Since we swapped out top box videos for Dr. Paul's latest interview, here again is the full video of his comments from Monday's Financial Services Committee meeting.
Posted by Bob Murphy on 01/07/09 Last updated 01/07/09
Pacific Research Institute has just released a new study, "The Sizzle of Economic Freedom." (Press release here, pdf version of paper here.) Lead author Lawrence McQuillan and I surveyed the peer-reviewed literature and highlighted studies that showed the tangible benefits of economic freedom. For example, regions that scored higher in freedom rankings tend to have faster economic growth, lower unemployment, higher literacy rates, and better treatment of women and minorities. Although I wasn't surprised by the results, I was surprised by how much work has been done in this area. It's simply not true that enthusiasm for liberty is "dogmatic"; you can use regressions!
As a congressman and now governor, South Carolina's Mark Sanford has had one primary guiding principle his entire political career — limited government. Not just limited government rhetoric, the sort of lip service paid by milquetoast Republicans to pacify their right-leaning base, but genuine, strict, fiscal conservatism. More importantly, Sanford has the guts to back it up.
If you ever need a good illustration of just how duplicitous the GOP can be, just take notice of how frequently S.C. Republicans get angry at Sanford for daring to actually represent the limited government principles they pretend to. It's as if they're saying, "C'mon Mark, you didn't really think we meant all that conservative stuff, did ya?" Luckily, Sanford does mean it, which to some makes him dangerous.
Gov. Sanford's recent refusal to request a federal loan to extend unemployment benefits made national headlines and received heavy criticism from the Employment Security Commission, many state politicians, and others.
Sanford had delayed his request for a federal loan until the ESC had agreed to a request by the governor — to allow a third-party audit be conducted in order to highlight waste and inefficiency and to reform the agency. When Sanford finally filed for the federal loan at the last minute, the ESC had still not agreed to an audit. In not submitting to the governor's wishes, was the ESC not showing "reckless disregard" for unemployed South Carolinians? What exactly are they trying to hide and was their refusal worth possibly hurting those out-of-work? And if the reforms Sanford would like to see were implemented, might not the ESC have more cash on hand for the unemployed rather than continuing to waste it on its own bureaucracy? Plenty of Republicans joined Democrats in calling Sanford's actions, or inactions, "reckless." The GOP used to call it "welfare reform."
In a general sense, the true "reckless disregard" being shown is not by men like Sanford, but politicians across the nation who refuse to even address, let alone fix, a broken system. Throwing wasted money on top of wasted money, whether at the national or state level, is just plain stupid. As of this writing, even the newspaper industry is asking for a federal bailout, and why not? Where are the leaders who might stand up, speak out, and prefer free-market solutions to a better socialism? How about just plain, old penny-pinching?
In a political environment where being a "responsible" politician now means you must waste as much money as the next, Sanford's fiscal conservatism is considered "reckless" precisely because he believes in responsible spending, budgeting, and accounting.
For much of the 2008 campaign, Texas lawmaker and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his supporters served as a thorn in the side—or a punching bag—for the mainstream GOP establishment.
Yet today, the six men vying to run the Republican National Committee praised the grassroots enthusiasm Paul tapped into during his campaign—and discussed how they would like to capture that enthusiasm to expand the party’s appeal.
Ms. Davis then gives examples of how each candidate for RNC chairman was directly or indirectly cordial to Dr. Paul's ideas and "his foot soldiers."
She ends her post with this fair description and a solid quote from Congressman Paul:
As for Paul, he spent Monday doing what he does best—railing against federal intervention and regulation of the free market during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on the alleged $50 billion Ponzi schemes of Bernard Madoff.
“It’s not the fault of the individuals at the [Securites and Exchange Commission]. They have an impossible job and they have to pretend they’re doing something to feel relevant, the same way we do here, in the Congress. We have to feel relevant in this,” Paul said, “Instead of saying what we need is the market to work, we need to get rid of the bad policies, the monetary system, and this mountains of debt. We say, well, we’re relevant because we’re going to hire more bureaucrats and we’re going to appropriate more money that we don’t have and we’re going to solve all our problems.”
Is Ms. Davis on to something? Are we seeing positive signs from the would-be heads of the RNC? What do you think the candidates for RNC chairman would say to the above quote from Dr. Paul?
Last week I discussed our worsening economic situation and the fact that there are very few options for the new administration to improve things in the long run. The same is not true on the foreign policy front. Our interventionist foreign policy stands ready to be put on a new course with the new administration. Unfortunately, it seems the new administration is likely to continue the mistakes of the past. I've often discussed interventionist foreign policy and the resulting blowback. The current administration's foreign policy, I'm afraid, has created a huge impetus for blowback against the United States. However, I truly believe much of the world stands ready to look beyond our nation's recent blunders if the new administration proves to be heading in a more reasonable direction.
Other nations around the world find our interference in their affairs condescending, and it is very dangerous for us. We may think we have much to gain by inserting ourselves in these complex situations, but on the contrary we suffer from many consequences. Other countries have their problems, to be sure. But how would we feel if China or Russia came to our soil and tried to depose our problematic leaders or correct our policies for us? Our problems are ours to solve, and we need to give other countries that respect as well. Instead, we have been turning alleged, phantom threats into real, actual threats.
Posted by Andrew Ward on 01/05/09 Last updated 01/05/09
The RNC Chairman debate, moderated by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, is online at C-SPAN.org here.
What are your thoughts thus far on the debate? Has any candidate in particular impressed you? Are the candidates paying enough attention to the importance of adhering to Constitutional principles?
Update: An interesting online poll "Choose your Chairman" can be found here.
Update2: The question we highlighted here was asked by Grover at the debate.
Thanks to Mr. Norquist for the various plugs and for mentioning Campaign for Liberty even when it was not part of the original question. And we agree with him: the Federal Reserve is "completely annoying."
The Benton County Daily Record recently caught up with two Ron Paul supporters in Arkansas to see how they have stayed involved in politics since Congressman Paul's presidential campaign ended.
The first interviewee, Michelle Blaty, recently became District 10 Justice of the Peace for the Benton County Quorum Court. Our thanks goes out to Ricky Hanna, the second one interviewed, for taking the opportunity to plug Campaign for Liberty. :-)
Still, given their enthusiasm and organizing ability, and their political success, one has to wonder how Paul supporters at the meeting that night are adjusting to the post-2008 political landscape, what they are doing now and what they might do in the future. That is, one has to wonder whatever happened to the intense, eager, fervent Paul supporters.
Jones could not be reached for comment for this story.
But two other Paul supporters who were also at the Jan. 22 straw-poll meeting - Michelle Blaty, of Bella Vista, and Ricky Hanna, who now lives in Lonoke but lived in Fayetteville during Ron Paul's presidential campaign - both expect to remain active in the political process in the future.
To promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.
"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. [?]
RSS Feed
