July 18, 2011

Twin Falls Republicans Espouse Reagan, for What?

I don't often bother myself with the Twin Falls Republican's website, it lacks substance, vision and personality. But the other day I happen to go there to remind myself when's the next Republican Central Committee (because the postcards don't always arrive when they should).

While I was on their paltry website, I saw a video of Ronald Reagan, titled "Republican for a Reason." A video of the deceased President in his glory day, barking about "freedom," then it goes into the ruling period of the Bushes and shows them waving and kissing babies and such. Hogwash, that is what it is.

Why would a "Republican" claim that Reagan and the Bush Dynasty are anything less than the portrayed "Great Conservatives" they are presented on the Twin Falls Republican website? Well, I was reading some economics literature recently and came across this explanation from Murry Rothbard:
There was no "Reagan Revolution." Any "revolution" in the direction of liberty (in Ronnie’s words "to get government off our backs") would reduce the total level of government spending. And that means reduce in absolute terms, not as proportion of the gross national product, or corrected for inflation, or anything else. There is no divine commandment that the federal government must always be at least as great a proportion of the national product as it was in 1980. If the government was a monstrous swollen Leviathan in 1980, as libertarians were surely convinced, as the inchoate American masses were apparently convinced and as Reagan and his cadre claimed to believe, then cutting government spending was in order. At the very least, federal government spending should have been frozen, in absolute terms, so that the rest of the economy would be allowed to grow in contrast. Instead, Ronald Reagan cut nothing, even in the heady first year, 1981...
The much-heralded 1981 tax cut was more than offset by two tax increases that year. One was "bracket creep," by which just inflation wafted people into higher tax brackets, so that with the same real income (in terms of purchasing power) people found themselves paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, even though the official tax rate went down. The other was the usual whopping increase in Social Security taxes which, however, don’t count, in the perverse semantics of our time, as "taxes"; they are only "insurance premiums." In the ensuing years the Reagan Administration has constantly raised taxes – to punish us for the fake tax cut of 1981 – beginning in 1982 with the largest single tax increase in American history, costing taxpayers $100 billion.
Creative semantics is the way in which Ronnie was able to keep his pledge never to raise taxes while raising them all the time...
How about deregulation? Didn’t Ronnie at least deregulate the regulation-ridden economy inherited from the evil Carter? Just the opposite. The outstanding measures of deregulation were all passed by the Carter Administration, and, as is typical of that luckless President, the deregulation was phased in to take effect during the early Reagan years, so that the Gipper could claim the credit.Such was the story with oil and gas deregulation (which the Gipper did advance from September to January of 1981); airline deregulation and the actual abolition of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and deregulation of trucking. That was it.
The Gipper deregulated nothing, abolished nothing. Instead of keeping his pledge to abolish the Departments of Energy and Education, he strengthened them, and even wound up his years in office adding a new Cabinet post, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Overall, the quantity and degree of government regulation of the economy was greatly increased and intensified during the Reagan years. The hated OSHA, the scourge of small business and at the time the second most-hated agency of federal government (surely you need not ask which is the first most-hated), was not only not abolished; it too was strengthened and reinforced. Environmentalist restrictions were greatly accelerated, especially after the heady early years when selling off some public lands was briefly mentioned, and the proponents of actually using and developing locked-up government resources (James Watt, Anne Burford, Rita Lavelle) were disgraced and sent packing as a warning to any future "anti-environmentalists."
The Reagan Administration, supposedly the champion of free trade, has been the most protectionist in American history, raising tariffs, imposing import quotas, and – as another neat bit of creative semantics – twisting the arms of the Japanese to impose "voluntary" export quotas on automobiles and microchips. It has made the farm program the most abysmal of this century: boosting price supports and production quotas, and paying many more billions of taxpayer money to farmers so that they can produce less and raise prices to consumers.
And we should never forget a disastrous and despotic program that has received
unanimous support from the media and from the envious American public: the massive witch hunt and reign of terror against the victimless non-crime of "insider trading." In a country where real criminals – muggers, rapists, and "inside" thieves – are allowed to run rampant, massive resources and publicity are directed toward outlawing the use of one’s superior knowledge and insight in order to make profits on the market...
Foreign aid, a vast racket by which American taxpayers are mulcted in order to subsidize American export firms and foreign governments (mostly dictatorships), has been vastly expanded under Reagan. The Administration also encouraged the nation’s banks to inflate and pour money down Third World rat-holes; then bailed out the banks and tin-pot socialist dictatorships at the expense of U.S. taxpayers (via tax increases) and consumers (via inflation)...
I am convinced that the historic function of Ronald Reagan was to co-opt, eviscerate and ultimately destroy the substantial wave of anti-governmental, and quasi-libertarian, sentiment that erupted in the U.S. during the 1970s.
Now if we want to espouse Regan's moderate foreign policy (see video), then we may find some agreement, or perhaps I would be championing his foreign policy, at least compared to the Bushes.

May 31, 2011

Tom Woods Speaks on Ron Paul's 15 Most "Extreme" Positions

Tom Woods, author of Nullification and recently RollBack, who spoke in Boise recently to a packed house now speaks about Ron Paul's extremism.

May 26, 2011

Risch & Crapo: Americans Have No Right to Privacy

In an appalling vote of imperialism and out-right disregard for the Constitution (the laws governing the government), Idaho Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch slam the door on the Forth Amendment and vote with the Democrat-controlled Senate to continue the PATRIOT ACT.

Only four Senators voted against the renewal of the PATRIOT ACT (a misnomer if there ever was one); all are liberty-minded Republicans, out-spoken for their involvement in the Tea Party: Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Dean Heller (R-Nevada), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina).

Despite a resolution which passed, in March, with the majority of the Twin Falls Republican Central Committee members voting in favor, that declared the Patriot Act unconstitutional and those provisions to be removed, Idaho's Senators continue the course of federal control and oppression under the guise of protecting us from terrorism.

Share your comments below. You can choose to be anonymous, but that doesn't mean the government doesn't already know who you are, what your last deposit at the bank was, who it was from and why you went to the doctor last.

What will the Twin Falls Republicans do?

In a recent response from Jim Risch's office his form letter read...
 
Thank you for contacting me regarding the PATRIOT Act.  I appreciate hearing from you.
 
The number one priority of the federal government is to protect the people of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic (within the Law, I would add).  When Congress considers the means to achieve our national security objectives, it must balance individual liberties on the one hand and the government law enforcement powers on the other (read: you are either dangerously free or a safe slave).  As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am acutely aware of this challenge, particularly as it relates to the PATRIOT Act. 
 
As I review the PATRIOT Act, important provisions of which require reauthorization this year to remain in effect, I will do everything in my power to make sure my decisions keep the American people both free and safe (our fore fathers fought a war -the Revolutionary War- to protect the people from the government, and now you are saying you protect us? tsss!).
 
I really value your effort to get in touch with me to share your thoughts, as many Idahoans do.  Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future on this or other issues.

May 24, 2011

The American Dream vs. The Federal Reserve

Amazingly accurate time-line and depiction of this country's long history against a central bank.

The Lew Rockwell Show

The Lew Rockwell Show: The Truth About NeoCons

A fascinating account of what drives neoconservatives. Is it freedom or power?

May 18, 2011

Tom Woods on the Failed "War on Drugs"

Tom Woods spoke recently in Boise on Nullification to a packed house, with a live stream to over 20 locations across Idaho thanks to Campaign for Liberty of Idaho. Here he is discussing the war on drugs...



This is an interesting movie on the War on Drugs...

May 16, 2011

Is Mike Crapo coming out of the closet?

No not THAT closet Larry Craig! The Libertarian closet!

In a recent article in reason magazine (a publication dedicated to "Free Minds and Free Markets") titled The Most Interesting Man in the Senate, writer Matt Welch covers the story of Rand Paul's rise to the Senate. Rand Paul, the most successful Tea Party-branded politician of the 2010 election, as Welch argues, "has done more to inject libertarian ideas into the Washington debate than any senator I can remember."

Despite neoconservative "anitbodies" (as described by former speechwriter David Frum) to Rand Paul's ideals on international aid, domestic and defense spending, Rand Paul counters saying that the Republican Party has become "tainted by neoconservative ideology, mistaking national greatness for a willingness to intervene willy-nilly into the affairs of foreign countries, while tolerating big government spending projects at home...The Tea Party is now a threat to the old Republican guard precisely because its state principles prevent it from being brought into the neoconservative fold."

Welch continues to tell the story of how Rand Paul had surprised a lot of skeptics by sticking with his principles and continuing his push for a cut in both military spending and domestic spending, while criticizing other Republican plans (Rep Paul Ryan R-Wis) to balance the budget by (an hysterical) 2063. Within 3 weeks of being sworn in as Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul announced a 500 billion dollar spending cut along with a balanced budget amendment. 

According to Welch, Rand Paul's ideas caught the privy of "other Republican senators including Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Mike Crapo of Idaho and a half-dozen others." I was surprised to read this as I had not heard that our own Idaho Senator was supporting this radical of a budget cut!

While a search of Mike Crapo's website does not offer any indication that Crapo supported Rand Paul's budget proposal, it does offer a quote regarding the Paul Ryan budget proposal that mind you, still leaves the deficit at 1.55 trillion (and attempts to balance the budget in 52 years)...Crapo said of this plan: “We need to move the discussion from billions to trillions.  Chairman Ryan’s plan puts the budget on a better path to balance the budget and improve the economy, and I look forward to reviewing the details of the proposal.”

To compare the neoconservative budget of Paul Ryan and apparent supporters like our own Mike Crapo to the Democratic budget of Obama, there is only a $100 billion difference. When we spend $10 billion a day, that is a mere 10 day difference in spending; Big Whoop! Rand Paul's ideals to cut 500 billion the first year are a start and he recognizes we need to do a lot more, calling his plan "modest."

So, no Crapo is not coming out of the closet though I think he might have tossed out some under-attire when he won the "Friend of the Taxpayer Award." NICE!

More from Rand Paul's interview with reason: