End The Fed...

July 9, 2009
The Fed Must Be Stopped
Written by: Ron Paul
Our country currently finds itself in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and, as during all economic crises, people search for the answer as to why this has happened. Not only have large financial firms been affected, but also mainstays of American industry such as GM and Chrysler, all the way down to the Mom & Pop stores on Main Street. The easy way out is to blame the traditional scapegoats: foreign governments, fraudulent businessmen, and greedy speculators. But the real villain is far more sinister; the organization entrusted with maintaining a stable dollar and touted as the guarantor of economic stability – the Federal Reserve. In the United States, monetary policy has been the domain of the Federal Reserve since its inception in 1913. Since that time we have had a number of cyclical recessions, each one following a boom caused by the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy. The problem with the Federal Reserve is that it interferes with market pricing functions. Interest rates are a price just like any other and arise because of the fact that people prefer to consume in the present rather than in the future. The extent to which people defer present consumption is reflected in interest rates, which in a free market are determined by the spontaneous interactions and decisions of millions of people. Fed intervention to set prices throws markets and interest rates out of equilibrium. When the Federal Reserve pushes interest rates below what the market rate would be, everyone wants to borrow money for long-term projects. Shortages of loanable funds would occur, except that the Federal Reserve has the ability to create bank balances out of thin air. The Fed can create a bank ledger on paper, or on a computer, establish a balance of millions or billions of dollars, and then spend these dollars out into the economy. Loans become cheap, and the result of these lower interest rates is an economic boom which eventually manifests itself as a bubble. Beginning in 2001, the Federal Reserve pushed interest rates to as low as one percent, which after adjusting for inflation meant that the real interest rate was negative, so businesses were actually making money by taking out loans. This was the fuel for the housing bubble and the reason there are 19 million empty houses today.

Because of this awesome power to create money out of thin air, the Fed has jumped in to stabilize ailing financial firms by pledging over $7 trillion through various guarantee programs and credit facilities. This is equivalent to over half of the entire nation's GDP. Over $1 trillion of this is already in play, propping up banks and other institutions that should be allowed to fail. All of this has taken place with no oversight by Congress. The Fed was created by Congress, and it is unconscionable that we have allowed it to act in such a way without our oversight. Currently the Federal Reserve's credit facilities, open market operations, and agreements with foreign governments and central banks are all exempt from any sort of audit or oversight. Earlier this year I introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, HR 1207, that would remove all restrictions on Federal Reserve audits and call for a f ull audit of the Federal Reserve System to be completed by the end of 2010. At this writing, 245 of my fellow Congressmen have cosponsored this bill and we hope to have hearings in the near future. In the Senate, Republicans Jim DeMint, Mike Crapo and David Vitter have cosponsored S. 604, companion legislation introduced by Bernie Sanders. I am very encouraged by the tremendous growing momentum on Capitol Hill. Our Founding Fathers never intended for a single entity such as the Federal Reserve to have this much power. In fact, there is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to create a central bank, to enact legal tender laws, or to print paper money. The Tenth Amendment is quite clear that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The states themselves are prohibited from emitting bills of credit, i.e. paper money, arising from the Founders' negative experiences with paper money during the Revolutionary War. Cheap, un-backed, easily counterfeited paper money nearly lost the Revolution, until the government returned to minting gold and silver coins. Unfortunately, like too many other lessons learned by the Founders, the painful experiences of paper money have been forgotten by those living in the pres ent. We even ignore the experiences of Germans in the 1920s, Argentines in the 1980s, and Zimbabweans over the past decade. The Fed doubled the monetary base last fall in a matter of months, and God help us if any of this high-powered money begins to make its way through the economy. An audit of the Fed is only the first step towards returning to where our Founders intended this country to be. The Founders knew that paper money could ruin a country, and drafted the Constitution in such a way that they thought would ensure sound, commodity-backed currency. Unfortunately, the Constitution was dispensed with long ago, and we find ourselves now suffering under an unconstitutional regime of un-backed paper money. Until we abolish the Federal Reserve and return to a stable currency that is not able to be manipulated to create boom and bust cycles, we will continue down the path of economic ruin. Congress Ron Paul serves the fourteenth district of Texas and is honorary chairman of Campaign for Liberty. His new book, End the Fed (Grand Central Publishing) will release on September 16th and is available for pre-order on Amazon.

-From The GlennBeck Newsletter

On This Independence Day...

Thought I'd pass this on. Its from today's Glenn Beck Newsletter...

July 3, 2009
Hello America,Here it is, another Fourth of July. Traditionally, this is a day to gather with friends, maybe fire up the barbeque and play with kids until the sun sets and the fireworks start. But in thinking back on the meaning behind this day, we must never forget that our nation was baptized in the blaze of a very different kind of "fireworks." Yes, this is a day of rest and relaxation, as well it should be, but this year…I'd like to ask you a favor. At some point during the day, I hope you'll take time to think and reflect on what it is we're truly celebrating on the 4th of July -- our Independence Day. Of course the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, 1776 but it's so much more than that. On this day, 233 short years ago, a small group of men dedicated themselves to a higher purpose, an ideal they believed in so greatly, they signed their name to its expression and in doing so put their very lives at risk.Never has a simple act of signing one's name carried such weight, such a profound commitment. By signing the Declaration of Independence, 56 men stood in direct defiance of the British government. They became marked men, and willingly so. As I was doing some research on the significance of July 4th, I came across some interesting facts about these men. Today as we all enjoy the freedom our forefathers guaranteed us, join me in honoring the extraordinary sacrifice of 56 extraordinary Americans.Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence:Five were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes burned to the ground. Two lost sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, and two more had sons captured. Nine fought and died in the Revolutionary War.

If you ever feel like your lone voice can never be heard, that the political system isn't set up for "regular" Americans to change the course of history, remember: The signers were flesh and blood, mortal men with a divinely-inspired aim. Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, eleven were merchants, and nine were farmers and large plantation owners. They were well educated, smart enough to know that by signing the Declaration of Independence, they were signing their own death warrants. They did it anyway, and God bless them for it. As we enjoy our liberty on this 4th of July, or any day of any month, we must never take that liberty for granted. Too many have given too much. In the words of the Signers themselves, "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." Their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor -- I think that's a price paid worth a few minutes of reflection, don't you? But let's not be solemn in that reflection. I say rejoice and share this information with your friends and family, especially your kids. The Signers asked for nothing in return for their pledge, but I say that we show our thanks with a pledge of our own: To remember, to be grateful, and to carry on in their spirit. America is the greatest country this world has ever and will ever know, and it will stay that way so long as "we the people" remember that just like in 1776. It's US that surrounds them, and we'll never back down. Happy Independence Day, and God bless America.
-Glenn Beck

One Month In...

Well, here we are in May already, and the baseball season is 1/6th over. Given the struggles of the Yankees, which are well-documented, I'm happy to be 13/11 after today's embarrassing loss to another no-name, carerr minor leaguer named Matt Palmer. What is it about players in pinstripes, that when they face a pitcher for the first time, they are INCAPABLE of putting good wood on the ball? I've seen this DOZENS of times, now... Its very annoying. Usually, its not a good prospect that handcuffs the whole lineup, its a no-namer, 30 year old making his first start of his career, throwing 88 mph. I would love to see them interview each batter individually after each AB in which they made another routine out against these pitchers, and find out what they feel went "wrong." I could see it now:

Susan Waldman: Johnny, what did you see from Matt Palmer just now?
Johnny Damon: Well he was spotting his fastball pretty good, and mixing up his pitches, and he just kept us all off balance.
SW: We've only seen him throw that "fast" ball and a change today through the first 5 innings. Were you looking for something else?
JD: No not really. I was looking dead red fastball, but I was so focused on the middle of the plate, that when he opted for the outside corner, I was totally caught off guard, and didn't know what to make of it.
SW: How is his delivery? Are you finding it difficult to pick-up the ball out of his delivery?
JD: No, he's a standard, over-the-top pitcher.
SW: So if I understand, the pitcher threw a flat fastball at 88, then a change-up at 70, he has done this for 85 pitches over and over, and in your 12 years in the MLB, you couldn't anticipate his next moves?
JD: Well, we're just going to come out there tomorrow and keep doing what we're doing. I'm just so happy to be a part ofa winning organization and Mr. Steinbrenner is great and I play LF.
SW: ..........Thanks, Johnny.

I would imagine that each and every player would say the same thing. You could say they aren't prepared, and that their hitting coach isn't doing his job, but they have gone through at LEAST 2 pitching coaches since I can recall forst seeing this trend. And the only players still in the lineup from that far back are Jeter and Posada. I got nothin'. Any ideas?

10 Pillars

I thought this was relevant to this blog. Below are the 10 Pillars of Communism, as outlined in the Communist Manifesto...


1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes (LAND TAKINGS BY GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OWNED LANDS, ABUSIVE PROPERTY TAXES, Eminant Domain).
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (DONE)
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (The "Death Tax")
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED)
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Federal Reserve)
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. (THE FCC HAS BROAD POWERS IN THIS AREA)
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (THE FARM BILL HAS ACCOMPLISHED SOME OF THIS)
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (PEACE CORPS, JOB CORPS, Obama's "National Service" Law)
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. (PARTIAL-LAND USE PLANNING, KELO RULINGS, ETC.)
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. (DONE)


Open your eyes, people.

As you can tell, even if you're new to the blog, I haven't had an entry in a while. Its not my fault! I've tried a few times to write something, but I kept deleting it because it wasn't encompassing what I wanted to get at. Who knows. Maybe this will be the same...

Right now, I'm actually trying to survey some people I know that represent both extremes of the political spectrum in America - the left wing liberal and the right wing conservative. Once I'm able to gather their responses to me simple and broad questions, I plan on summarizing it all here on this blog. I'm trying to determine if people actually know why they suppoert given political parties. For instance, I'm convinced that many people that supported Obama in November did not even know why they supported him. I contend that people were brainwashed - whether by the media or their peers - to support certain political platforms, without actually researching them or fully understanding to issues. Before you attack this claim, understand that I also contend that this same concept applies to those that supported Sen. McCain, as well. In many ways, McCain's failed presidential run is an even better example of this, since few, if any, of his platforms actually represented conservatism, yet conservatives supported him regardless.

I'm trying to gather from my "test subjects" answers to the following questions:

As a liberal/conservative, what is it about the democratic/republican party that you support? What does it mean to be a liberal/conservative? Conversely, what does it mean to be a conservative/liberal (the opposing view point). What is it about the Republican/Domecratic party (opposing view point) that you do not support?

Once I have all this info gathered, I'll ost a summry here, along with my personal take on the results....

Who is really behind the steroid scandal?

Is it Canseco? Is is Victor Conte? What about McNamee or Radomski? Maybe its the players union... All those suggestions would be easy targets, and who knows, maybe one of the afore mentioned parties IS ultimately responsible - lord knows they are ALL complicit. But I have a different theory.

The fault lies, ultimately, with Major League Baseball. That's right. Not the players, but the owner's deserve the dirty finger of blame. Let me lay it all out for you, nice and simple.

The year was 1994, and the players were on strike, costing both themselves and their respective owners millions. You see, the MLBPA is known as one of, if not the, most powerful labor union in the country. During the CBA negotiations, it was well known that the MLBPA had 100% of the leverage. Sure, the owners could have called up some "scabs" to play, but baseball is a game of history. Part of its appeal is the recognizability of its star players. Without them (all of which are in the union), the owners could expect to lose money everytime they field a team. Predictably, they eventually caved, and the player's returned to the field.

But the damage was done to the game. Fans were disenchanted, which led to decreased attendance across the board. And of no less importance was the owner's stark realization that they had lost control of their own team; their business investment. They needed to bring the fans back, regain the game's image (which was actually lacking due to the players, but it affected revenues, so it was in the owners interest to resolve the issue), and more importantly, gain some form of leverage for future CBA negotiations. This was critical. If they entered many more bargainning agreement negotiation sessions with as little leverage as they had during 1994, they would continue to lose control of their own businesses. But how could they accomplish all these things?

In 1998, Mark McGwire and Slammin' Sammy Sosa both broke Roger Maris' hallowed single-season homerun record of 61 dingers. A couple years later, Barry Bonds would break McGwire's record, totalling 73. It is now known, for all practical purposes, that all three of these beasts use PEDs. But 1998 was known as "The Year that Saved Baseball." With the homerun record chase on, revenues skyrocketed, and the fans fell in love with their pasttime once again, and in record numbers. Teams were no longer limited to being sports venues, but actually became marketing companies - the rights the Yankee inter-locking "NY" is worth more, by itself, that many whole teams, with stadium. Larger market teams began to broadcast their own, private, sports networks (YES, SNY, NESN). Player salaries also sky-rocketed (which creates bad sentiment with the public, especially in a weak economy).

Then it all came crashing down. Jose Canseco released his book Juiced, which was thought, at first, to be filled with jealousy and lies. But one by one, each of his claims appeared ot have merit. He claimed McGwire did 'roids. Palmeiro. Ivan Rodriguez. The list went on-and-on. No one will ever forget the image of McGwire, Palmeiro, Canseco, and Curt Schilling in front of a congressional sub-committee, when McGwire refused to comit, under oath, to having never used PEDs. This broke the camels back, as Canseco now had vindication...

I'm not going to get into everything that's happened since then, mostly because I don't feel like thinking about the details, but recently, the A-Rod bombshell...

I propose that not only were the owners aware of the rampant drug use in the game for years, but were ultimately responsible for creating a culture conducive to its proliferation. They knew that if the players began breaking record after record, they would pack the house day-in-and-day-out, and revenues would soar. They willingly hired clubhouse attendents who had contacts with BalCo and other PED distributors, and allowed players to bring along personal trainers who had similar backgrounds. Their lame attempts to implement drug testing were nothing more than a political stunt, designed to cover up their true motives. Only after the players began testing positive under "anonymous tests" that were mysterisouly "leaked" would the finally reach their end-game...

Step back, now. I'm not positive when, exactly, the next CBA will need to be negotiated, but you have players who are virtually all millionaires, a huge chunk of which are assumed, at this point, to be using PEDs of some sort. What sort of good will should the MLBPA expect with their fans if they try to strike again this time?

Congratulations, owners. You now have a little leverage. Of course, the game is in shambles, but, who's keeping score...

Trade Suggestions

I've been watching the Yankees offseason movements closely this offseason, and I can't say I'm not happy. But I have a few suggestions for Mr. Steinbrenner, Mr. Cashman, et al...

1.) Trade Xavier Nady - When Nady arrived in the Bronx last summer, I was excited. He is exactly the type of player the Yankees have been lacking for the past 4-5 years of so. The Gritty-type. The kind that know they aren't going to get huge paydays, relatively speaking. Guys with talent, that make the most of said talent. But then they acquirred Mr. Swisher. Like everyone else, I assumed Nick would be our 2009 1B until Teixeira came on board. Its is now widely speculated that Cashman is interested in moving one of either Swisher or Nady. Some important facts to consider: Nady has played RF and LF, while Swisher has played 1B, RF, LF, and CF. Note that CF is a position that could be contended as a weakness in 2009, and the possiblity that Swisher could at least occupy the position in a pinch is a big plus. Also, Swisher is a switch-hitter, while Nady is righty. Another positive. Also, a big concern to kick-off the offseason was how the Yanks would replace OBP giants Giambi and Abreu. Swisher is a classic Moneyball player, who draws a lot of walks. Nady does not. Nady is coming off a career year, so his value should be greater, while Swisher is coming off a terrible year, the worst of his career; his value is at its lowest. Swisher has 3 years left on his current deal, while Nady is a Boras Free-agent in waiting, meaning he will demand more than he is worth. In the end, while neither is a sure thing, I like Swisher more. I like his versatility.

2.) Sign Juan Cruz - When the Yankees signed Sabathia, they gave up their 1st-round draft pick, which is worth it for a pitcher of his ilk. Then they signed Burnett; also a type-A FA, that would have otherwise given the BlueJays the Yanks 1st-round pick, but it had already gone to the Brewers for Sabathia, so the Jays only got the second round pick. But wait! There's more! THEN, they signed Teixeira, who's numbers mandated that the Yanks give up their 1st-round draft pick for him, thus relegating the Brewers to get the 2nd-round pick, and the Blue Jays the third-round pick. At this point, they have already exploited the draft-comp system, so why stop now? Relievers are extremely cheap right now in this economy, and Juan Cruz is a type-A FA, again. Cashman should approach his agent with a deal in the range of 2-years and $6M. IF he balks, walk away. I doubt many teams will match it. After all, the Yanks would now be giving up a 4th-round draft, while every other team would have to forfeit a 1st-rounder. Other pitchers of interest are Will Ohman or Jason Isringhausen or Tom Gordon. Gordon and Isringhausen are reclamation projects that you offer 1-year, $750k deals to. Take a flier!

3.) Sign either Paul LoDuca or I-Rod - True, neither of these guys are great offensive players anymore, but that makes them cheap. I think they both realize they aren't likely to get a starting job anywhere right now, and the Yanks are unsure as to how much catching time Posada can provide. Bring on one of these two (you might have to pay I-Rod a bit more). They'll end up catching at least 30-40 games. Good ensurance. Then you trade Molina. You won't get anyting of significance, but maybe you get a low-level prospect that you could include in a trade in the future. You never know.

The Yankees need to start thinking now about how they are going to handle "The Jeter Issue." Everyone that follows baseball knows that Jeter is no longer a good defensive SS, although I personally believe that defensive is the hardest skill to read w/ statistics. you have to actually watch all the games. I know Jeter isn't great, but I also don't think he is quite as bad as the media says. That said, he is going to turn 35 this year, I believe. And he is a FA after the 2010 season. You can't approach an iconic FA and ask that they move position to remain on he team in which they are the captain - you need to approach him BEFORE he hits free-agency. I propose moving him to LF in 2010. Easier said than done, I know. But if you move him to LF, have Austin Jackson in CF, and Swisher in RF, then you'll just need to find a SS (Hanley?) LF seems to be the only reasonable place for Jeter, if he isn't the SS. Not 3B, not 1B. I don't think CF would work...

With a little luck, I think the Bombers could be back on top this year!