Successful Businessmen Cannot Hide, Politicians Can…

An interesting find is brought up over at a blog called Bacon’s Rebellion:

“Eric “Young Gun” Cantor, the Republican House Majority Leader from Henrico County, seemed older and out-gunned Wednesday when new Republican members in the GOP-controlled House voted 233-198 to kill an alternative engine for the new F-35 strike fighter that even the Pentagon didn’t want.

More than half of the new Congressmen voted against the engine that the House’s older leadership, represented by Cantor and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, worked desperately to keep in the federal budget.

Their reason? Pure pork. The alternative engines would be built jointly by Rolls Royce, which has its North American headquarters in Virginia, and in Ohio where partner General Electric has big manufacturing plants. The House decided to drop the alternative and go with the main supplier, Pratt & Whitney, thus saving $450 million.”

So obviously Republicans like Bacon’s Rebellion look at this as an instance when the old harden Republican politicians vote for pork and the new saviors vote against it. Whether these new Congressmen continue their votes against pork is still to be seen. What the important lesson here to take away is how a politician like Eric Cantor can vote for pork and write a book about deficit reduction at the same time.

The best fake limited government politician will convince the general populous that they are for limited government, while voting for bills that will give money out to special interests that will continue to help fund their campaigns. This may be a hard concept for the reader of this blog to grasp because the very fact that you are reading this does not make you apart of the general populous.

So how does this differ on the free market with businessmen? First, think about the places you visit on a weekly basis and do you know what policies the business owner gives speeches on in his free time? No. Would you want to know? Maybe. But the truth is it doesn’t matter.

When you go and visit a place of business, you go to purchase something. You are only satisfied if the business owner meets your demands. For example, if you go to the grocery store looking for the best cut of steak then you will only be satisfied if you find what you are looking for. In Economic terms, if the producer supplies the demands of the consumer.

So how can a politician as a producer of policies satisfy the demands of the consumer? If a business man says “come to my grocery store and you will find the best filet cut in town” and upon arrival you realize it is chuck roast at best you will stop going there. But for some reason in politics Eric Cantor can say “I am a deficit reducer” and vote for an increase at the same time with little to no repercussion.

So I ask the reader this question. Free market or government coercion? Which of the two satisfy the demands of the consumer the best? If it is the free market then how can we apply that to government?

Published in: on February 18, 2011 at 9:20 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Stimulus Goals: What are the true causes and effects?

This from RealClearPolitics:

“White House press secretary Jay Carney says the Recovery Act added several million jobs and lowered the unemployment rate. According to Carney, the “goals” of the stimulus package “have been met.”

A reporter asked Carney why unemployment is at 9% and not 7%, the percentage projected if the stimulus worked. Carney dismissed the question. “We’ve said repeatedly that we don’t want to relitigate the battles of the past,” Carney told the reporter.”

But was it the act that added the jobs and lowered the unemployment rate? And if it was is it sustainable?

In order for the politicians in Washington to keep being elected, they have to convince the majority of Americans that they are “doing something”. What exactly they are doing doesn’t matter as long as the results happen. Now some may say that this is good because the results that are all that matter. But would we say the same thing about President George W. Bush running his 2004 campaign on the highest home ownership rate in the history of the United States?

Of course, now we see that it was a bubble that ended up making many Americans bankrupt. So how do we know, again assuming the government stimulus did work, that it too did not also create a bubble that will burst in the face of Barack Obama and Mr. Carney?

The arrogance of politics is that anything a President or Congress does while it is in office makes for whatever the best results in the economy are. Imagine that the boost in GDP and the lowering of unemployment was because of new technological innovation or that the country’s rich saved more money for investment and invested in new business, how would that have anything to do with building new roads by the stimulus?

It wouldn’t.

The American people must wake up first to the fact that politicians cannot create jobs. All they can do is shift valuable labor and materials to a different sector of the economy. That means that more labor and materials are being put in an industry that it would’t be in if it wasn’t for the government entering the market and bidding up the price.

So what are we losing for those falsely allocated materials and labor?

Published in: on February 17, 2011 at 11:03 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

Book Review: An Inconvenient Book by Glenn Beck

“An Inconvenient Book” by Glenn Beck in a lot of ways sums up what is wrong with the Conservative moment. It is filled with claims that use zero economics, when in fact economics should be their friend. Glenn Beck, who has become very popular among both Conservatives and Libertarians, has done a good job on his show in supporting the free-market and bashing Obama. But after reading this book I wonder what the Glenn Beck show would look like with a Republican held White House and/or Congress.

The book is written very well in that it reaches out to all types of readers and in a lot of ways makes you laugh. It has some of the best info graphics I have ever seen in a mass market book. So as far as the words and pictures, it is a great book. But the content fall short.

A few parts of Mr. Beck book has caused me to write two separate posts on tipping and on running out of oil. I will not dwell on these subjects but I urge you to read them if you think that this review fall short on criticizing content.

The very first chapter on Global Warming was very good and uses good non crazy arguments against the Global Warming advocates. But soon after that he goes into topics in which most people who buy his book. Chapters on Marriage, Porn, Body Image, Renting Movies (not kidding) and Blind Dating are pointless and useless. I know that often time we pretend that pundits are experts on politics, but that does not stretch into other areas that are more personal.

His chapters on the Minimum Wage, Opinion Polls, and Poverty are much more productive and provocative. But many of the time his solutions fell short. Take illegal immigration, which is the chapter he decides to end his book on. This probably means that he thinks very highly on the subject and that he wanted to leaving a lasting impression so it should be the best written.

First, he plays in this paranoia of a super corporate group has control over the United States government and keeps the border from being secure. And his solutions are to build two fences and hit the employers hard. Besides the fact that a Conservative is making an argument FOR government, the two ideas are just moronic.

The fence is very expensive as he wants “double layers of fencing with road in between for patrols, concrete vehicle barriers, surveillance cameras, and tunneling sensors.” He says it would be $20 billion. First, if this is a government estimate you can trust it is wrong. Also what about the maintainance of this. And really if people really want to get into America, is this going to be effective?

Sidenote: Glenn, when you want to compare figures for people do not use “how much 9/11 cost the City of New York.” First, it wasn’t on purpose. Second, it was a terrorist attack.

Next, he wants to hit the employers. I guess he is already assuming that his fences will not work and he is a Conservative against small businesses. All small business are trying to do one thing: survive. Glenn Beck must not think that there is going to be any red-tape involved on already small struggling business.

And let’s think about the reason why businesses hire illegals, part could be minimum wage but mainly it is because they are hard works and can outwork some of us “non-mexicans.” And consider the costs. The business owner is choosing someone who they have a hard time communicating with over “non-mexicans.” That means we Americans are very inefficient workers. So wake up, you cannot be pro-free trade and anti-illegal labor force.

So overall this book is not worth reading or buying. It was a huge let down and it made me think a lot less of Mr. Beck.

Rating: 1/5

Published in: on September 18, 2009 at 10:44 pm  Comments (5)  
Tags: , , ,

Dr. Ron Paul: No Longer the Lone Ranger


PDF Print E-mail
In 1983, largely due to the policies of the Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and President Ronald Reagan, the American people were finally rid of the burden of astronomical inflation. The policy of the Carter Administration attempting to offset unemployment with having the Federal Reserve print money was at last at an end.

At the same time, a fresh-faced congressman named Ron Paul (R-TX) decided that because of this, it was a good opportunity to investigate the very institution that had helped wreak havoc on the economy with runaway inflation. That same year, he proposed H.R. 877 a bill that would allow the General Accounting Office (GAO) to audit the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Advisory Council, the Federal Open Market Committee, and the Fed banks and branches themselves.

Dr. Paul was able to garner only 18 co-sponsors on that bill, which died with little to no support. Like many of his bills, supporting liberty and transparency, it was sent to committee were it ultimately met its slow and unheralded death.

But, that was then and this is now. With the Federal Reserve, loose monetary policy, and impending inflation making headlines in the mainstream media, more attention is finally being paid to a near identical bill—H.R. 1207—that Congressman Paul reintroduced in February of this year.

Already, just four months later, H.R. 1207 has a staggering 237 co-sponsors. And now a full-blown audit of the shadowy, secretive, bureaucracy Wall Street Journal writer Steve Moore, in an interview with the Washington News Observer (WNO) calls, “a threat to representative government,” appears imminent.

The fact is, the history of the Federal Reserve is one that can be easily summarized with a foggy picture of Soviet-style central planning causing major booms and busts since the entity’s inception in 1913. For example in a recent WNO interview, Dr. Paul characterizes the Federal Reserve as being the creator of “the inflation of World War I, the depression of 1921, the inflation of the 1920s, and the Depression of the 1930 and on and on.”

Paul compares these events—each caused at least in part by the Fed’s loose money policies—to the current situation with the credit and housing crises, which have put the nation into a deep recession.

The purpose of the Paul bill, now gathering support, is to help Congress and the American people prevent another financial disaster due to the Fed’s constant policy of offering loose credit and encouraging bad lending practices. Plus, it will enable Congress to keep an eye on the current bailout money in order to prevent abuse and fraud.

One issue the bill’s sponsors on either side of the aisle seem to be in lockstep agreement on: the government-granted monopoly over one of the most important units of currency is way too much power to leave to an unelected body that, in one swift action with the printing press, could destroy a nation.

Now the former 2008 Presidential candidate, who was characterized in the media as being insane for bringing up reform in the area of monetary policy, is finding plenty of support. Or as Dr. Paul said in his interview, all of a sudden more than a quarter century after he first proposed it, “…now it is popular to get transparency of the Fed.”

It is as if “everything old is new again”—only this time, with teeth in it.

Justin Williams is a Contributing Editor of ALG News Bureau.

Published in: on June 24, 2009 at 3:48 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , ,

Unemployment: Who is really to blame?


Print
As soon as newly elected Democratic majority took over Congress in 2007, they aimed their scope at setting a new minimum wage. Unfortunately, while the Senators and Representatives were patting each other on the backs for passing the first bill that raised the minimum wage in nearly a decade, they forgot to consult any economics textbook.

Now with the United States deep in a lengthy recession and high unemployment continuing to rise, the latest installment of $7.25 an hour (from the original $5.15) that is on the horizon will undoubtedly put an enormous pressure upon already struggling businesses everywhere. And the result could be the most devastating round of “stagflation” since the presidency of Jimmy Carter.

On July 24th the government will force the business community to pay their employees for more than the market rate. But those businesses, already struggling just to keep their doors open, will not magically receive new revenue to pay those employees.

Instead, they will keep only their best employees and lay the others off. So while, the American people were told that the minimum wage bill was passed to help the low-skilled workers, it is in actually those very workers who would be hurt.

Now instead of more workers receiving higher wages, there will be more workers receiving no wages at all.  So much for government planning.

As unemployment rises, of course, more pressures are put upon the government to extend unemployment benefits. And more unemployment benefits add more government debt to an already bankrupt country.

And it is not just the federal minimum wage that Americans have to worry about, but also the state minimum wage laws. Many states raised their own minimum wage laws with the passing of this federal bill, exacerbating an already dire situation.

For example, states with more than a two-dollar increase in their minimum wage from 2006 to today had higher unemployment than those who had less than a one-dollar increase.

Over that time, states like California, Colorado, Michigan and Ohio, which have had a more than two-dollar an hour increase from their minimum wages, had their unemployment rates increase 6.1, 3, 6, and 4.8 per cent respectively.

On the other hand during this time, states like Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, and Maine, which had a less than one-dollar increase in their minimum wage, saw their unemployment rates increase only 1.5, 1.3, 3.5, and 3.3 percent.

Admittedly since the United States fell into a recession over that time, it is understandable to see higher than normal levels of unemployment. But it is clear that new restrictive minimum wage laws additionally fueled higher unemployment.

Simply put, minimum wage law causes a shortage of jobs and a surplus of labor. Both of which spell disaster for individual workers, as well as the economy as a whole.

So once the latest installment of minimum wage is fully in place, Americans will see more unemployment, a deepening recession, and a massive increase in unemployment benefits in coming months. This policy will make the economic recovery more difficult and the opportunity for the average Joe much smaller.

Luckily, for the Congressional Democrats and many state legislators who passed this law in 2007, the recession has taken the rap for the current rates of unemployment. This smoke and mirror has allowed the Democrats on the hill to shirk responsibility for the current crisis.

But once the American people see another spike in unemployment after the July minimum wage increase, these politicians who hurt the business community will have nowhere to hide, which seems only fair since so many of their victims will have nowhere to work.

Justin Williams is a Contributing Editor of ALG News Bureau

Published in: on June 17, 2009 at 12:03 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

Paying a Loan Back Never Felt So Bad…

From NetRightNation:

When the government offered $700 billion dollars to buy trouble assets from many banks across America, some were very hesitant to accept these funds.

For example, BB&T’s former (as of 12/31/09) CEO John Allison wrote a letter to Congress explaining that certain bad governmental policies are to blame for the current financial crisis. BB&T is still strong and lending money according to Allison and now CEO Kelly King.

Later, when BB&T along with many other major financial institutions wanted to wash their hands clean of government funds, they were told that they would not be allowed until they passed strict tests, as ALG News previously reported. Even though Barack Obama said that he has no interest “in managing these banks—or running auto companies or other private institutions, for that matter,” he has now granted a small few the right to repay their TARP loans. Why not all of them?

The ten banks that will be paying back $68 billion dollars include: J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, BB&T, U.S. Bancorp, American Express Co., Capital One Financial Corp. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Northern Trust Corp. and State Street Corp.

What exactly is the secret recipe that the bureaucrats came up with to allow these banks to repay loans? Nobody knows. Or at least, nobody is saying publicly.

All that Secretary Geithner stated in his release to the press was that the banks’ willingness to pay is “an encouraging sign of financial repair, but we still have work to do.” Barack Obama has not let the banks off the hook either. He said that “the return of these funds does not provide forgiveness for past excesses or permission for future misdeeds.”

And while the government takes their sweet time deciding which banks can and cannot pay back their loans, they continue reap in the dividends from these “troubled” banks. The federal government has already turned a profit of $4.5 billion in dividend payments from all of the banks, including $1.8 billion from the ten banks listed above. That, even though failing businesses do not usually pay out dividends.

Why is it exactly that the banks have to jump through hoops just to pay back loans? Nobody knows. Or at least, nobody is saying.

Banks sometimes discourage early payment of loans with penalties on mortgage contracts, but this is always agreed to beforehand and protects the bank’s profit. There was no announcement at the outset of any penalty for early payment. And it was understood that the government was not a profit-making entity. And yet, the government has saw fit to control arbitrarily who is and is not allowed to pay.

What are the terms and conditions for repayment?

These banks should be allowed to pay back the loans, anytime they deem it necessary. Those bankers should know what’s better for their business than some bureaucrat who has never run a business in his lifetime. It’s not up to the government to tell a bank that it is too fragile to come off government assistance.

President Obama, since day one, has tried to get involved into every aspect of these financial institution’s decisions, where he continues to play up the myth that capitalism is to blame to all of society’s ills. What he—and Congress and the bureaucracy—are still in denial of is that the Federal Reserve was behind the bubble to begin with its policies of loose credit and easy money.

In short, the financial crisis was a governmental failure. Not a market failure.

Finally, to make matters worse, there isn’t even a plan of what to do with the money being repaid from these banks. In the press release issued by the Treasury Department today, Geithner states that “proceeds from repayment will be applied to Treasury’s general account. These repayments help to reduce Treasury’s borrowing and national debt. The repayments also increase Treasury’s cushion to respond to any future financial instability that might otherwise jeopardize economic recovery.”

So, which is it? Does the Treasury keep the cash or run TARP indefinitely? The repayments might be used to pay off the federal debt, or they might get recycled back into the program, and TARP will never end. Again, nobody knows, and nobody’s saying.

And with the Obama Administration serving notice to banks that they are not off the hook yet—even in repayment—it is no wonder that many of those same banks were reluctant to take the money to begin with.

Justin Williams is a Contributing Editor of ALG News Bureau.

Published in: on June 12, 2009 at 12:16 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Anti-tax crusade to storm Capitol by David Lambro

Today’s article of the day is from the Washington Times:

The grass-roots “tea party” movement that swept across the country April 15 to protest federal tax and spending hikes will hold demonstrations in Washington and elsewhere this summer and fall when Congress will be battling over President Obama’s biggest budget proposals.

Leaders of the Tax Day rallies that drew an estimated 600,000 people in nearly 600 cities and towns say the seemingly spontaneous local protests have grown into a more muscular movement concerned that the escalating growth and cost of government threatens to undermine economic freedom.

Organizers say rallies are planned here and around the nation on the Fourth of July to tie the movement’s goals to the nation’s founding principles; on Sept. 12, when Congress is expected to be in the midst of debate over Mr. Obama’s plans on health care, energy and global warming; and on Oct. 2, when supporters expect that debate to be continuing.

“There is no central governing body behind this,” said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity and one of the movement’s many informal leaders.

“It’s a genuine grass-roots movement, so I think you will continue to see an array of grass-roots protests giving voice to their concern that they have of losing their freedom, specifically their economic freedom.”

There appears to be no unanimity among the disparate groups around the country about the various rally dates.

“Some will say July 4, or Sept. 12, while others will have a rolling series of events in their localities,” said Mr. Phillips, who has been speaking at numerous gatherings since the tea party protests and has chosen Oct. 2 for his organization’s focus in Washington.

Since the protests made headlines around the country, the thousands of little-known, first-time protesters who organized and promoted the events appeared to have faded back into obscurity. But leaders monitoring these anti-tax-and-spend groups say they actually have been busy organizing themselves through a spurt of new Web sites and local meetings. Many have become involved in local politics.

“In some areas we’ve noticed tea party activists are getting involved in local government in school boards, town councils, and a lot of national Web sites are popping up to organize for another massive tea party day push,” said Adam Bitely, director of new media at Americans for Limited Government.

The Web sites have names like “TeaPartyPatriots.org” and “TaxDayTeaParty.com.” Mr. Bitely runs NetrightNation.com, which aggregates all of the Web sites and reports on the movement’s progress. “It’s kind of a general post on what everyone’s doing,” he said.

Nearly a month after the protests stunned the traditional conservative community by their sheer size and spontaneity, veteran organizers here are still taking stock.

“I was surprised by the number of people willing to go out and demonstrate in public against spending too much [and] the spark of tax increases. It’s a much more sophisticated, philosophical electorate than I had believed existed,” said Grover Norquist, the veteran tax-cut crusader who runs Americans for Tax Reform.

“Nobody issues orders to this group, no one institution, no one person. This is the future of parallel organizing, person-to-person organizing, everything the Internet allows you to do,” he said. “This is a ‘leave me alone’ coalition.”

Early signals suggest that a large political head of steam is building under the upcoming demonstrations.

“I am amazed by the energy created by all of this and I think that is what you are going to see in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 12,” said Brendan Steinhauser, a coordinator for the free market advocacy group Freedom Works, chaired by former House Republican leader Dick Armey of Texas.

“Congress will be back in session after its August recess, talking about budgets. We’ve got 3,000 people signed up so far on our Web site, but it’s early and the energy level is high,” Mr. Steinhauser said.

The April 15 tea parties have already had an influence on Washington officials. Just days after the rallies, President Obama asked his Cabinet to find $100 million in spending cuts in their department budgets – a hastily-crafted initiative that Republicans ridiculed as a minuscule fraction of his $3.5 trillion budget.

Republicans, however, have been just as unsuccessful in tapping into this group of voters Mr. Steinhauser describes as “sort of a mixture of libertarians, independent-minded people who lean conservative and even Democrats who are leery of all this spending in Congress.”

“I’m not sure Republicans have learned how to tap into this group yet,” said James Sibold, the former DeKalb County Republican chairman in Georgia.

Ron Paul’s Economic Theories Winning GOP Converts by David Weigal

Today’s article of the day comes from the Washington Independent:

From time to time, a few members of Congress—as many as 10, sometimes fewer—gather with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) to eat lunch and hear from an author or expert whose opinion he thinks is worth promoting. They grab something to eat off of a deli plate. They take notes. They loosen up and ask questions.

“It’s not all that easy for the other members to get here,” Paul said in an interview with TWI, sitting just outside of his office before heading back to Texas for a few days. “It’s just that there’s so much competition. Once they get here and they get going, they all seem to enjoy it.”

A funny thing has started happening to Paul since his long-shot presidential campaign ended quietly in the summer of 2008. More Republicans have started listening to him. There are the media requests from Fox Business Channel and talk radio, where he’s given airtime to inveigh on sound money and macroeconomics. There is HR 1207 , the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, a bill that would launch an audit of the Federal Reserve System, and which has attracted 112 co-sponsors. When Paul introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act just two years ago, no other members of Congress signed on.

And then there are the luncheons. The off-the-record talks have brought in speakers such as ex-CIA counterterrorism expert Michael Scheuer, libertarian investigative reporter James Bovard, iconoclastic terrorism scholar Robert Pape, and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Perhaps the most influential guest has been Thomas Woods, a conservative scholar whose previous books include “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” and “Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush,” and whose current book “Meltdown” has inspired Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) to question Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner about economic fundamentals.

Paul’s unexpected and sudden clout with his fellow Republicans — even some of Paul’s staff have been surprised with the momentum of his “Audit the Fed” bill — come as the GOP engages in a tortured internal dialogue about its future. Since January, no small number of new coalitions have formed between current members of Congress, former advisors to President George W. Bush, and perennial party leaders such as former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) and former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.). Few of those conservatives, however, have spent much time criticizing the very foundations of America’s modern economic system and worrying about a 1929-style crash. Few of them had a drawer stuffed with off-brand economic ideas and forgotten libertarian texts, ready to explain what needed to be done. Ron Paul did, and as a result the ideas that made the Republican establishment irate enough to bounce him from a few primary debates are more popular than ever. (more…)

Should the GOP give up it’s Corporate Affairs?

GOP Senator Jim DeMint wrote and article for the Washington Times saying that the Republican party should end it’s affairs with corporate elites. Here are a few portions from this piece:

“Earlier this month, the United States Chamber of Commerce handed out its annual “Spirit of Enterprise” awards to those members of Congress who voted with the Chamber 70 percent of the time on its most important legislative initiatives of 2008. The only four Republican senators who did not receive the award were Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Jim Inhofe and me – four of the most conservative members of the Senate.

What were the conservative offenses? We opposed the failed bailouts and stimulus. Which explains why many liberal Democrats scored higher, including Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Republican who scored lowest of all – that is, the Republican lawmaker supposedly least aligned with the nation’s business community – was Ron Paul, a strong constitutionalist famous for his strict adherence to a free- enterprise libertarian philosophy.”

Which brings us to the title of this post. Should the Republican Party give up it’s Corporate Affairs? Ethically, this would be yes. It is obvious that DeMint is right and that the politicians are being rewarded for handing out taxpayer money. This is known in Public Choice Economics as rent-seeking, defined as when a politician hands out benefits to a small group while dispersing the costs upon the whole.

As this sounds like a good idea, is it practical? No. Politicians get elected by maximizing votes. They maximize votes by handing out favors to special interests. Corporations are special interest. The politicians will not get elected if they continually hold back from receiving legalized bribes and handing out favors. This may seem nuts to most people but it is not. These politicians and corporations are simply reacting to the incentives that they are faced with.

What politician doesn’t want to get elected? I haven’t met one. They are simply using the most efficient way to get elected in a political market. What special interest does not want to recieve money? I do not know of any. They are simply using the most efficient way to get money. As DeMint’s rhetoric sounds nice and he is rousing people like us, he will not beable to gain a large amount of followers who’s seats will not be put in jeopardy by such a move.

The rest is here.

~PCCapitalist

A Word on Today’s Tea Parties

Today many people around the country will get together for a unified cause. This cause was voiced on the Chicago Exchange floor by Rick Santelli. He said what everybody had been thinking at the time, that we are fed up with the spending of government and it needs to stop. We all realize that Obama is going to raise taxes, print money, and/or create debt. None of these are good, especially considering it is always in the interest of the politician to do the last two.

It is true that in early Constitutional America there were a few tax revolts for taxes that were much smaller than the ones we are complaining about today. It is true that Americans have gotten used to the way their government is. But it takes more than just getting mad once to change the way our government is run. We need to win the intellectual battle, so I challenge you to read people like Adam Smith, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and many others. This way we as a society can further the belief in liberty to our children and so on.

Let us not forget today and continue with this on tomorrow. Let us not delude ourselves to think that any politician will save our hard-earned money. Instead let us wake from our apathy and realize that our government is set up in a way in which politicians stay in power by spreading the costs and concentrating the benefits. This is why every district hates Congress but loves their Congressman or woman.

We have to remember where we have stepped into a world where not littering and being political correct has been placed higher than liberty. The Boston Tea Party was one where white males dressed up as Indians and threw tea into the water. Today none of you will even think about doing that because of the consequences. I am not saying do those things but I just want all the supports of these tea parties to realize exactly where we are today.

Today is important but always be thinking about tomorrow!

~PCCapitalist