the new Republican frontrunner has abandoned the idea of eliminating the Department of Education in favor of the idea of making all our children play the violin.

What’s worse, none of the Republican candidates really went after Huckabee. Partly, this was because of the restrictive nature of the debate and the inanity of the moderator, but the best that anyone was able to do was when Tancredo challenged him about national curriculum standards and Romney argued with him over which one had the better education record as Governor.

Not good enough guys.

Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani did okay today, but if he wanted to stop his slide in the polls, he needed to do better than okay; he needed to hit one out of the park and at least lay a glove on Huckabee. He didn’t do either of these things (to be fair, none of the candidates did all that well).

Giuliani has never been competitive in Iowa, so perhaps his campaign wrote this debate off but given the shortened campaign schedule, and the speed with which Huckabee has caught up to Giuliani in the polls, waiting is not a smart strategy. If Huckabee wins in Iowa and Rudy comes in third in New Hamsphire and South Carolina, his insistence that we “wait until Florida,” as he said Sunday on Meet the Press, will make less and less sense.

Mitt Romney: Like Giuliani, Romney needed to poke some holes in Huckabee today and he really didn’t do it. He argued with Huckabee over who had the better education record, but other than that he really didn’t go after the man who has taken away from him what once looked like an insurmountable lead in Iowa. Other than that, though, I can’t say that Romney did anything to reverse the decline.

John McCain: McCain seemed to have more life in him than he did in the last debate, perhaps because he senses an opportunity to overtake Giuliani in New Hampshire. McCain’s problem is that he’s still running as the War on Terror President when the polls are showing that both Iraq and the War on Terror are not as prominent in voters minds as they were earlier in the year. Some pundits seem to think that the Senator will pull it out and actually get the nomination, but I think it would take a miracle of biblical proportions for that to happen.

Fred Thompson: For a guy who has said that Iowa is an all-or-nothing run, Thompson didn’t seem all that energetic or eager to send the kind of message that could actually put him back in contention. The Iowa Caucuses are January 3rd. Fred Thompson campaign will end January 4th. I will give Thompson credit for being the only person honest enough to tell the viewing public that, yes, there would be sacrifices that would have to be made to reduce the deficit and the size of government; and specifically mentioned entitlement programs in connection with that response.

Thompson provided one of the best moments of comic relief in the debate when he refused to participate in the moderator’s absurd “raise your hand if you think global warming is a problem” question. Thompson said he doesn’t do the hand-raising thing, and, at least for a moment, all the Republicans went along with him. When he asked the moderator if he could actually answer the question rather than just raising his hand, she said no and moved on to the next question.

What a moron.

Ron Paul: For the most part, Paul did a passable job but there was at least one occasion where he gave an answer that, if it had actually been challenged, would have made him look foolish. In his response to the sacrifice question I noted above, Paul basically said that there would be no need for the American public to sacrifice anything — he would bring the troops home from abroad and that would save enough money to solve our problems. The truth is quite different; if the budget is going to be brought under control and the size of government shrunk, then we will all have to sacrifice our reliance upon the state in one way or another. That’s not going to be an easy sacrifice for some people to make.

Tom Tancredo: Is there any question to which the Congressman’s answer doesn’t involve immigration ?

Duncan Hunter: If I closed my eyes when Congressman Hunter was speaking, I would have thought that I was listening to one of the Democratic candidates talk, or maybe an anti-trade union official. What is an economic Neanderthal like this doing in the Republican Party ?

Alan Keyes: What can you say about Alan Keyes ? He responded to a question about global warming by going off for two minutes about the fact that he’s been excluded from every previous debate. He responded to a question about education by giving a bible-thumping response that makes even Reverend Huckabee look like an atheist. There was a time when Keyes seemed like a reasonable person, but that was a long, long time ago; I’m not even sure that he believes what he says and I’m not sure that it matters.

After everything was over, the debate ended as strangely as it started with Washburn asking each of the candidates to make a New Year’s Resolution for one of their opponents. Most of the candidates didn’t really answer the question, but that’s just as well it was, without a doubt, the stupidest debate question ever.

In the end, I don’t think this debate will have any substantial impact on either the Iowa Caucuses or the race on a national level. As things stand, Huckabee’s rise will continue unless and until Republicans start realizing what a big mistake it would be to nominate him.

Cross-Posted at Below The Beltway.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul On Legalizing Drugs And Prostitution

Election '08, Individual Rights, Politics, The War on Drugs

ABC’s John Stossel, who is probably the only outspoken pro-free market/pro-individual liberty journalists in the mainstream media, interviewed Presidential candidate Ron Paul recently, and their talk will be featured by ABC as a six-part series on ABCNews.com:

Over the last few months, I’ve received hundreds of e-mails from people who wanted me to interview the unconventional Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex. So this week I did.

In our hour-long interview, Paul and I discussed illegal immigration, the Iraq War, when war is necessary, the proper role of government, health care, drug laws, prostitution and more.

Despite relatively low poll numbers, Paul has had a big influence on the presidential campaign. That’s in part because he’s raised a ton of money, and in part because of the passionate following he has on the Web. It’s one reason we’re posting my interview with Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very active. In fact, he’s the most Googled presidential candidate.

In Part One, Paul defends what have been traditionally considered two of libertarian thought’s more controversial positions — the War on Drugs and prostitution:

“I think the government’s role should not be involved in personal habits. When you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can’t be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms . . .whether it’s personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice,” Paul asserted.

Freedom of choice, what a radical concept in a society where the government tells us what we can serve our children in school cafeterias, whether or not we can eat trans-fats, and what we can drink and when we can drink it.

Watch the whole interview for yourself:

Originally posted at Below The Beltway

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

36% Of Teens Use Drugs — Bush Claims Credit

Politics, The Nanny State, The War on Drugs

Bush Says Drug Policy Working

Teens in the 2007 “Monitoring the Future” study reported that their use of most drugs either became less frequent or held steady during the previous 12 months. But researchers noted a gradual increase during the past few years in the number of teenagers using the drug known as ecstasy, following a period of sharp decline. They said the percentage of students who see “great risk” in using ecstasy has gone down in the past few years and theorized that students may be more willing to experiment with ecstasy because of a “generational forgetting” of the hazards widely associated with the drug when its usage peaked in the late 1990s.

The 33rd national survey showed the percentage of eighth-graders who had used any illegal drug at least once in the past year fell from 24 percent to 13 percent between 1997 and 2007. The percentage of 10th-graders in the same category fell from 39 percent in 1997 to 28 percent this year; and the percent of 12th-graders using an illicit drug in the past 12 months dropped from 42 percent in 1997 to 36 percent this year.

Now, first things first, I don’t credit the policies of George W. Bush with a significant decline in drug use. About the only thing that I can suggest is that teens, hearing the reports of Bush’s own alleged drug use, might have dissuaded them from using them! But in reality, there are often wider societal issues involved here, and a president who has spent so much time dealing with war and foreign affairs– not on drug issues– is unlikely to be a huge impact.

But why in the world would this administration crow about the wonderful situation of only 36% of our 12th-graders using drugs? Think about it. Go to your kid’s high school graduation. If the commencement speaker tells you to look at the couple to your left, then the couple to your right, and to note that at least one of your kids has used drugs, would you consider that a comforting fact? Of course, some will suggest that for most of them, it’s simply marijuana, which many to be fairly innocuous. But at the same time, nearly 20% of 12th-graders have tried a harder drug than pot in the last year. There are companies that can help with drug rehabilitation and are specially trained to deal with teenagers and drugs, as they have used drug rehab seo citations to get their name out there so that vulnerable people can easily find them on the web and contact them for guidance.

At the same time, the study suggests that availability of some of the more popular drugs (marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine, “other hallucinogens”– which I understand likely means shrooms) is roughly equal to levels seen in 1997. Even though something similar to these psilocybin canada mushrooms have hallucinogenic properties, it is known that if you micro-dose these products, i.e. taking them in smaller amounts, that they could influence your mind in a positive way. This involves being able to aid with any anxiety, as well as helping you to feel more relaxed and calm. These drugs, in particular, may be able to help people with their health and wellness if taken in the right way. These drugs aren’t harder to get, which is something that might indicate a win in the War on (some) Drugs. This is why it is so important to help someone who is going through a drug detox, due to the fact that it is now so easy to get your hands on the stuff.

Is this anything other than an indication that the War on (some) Drugs is not only a failure, but is such a glaring failure that we need to try something new? At the very least, it’s not a day that Bush should be standing in a tie-dyed t-shirt before a bright-colored “mission accomplished” banner talking about how much improvement he’s making.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/
1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 14