I asked Dr.Paul what books on economics he has read. He told me he has read all the Austrians, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek and Henry Hazlitt. He also told me he has a copy of The General Theory by John Maynard Keynes. He said he still uses the book as a reference to check a quote when he is preparing a speech.
He then said that he tells people that the real problem isn’t Bernanke or President Obama, but John Maynard Keynes. “It’s the thinking of Keynes that is causing the real problems,” he said.
We started talking money again and I mentioned that the nickel had almost 7 cents of metal in it. He quickly replied, “The nickel will disappear from circulation real soon.”
We reached the venue for the Republican breakfast and there were people outside waiting to greet him. One woman ran up to him and gave him a big hug. Dr. Paul was correct, this crowd could not be mistaken for a YAL crowd. It was much older and appeared very mainstream and they all seemed very excited to see him.
The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.
We have all experienced a time when we opened a credit card bill, only to be shocked by the balance. On more than one occasion, I’m sure, we’ve all said, “Who put that charge on my account?”
Now, imagine opening that bill and finding out your balance has shot up by $37,000!
You call the company to say somebody ran up $37,000 on your card without your knowledge. Who could have done such a thing? Congress and President Barack Obama.
Let’s look at what they charged to your account:
Obamacare: $1 trillion.
Taxpayer bailouts: $3.5 trillion.
The national debt: $13 trillion.
The deficit: $1.47 trillion.
Though you tell the credit card company you didn’t authorize the charges, you’ve still got to pay the bill. After all, they were from the government, which came to help you.
Too many in Congress, as well as the president, have been issuing checks that they can’t cash, but they want you to — to the tune of $37,000 for each and every American citizen alive at the end of this sentence.
And the government isn’t done yet. So what can we do?
The American people have the ability, under Article V of the Constitution, to compel Congress to pass constitutional amendments — either through a Constitutional Convention or through the threat of 34 states passing petitions to force Congress to hold a convention.
The bottom line is, whether it’s via a Constitutional Convention or an act of Congress, we need the protection of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
While more conservatives may be elected to Congress in November, there’s no guarantee that there will be enough to blunt the efforts by Congress and the president to spend yet more of your money and cost more of your economic future.
The only guarantee is in the Constitution itself. And the only way the Constitution is likely to be changed is if state legislatures and governors raise their voices and petition Congress to take action. The American people have to rise up and demand that Congress do what 49 states must: balance their budgets.
Those who now preach more spending and more government programs say we are threatening the economic recovery if we pay down our debt and reduce our deficit.
In other words, if our economy is going to recover and jobs are going to come back, they have to spend more of your money to make it happen.
How many Americans, in their family budget, have used the federal government’s neat trick of spending themselves further into debt to create greater economic opportunity for their family?
Does the increased monthly payment on your credit card — the higher level of interest — put more food on your table? Does putting your family further into debt increase your chances to reduce your debt?
Seriously, only Washington politicians and limousine liberal economists would think that going further into debt would help you get closer to getting out of debt.
It’s time to take back our government. It’s time to take back America. And it’s time to give the American people true, honest and guaranteed political power.
We need a balanced-budget amendment to our Constitution. We need laws that require a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes, so that Congress and the president don’t use a balanced-budget amendment as an excuse to raise taxes.
Washington won’t solve the debt problem. We, the people, can and must.
We need the American people, through state legislatures across our nation, to demand that Congress pass a balanced-budget amendment — or get out of the way and allow 34 states to compel Congress to do what it won’t do on its own.
Norm Coleman, a former Republican senator from Minnesota, is chief executive officer of the American Action Network.
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
Yesterday I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
Therefore, I went to the website and sent this email below:
Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease EPA $7.939 B $3.238 B 29% Since 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency has worked to enforce greenhouse gas regulations on business without Congressional approval. We have seen EPA’s budgets significantly increase in administrative costs to process and handle the regulations they write.
Even with the budget increases, EPA process for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals has continued to stay on GAO’s High-Risk List for potential waste, fraud, and abuse. From the High Risk List of 2009, “GAO recently reported that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) – a database that contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals – is at serious risk of becoming obsolete because the agency has not been able to complete timely, credible assessments or decrease its backlog of 70 ongoing assessments. Overall, EPA has finalized a total of only 9 assessments in the past 3 fiscal years.”
Toxic chemicals are not the only areas EPA is falling behind. Their delay on approving mining and drilling permits has costs thousands of jobs across our country.
The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.
What Can a Tax Limitation/Balanced Budget Amendment Accomplish?
The obvious purpose of a tax limitation/balanced budget amendment is to prohibit politicians from engaging in deficit spending except in unusual circumstances, such as war. Government spending hinders the economy’s performance by transferring resources from the productive sector to the government. This is true whether government spending is financed by taxes or by borrowing. A balanced budget amendment, by making it more difficult to use borrowing as a way to raise revenue, should slow the growth of government.
In order to maximize the possible economic benefits of a balanced budget amendment, however, politicians will need to include a strong tax limitation provision such as a supermajority requirement. By making it as difficult for politicians to raise revenue by increasing taxes as it will be to raise revenue by issuing debt, the tax limitation/balanced budget amendment will help ensure that the end result is smaller government and more freedom for Americans.
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
Yesterday I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
Therefore, I went to the website and sent this email below:
Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself at 4pm CST on May 17, 2011.
Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease Corps of Engineers $5.075 B $1.854 B 27% Many in Congress as well as those with the Corps of Engineers have been opposed to consolidation of services due to institutional and communal structures. According to the Government Accountability Office in September 2010, “The Corps has faced and will likely continue to face challenges to any realignment effort: (1) inability to gain congressional support, (2) limitations of its funding structure, and (3) the autonomous culture of its districts.” In addition, the Corps’ incremental project-based appropriations and cost-sharing requirements create an impediment to realignment. With the communications resources we now have in this country there is no justification for 38 separate Corps districts across our country. Most telling is the majority of division and district commanders the GAO interviewed said the Corps’ technical guidance is outdated by 10 to 15 years, causing different divisions and districts to execute projects differently.
The talked turned to politics and he told me he had some advisers telling him that he should alter his message slightly to attract the attention of larger groups. He said, “You know, they don’t want me to actually change my view, but the way I say certain things. I can’t do that.”
He said it appeared that his following seemed to be growing and catching on with some mainstream Republicans. It was at this point that he invited me to a Republican breakfast where he would be giving a speech. He said, “You’ll see this is a different group from last night. It’s a mainstream Republican group.” And so with that, I was off to a Washoe County Republican Party breakfast.
In the car, I asked Dr. Paul what did the public not know about him that he thinks they should know. He couldn’t think of anything, but Benton was sitting in the front seat and said that it is remarkable how conservative Dr. Paul is personally, given that he is in favor of, for example, legalizing marijuana.
Benton said that Dr. Paul did not drink in high school, college or medical school. Dr. Paul confirmed this and said that even later when he worked in a hospital emergency room and was on call he never drank because he had to remain alert. He said it wasn’t until much later that he started to drink red wine. With a twinkle in his eyes and a tiny smile, Dr. Paul said, “I drink it for my health.” But he added, “I really do enjoy the wine.”
We went on to discuss the current state of the dollar, price inflation and so on. I found his understanding of markets remarkably sophisticated. At one point, he said to me, “You know, these markets can all very rapidly just take off and the dollar can collapse and prices climb very rapidly.” For emphasis, he moved his hand horizontal and then quickly vertical.
In my many years of trading and talking to investors, one of the most difficult concepts to get across is how quickly markets can change and move dramatically. Most people tend to think of investments as trading within ranges or a slow move in one direction or another, not quite realizing that the moves at times can become very spectacular. Ron Paul seemed to understand this possibility very clearly.
I’ve written before that in watching the way Fed Chairman Bernanke deals with the money supply that he does not appear to have a lot of experience trading stocks. He seems to react to market moves at odd times. Ron Paul, on the other hand, seems to have a trader’s understanding of the markets, and an in depth understanding of how quickly markets can change.
At one point, Dr. Paul speculated with me as to how much Bernanke understood the tight box he is in, with the potential for serious price inflation, on the one hand, and the alternative being very high interest rates to stop the inflation. Dr. Paul said to me, “You know he may believe that it’s not as if he can say what he is exactly thinking, since if he really understood the problems, and said so, the markets would react dramatically.”
As we talked, he told me that interest rates may climb a lot quicker than Bernanke and other Fed members expect, because of the price inflation that is likely.
On Thursday, he landed in Reno, Nevada for the speech at the University of Nevada-Reno. He told me that he was excited to see a crowd of between 600 and 700 in attendance for his speech.
He told me the event was organized by the Young Americans for Liberty, and he seemed very excited about the work they are doing across the country. He also pointed out how well organized the Reno event was, which was coordinated by YAL Southwest Regional Director Adam Weinberg.
We then went on to discuss the economy. He told me that he again planned to propose a bill that would specifically call for the auditing of the Treasury holdings of gold at Fort Knox.
He also told me that he may propose a bill that calls for the prevention of the Federal Reserve from buying Treasury securities and other assets. This could be his best idea ever. It would, of course, halt the Federal Reserve’s ability to print money and, thus, halt the price inflation that is caused by Fed increases in the money supply. It would also prevent the Fed from shoveling money to Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and the like.
Last week Friday, I had the opportunity to spend time with Ron Paul.
It was a chance to get a sense of Dr. Paul that went beyond the short sound bites and brief television appearances that is the way we generally get to gauge presidential candidates. I met him in Reno, NV where he was on the campaign trail. I came up from California for the meeting.
Because of Dr Paul’s tight schedule, Jesse Benton, Paul’s communication director, gave me 30 minutes at 7:00 in the morning. Since Paul had given a speech the night before at the University of Nevada-Reno, I wasn’t sure how much energy he would have that early in the morning. But at 7:00 when I sat down with Dr. Paul at the Silver Legacy Hotel, he was wide awake and clearly ready for a full day.
On television the gentleman that Ron Paul is comes across, but in person there is more. There’s a personal warmth and almost a Ronald Reagan-like charm about him. (There’s pluses and minuses to Ronald Reagan, the president, but he did have that charm, and so does Dr. Paul) When we sat down to talk, it was almost like we were life long buddies.
Without waiting for any questions from me, he told me that the week was the busiest in his life. On Monday, he was in New York promoting his new book. He also appeared on “The View”, on the “Sean Hannity Show” and the “Colbert Report”. On Tuesday he announced the formation of his exploratory committee and also began handling reporters’ questions about Fed Chairman Bernanke’s upcoming press conference. On Wednesday, there were more news interviews from reporters wanting to know his view after Bernanke’s briefing.
Dr. Paul told me that his new house is an hour away from Houston and that he had made the decision not to go into Houston for short news media interviews. He told me somewhat excitedly, as an indication of his growing following, that on Wednesday the television stations sent trucks from Houston out to his house to get his reaction.
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
Yesterday I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
Therefore, I went to the website and sent this email below:
Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself at 8am CST on May 13, 2011:
Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease Transportation $43.855 B $4.810 B 49% The Department of Transportation’s main function is to extract tax dollars from the states and then return those dollars back to the states to fund highway, transit, airports and other transportation related programs. The department is notorious for providing Members of Congress an avenue to direct funding and earmarks to their states, which is frequently highlighted by the press for being wasteful and inefficient. Many states complain of funding that is provided for projects that are not needed and the associated increase in overall costs. For example, due to the many provisions included in transportation funding, such as the Buy-America clause, it is estimated federally funded projects cost nearly twice as much as the amount a state would pay for the same project.
The proposal includes funding the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration at the level of projected gas tax revenue of $37 billion. The proposal eliminates Amtrak subsidies, and reduces the remainder of the department back to FY2008 levels, with an additional reduction of 20 percent.
Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration: Funded at Gas Tax Levels Established in in 1956, the U.S. Highway Trust fund uses excise taxes off the sale of gasoline to fund three major programs – mostly highways, a much smaller account for mass transit, and an even smaller fund to address leaking underground storage tanks. Currently, the American consumer pays 18.4 cents per gallon in taxes to fund this trust fund. Because of changes to the laws governing the trust fund, the fund no longer just had to be used for highways, but could be used for any form of transportation – bike lanes, subway systems, etc., that may not use the amounts of fuel needed to sustain the program. Because of the constant depletion of the trust fund by departments that are unaffiliated with the highway system, additional taxpayer funds are forced to be used to accommodate the $52 billion FY2010 budget of the Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration. The current push to reduce emissions and make vehicles more energy efficient will only leave the American taxpayer more on the hook for mismanagement of funds. Setting a cap on these two programs at the amount of excise tax collected will require the federal government to prioritize road projects more efficiently and places decision making and implementation of road maintenance where it can be done best – the states.
Amtrak Subsidies: Eliminate Created by an act of Congress in 1970 to provide passenger rail service, Amtrak has yet to turn a yearly profit. During its first 35 years, federal assistance amounted to approximately $30 billion. Yet from FY2007 to FY2010 that number has increased by $7 billion. Of the 44 routes and 21,000 miles of track the trains travel over, only 625 miles are actually owned by Amtrak. Congress has forced freight rail companies to allow Amtrak to use the lines the freight rail companies own and maintain.
We need to allow the states to have a greater say in trail service between their cities. To provide better service, Amtrak must learn to make the difficult decisions on routes and coverage to develop a sound business model, which will push them toward becoming profitable.
The Daily Hatch 