Ron Paul Winning CPAC: Real vs. Ideal

Almost everyone who follows politics knows that at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference libertarian-republican (if you can put those two words together) Representative from Texas, Ron Paul, won the straw poll. CNN has it here:

“The results of the Washington Times CPAC straw poll of presidential candidates are in, and the winner is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, with 30 percent of the vote. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the runner-up with 23 percent.

There were 3,742 ballots cast in the annual survey, which is a chance for devotees to name their pick for president in 2012. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said they were generally satisfied with the field of potential candidates and 43 percent said they wished the GOP had a better field of potential candidates. For those surveyed, the size of the federal government was the most important issue to them.”

In a lot of ways the above straw poll shows the state of the Republican party. The debate between the ideal and the real.

The Mitt Romney’s of the Republican party are going to argue that the Ron Paul’s of the party even with their good ideas are not electable, we should settle on someone like Mitt Romney, which they consider the real. The Ron Paul’s of the party will say that we should not settle for the ideal. So who wins?

Neither of them will ever win. This is what “Republicans” have such a hard time accepting. The system, which is our laws and policies, will never elect anyone who is for limited government. It just simply can’t happen. The current system rewards those that dole out to special interests and punishes those that stand for ideals. It doesn’t matter whether your limited government candidate is a Ken doll from a liberal state or a squirrelly off the cuff texan, he who will be elected will have to have friends in high places to do so.

Why is it the Republican party cannot accept this? Think about the majority of Republican party members. They usually hold one, if not all of these characteristics:

  • Loves the Constitution
  • Loves the American Flag
  • Loves the Founding Fathers

Now, there is nothing wrong with loving these three things. But like a good love, they will break your heart. And the Republican party refuses to get over it. The founding fathers were great visionaries and they created a government that they would hope would stay limited. They did the best they could do and they should be honored for that. But that does not help us sustain a limited government.

Next is the Constitution and this is the real big one for conservatives. How many times have we heard “only if they followed the Constitution”? I know I have heard it a million times myself. But for some reason conservatives and the Republican party are okay with saying that. It’s as meaningless as a police chief throwing up his hands and saying “only if they followed the law.”

What we need to look at is why is it that the Constitution is not followed? And under what system would we have a more effective society? Is there an alternative?

Advertisements

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: , , ,

Book Review: The Revolution by Ron Paul

Since Congressman Ron Paul’s Presidential Campaign, he has recieved a large amount of support from the public. Not enough support to boost him as a party nominee but enough to get on to major news channels. Ron Paul is a good political entrepreneur. He has seized upon this and written a book that every American should read, whether you agree with him or not.

Much like Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater it is a small book that spans many issues. This gives a person enough information to allow them to run with it and do their own research. Unlike Goldwater’s book Paul cites many great figures throughout the book and at the end he includes a recommended reading list with these people in it. Some of them include Ludwig von Mises, Thomas Jefferson, Fredreic Bastiat, F.A. Hayek, and Murray Rothbard.

In the media Ron Paul often comes off as rash or harsh. Arguing for Capitalism can be harsh. Some people are turned off from him because he does not have the speaking skills or the good looks that most Americans care about in politicians. Politicians should be picked upon policy and not personality, but that is neither here nor there. This book is a very rational well thought out logical book. This digs deeper into some of the rhetoric that he speaks and would help with those who find him to be harsh.

One particular argument I found interesting was his one of healthcare and linking it to inflation. Paul argues that “The health costs tend to rise faster than other costs because of the distribution effects of inflation: wherever government spends its new money, that is where higher prices will be most immediate and evident.” The second part of this argument is correct, but if we use debt and such that would not be inflation. It would still bid up the cost all the same but it may be interesting to look into whether or not programs are funded by debt or inflation. Of course, if the result is the same this may not matter.

Overall rating 4/5

~PCCapitalist

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…)

Fight Bob vs. Silent Cal: A asinine lineage of the Republican party

This is no Reagan.

In the article “Fighting Bob vs. Silent Cal: The Conservtive Tradition from La Follette to Taft and Beyond” by Jeff Taylor attempts to make the argument that Ronald Reagan made a huge mistake of aligning himself with Calvin Coolidge and was closer to Robert La Follette. Taylor seems to ignore the difference between limited government and big government. He tries to align “Mr. Conservative” Robert Taft with La Follette on the basis that they were not for big business and Coolidge was. Taylor makes the argument that Coolidge veruss La Follette was the battle between croney centralized capitalism and the peoples capitalism. First, let’s go back to the Taft-La Follette connection. This is what the author himself has to say about it:

” La Follette was a preeminent “liberal” and “progressive” while Robert Taft was described as a “conservative” and “reactionary” by the press of his day. La Follette ran for president in 1924 with Socialist Party Socialist party, in U.S. history, political party formed to promote public control of the means of production and distribution. In 1898 the Social Democratic party was formed by a group led by Eugene V. Debs and Victor Berger. support while Taft condemned the New Deal and Fair Deal for being socialistic. La Follette was a leader of the Progressive Era and named his party after the movement that wanted to use government on behalf of the common people, while Taft rejected centralized, bureaucratic government.”

From Taylor’s own mouth, it seems that these two are complete opposite. Of course, the author blows if off by calling it “superficial analysis.”

Let us move past this and back to the point that Coolidge was in the hands of big business. From a glance Coolidge is very anti-union. He busted strikes while he was Governor and railed against the coal strikes during his time. This could be seen as pro-crony capitalism or anti-unions. He signed the Revenue Act of 1924 lowering personal income taxes but raising gift and estate taxes. This does not sound like pro-crony capitalism. In fact, gift and estate taxes often prevent crony capitalism. He did later sign the Revenue Act of 1926, which lowered the income tax again and some estate taxes. He was also an avid federalist, from Sobel’s book on Coolidge:

“As Governor of Massachusetts, Coolidge supported wages and hours legislation, opposed child labor, imposed economic controls during World War I, favored safety measures in factories, and even worker representation on corporate boards. Did he support these measures while president? No, because in the 1920s, such matters were considered the responsibilities of state and local governments.”

Now a brief glance at La Follette would show (besides what is above written by Taylor) that he had hardly anything in common with Reagan. He was progressive who supported social security, tariffs, and other progressive reforms.

So here is was distiguishes me from the author of this article. I cite evidence to why Calvin Coolidge was more like Reagan and La Follette is almost a complete opposite. I challenge Taylor to cite evidence that Coolidge was a support of crony capitalism. He cites Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan as current leaders that live up to the style of La Follette. I agree with him that the protectionist progressive Bucahanan is much like La Follette, but Republicans are not for free trade, as they should be. Ron Paul is for uninhibited free trade, which means without the government involvement. This is nothing like La Follette also.

If you do not believe me at the outrage of the asinine attempt at Republican lineage read it for yourself here.

~PCCapitalist

Stimulating Our Way to Rock Bottom By Congressman Ron Paul

This is a very important article that should be read by all:


With attention turning to the next big economic stimulus package, questions are still swirling about our economic troubles. How did we get here? How do we get out? As usual, Washington has all the wrong answers.

According to many politicians, we got here by not spending enough, not consuming enough, and not regulating enough. Now government, like some mythical white knight, is going to ride in to save the day by blanketing the economy with dollars, hiring an army of new bureaucrats, creating make-work jobs, and sending everyone some form of a bailout check.

The debate seems to focus on whether this will cost enough to save the economy, or if this is just a “down payment” with much more government spending to come. Talk like that would be comical, if the results weren’t going to be so tragic.

The results will be worsening economic woes until we learn our lesson. But instead Congress is behaving like drug addicts who must hit rock bottom before they are ready to face reality. They are playing foolish games with the economy now because they are thinking only of political expedience. This talk of job creation is a perfect example.

Contrary to the belief of many, the goal of the economy is not job creation. Jobs can be a sign of a healthy economy, as a high energy level can be a sign of a healthy body. But just as unhealthy substances can artificially give the addict that burst of energy that has nothing to do with health, artificially created jobs just exacerbate our problems. The goal of a healthy economy is productivity.

Jobs are a positive outcome of that. A “job” could be to dig a hole one day, and fill it back up the next, or perhaps the equivalent at a desk. This does no one any good. But the value in that paycheck ultimately has to come from taxing someone productive. Some think this round-robin type of economic model is supposed to get us somewhere.

Politicians and bureaucrats have already done their fair share to ensure that jobs in the private sector are prohibitively complicated and expensive to create. They are now shocked that the economy is shedding jobs, and want to simply create hundreds of thousands of jobs to make up for the job losses, through another so-called economic stimulus package.

The private sector must be permitted to do that, but instead they are massively burdened with taxes and webs of red tape and regulation. Washington’s bandaids will only prolong this agony. The Austrian school of economics teaches that only a free market economy, unencumbered by onerous government controls, creates long-term prosperity. Politicians, however, tend to be notoriously short-sighted.

I am left with these questions – who is going to be left standing, to tax in the private sector, to pay for all these public sector make-work jobs? Is Washington really to be considered some sort of savior for creating unproductive jobs in place of the productive jobs they eliminated?

We are at an economic dead-end and those in power are in denial. The truth is our economic problems are due to loose monetary policy, central economic planning, and the parasitic expenses of government. Unless we assess these problems honestly, we unfortunately have a long way to go until, like the junkie, we hit rock bottom.

~PCCapitalist

Anarcho-Housing

When people talk about the theory of an Anarcho-Capitalist world, it often relies on a very micro perspective. The “governance” would come from areas living together and having the same private police and privates courts. In other words, if you wanted to live in a place where the death penalty exists then you can move there and the opposition can move somewhere else. There is another process for when these two societies have a dispute but that is for another post.

People as a player in the market will move around until they find a place they enjoy. This is much like condo or homeowners associations. Some of these associations are good and some are bad. Some manage money well and others let the place go downhill. These are systems of “governance” not government. Even with government we see this people who believe in gay marriage move to Massachusetts. Corporations that want lower taxes go to South Dakota. We can also see this in normal everyday life, like this example from an old Economist:

“Some folks in Texas recently decided to start a new community “containing 100% Ron Paul supporters.” Mr Paul is a staunch libertarian and until recently, a Republican presidential candidate. His most ardent fans are invited to build homesteads in “Paulville”, an empty patch of west Texas. Here they will be free. Free not to pay “for other people’s lifestyles [they] may not agree with.” and free from the irksome society of those who do not share their love for liberty.

Cynics chiuckle, and even Mr. Paul sounds unenthusiastic about the Paulville project, in which he had no hand. But his followers’ desire to segregate themselves is not unusual. Americans are increasingly forming like-minded clusters. Conservatives are choosing to live near other conservatives, and liberals are near liberals.”

The only problem here is how do they keep a liberal from moving in? If there is an advantage to living here, like say lower taxes, then how do you keep a hypocritical liberal from moving in. You would hope that this wouldn’t happen. If worse comes to worse, they are only one vote. They also cannot escape from federal statism. So I do not see a problem with this. The chance of that person coming in is small and the chance of them effecting the community is even smallers.

So it is interesting to see that people are naturally moving next to likeminded people. I think this is good for the free market and everyone.

~PCCapitalist

Published in: on November 8, 2008 at 6:10 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Was there a Barr/Baldwin Effect?

Some, like your author of this blog, argued that fiscal Conservatives could have gotten upset and voted for a third party. McCain was no where near the perfect Republican candidate and was even further away from the fiscal Conservative’s perfect candidate.

Bob Barr was the libertarian candidate who was a former Congressman and Chuck Baldwin was the Constitution Party candidate and was endorsed by Congressman Ron Paul. Here we are going to look at states that were close and see if the Barr/Baldwin campaigns had any effect. Now since this was hard to compare and I do not have the time to figure out the base of these two parties we are just going to assume that many of the people would have voted for McCain had they not ran. But we must subtract Nader’s numbers too, if he did not run it would balance out.

Close States:

Virginia – Conclusion (None)

  • Difference between Obama/McCain:155,627
  • Barr/Baldwin Effect: 17,719 (No need to subtract Nader)

North Carolina – Conclusion (Win possible Republican +15)

  • Diff: Obama/McCain: 12,163
  • Barr (Only 3P on ballot) Effect: 25, 181

Florida – Conclusion (Nader>Barr/Baldwin so None)

  • Diff: Obama/McCain: 189,777
  • Barr/Baldwin Effect: 24,229 (Nader was greater so this had a small Nader Effect

Indiana (Conclusion possible Republican + 11)

  • Diff: Obama/McCain: 26,163
  • Barr (Only 3p on ballot) Effect: 29,186

Missouri and Montana is possible that McCain’s gain would have been bigger without a Barr/Baldwin Effect.

What does this mean? First, it means that if the Republican Party picked a more fiscally Conservative person it is possible they could have picked up 26 electoral votes. That would still only give the Republican candidate 189 which is not enough to win.

What does this actually means? It actually means that Barack Obama vs. A fiscally Conservative Republican (FCR) is hard to measure. This is because had a FCR been picked, he/she could have spent less time campaigning in the two states above. It is also possible that he/she would have movtivated people more. The downside is that libertarians always run and so does the Constitution Party. This means that they could only get some and not all of the votes.

You could imagine that if a good FCR got elected then the Libertarian candidate would have been less strong and popular. I doubt you would have had a former Congressman. Also the Constitution Party would get almost no votes because Congressman Ron Paul would not have endorse him.

To summarize, there are way to many “buts” and “ifs” but it does not look like fiscal Conservatives did a good job at punishing Republicans for their moderate pick. The argument could be made that they stayed home or didn’t work as hard. I could imagine that there were a lot of people who would have put bumper stickers and yard signs up, that didn’t and only voted for McCain as a lesser of two evils. But the realistic view is there is no way to measure it.

So I ask you fiscal Conservatives/Libertarians, how do we get the Republican Party back to it’s roots?

~PCCapitalist

Explanation of the Austrian Business Cycle: Part 1

This was originally published at NetRight Nation here.

Lately in the news, we have seen varying explanations of the credit crisis. Some people blame the lenders, some the consumers, some the government, and some all three. Congressman Ron Paul along with many economists have argued that it was the central bank that messed up the financial markets, which is usually called the “Austrian Business Cycle Theory.” First, you are probably wondering why it is called “Austrian.” This is because of the school of economics it is derived of. In Ludwig Von Mises’ Human Action, he explains this business cycle theory, which will shed light on the current situation. Even those who do not usually subscribe to the Austrian school of thought have mentioned Austrian-like explanations for the current situation. For example, famed author of “The End of Poverty,” Jeffery Sachs recently came out saying “To a large extent, the US crisis was actually made by the Fed, helped by the wishful thinking of the Bush administration.[1]” I agree with Sachs on the first part of his statement, however I do not think that even the Bush administration could “wishfully think” us into a recession.

Most people remember the housing boom that swept the nation and drove our economy. President Bush even ran in 2004 on the platform that more people now have owned their own home in American than ever. The first step of the Austrian business cycle is that the central bank, in this case the Federal Reserve (Fed), expands credit. They can do this by adjusting the reserve rate, the federal funds rate or making open-market operations. If we look back around June of 2001, we can see that the Fed lowered the federal funds rate to 3.75%, which was a .25 percent cut. The short-term interest rates at this time had fallen 2.75 points since the beginning of the year[2]. It was also being reported that consumer confidence was being raised and the housing sector continued to climb with these falling interest rates. New home sales at that time were up 8.8% from a year before that.[3] This then completes the second part of the Austrian business cycle, which is that firms, in this case the housing sector for the most part, borrows more for long-term project. This is because they believe that the lower interest rate is because of the consumers saving more money, which means long term spending preferences. The third stage of the Austrian business cycle is that capital and labor are bid away from short-term projects to move to these longer-term projects, as seen in stage two. One thing that was found to be interesting is during this move towards housing investments we saw car interest rates cut to zero and created a mini-boom in the car industry that was contributed to the growth of GDP at the beginning of the year 2002[4]. As I mentioned consumers’ confidence was on a continual rise and this completes the fourth stage of the Austrian business cycle, which is labor will spend money on current consumption and in turn will raise short-term profits. The housing market is continuing to rise with the low interest rates from 2001-2002. According to The Economist, the housing boom was and is bigger than the stock market bubble of the late 1990s and they believe it could be the biggest bubble in history.[5] Since 2001, over two-fifths off all the private sector jobs where in the housing industry[6]. This includes the construction, real estate and mortgage broking areas. It is also important to note that in other countries, they are feeling the effect of a failed housing market bubble. Japan has kept interests rates low while their housing prices fall constantly. Prices there have fallen for 14 years in a row and by 40% since the early 1990’s[7]. Germany has seen the same thing and both of these economies have been plague with lower consumer confidence. This is more proof that, in the reverse, consumer confidence will grow with a boom from an interest rate created boom in the economy. The next stage is when the pain begins.


[1] “Comment is Free” http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jeffrey_sachs/2008/03/the_roots_of_crisis.html

[2]“Another shot from Dr Feelgood; Monetary policy; Greenspan cuts rates again” The Economist (US) (June 30,2001)

[3] See footnote 5.

[4] “Saying that America’s prospects for economic recovery have improved, the Fed left interest rates unchanged at 1.75%.” The Economist (US) (Feb 2,2002)

[5] “In come the waves – The global housing boom.” The Economist (US) (June 18,2005)

[6] See footnote 8.

[7] See footnote 8.

~PCCapitalist

Congress, if your going to make us all socialists at least read the bill…

This from the Sunlight Foundation:

“Today, the Sunlight Foundation is calling on Congress to
exercise restraint and increase legislative transparency by
posting the next version of the financial bailout legislation
online for at least 72 hours before bringing the bill to a vote.

We believe all legislation should posted online for at 72 hours
before a vote to give lawmakers and citizens sufficient time to
review and debate it, and this bill is no exception.

That’s why we just created a petition  —
http://readthebillfirst.org — that urges Congress to wait at
least until 72 hours after the publication of the next version
of this bill, before moving to a vote.

The failure of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
on Monday, September 29, 2008, is a case in point. The bill was
posted online late Sunday afternoon, and voted on less than 24
hours later.

This isn’t a bill to rename a few courthouses; this bill is
Congress’s biggest intervention in the economy in decades. This
important legislation deserved more time for public scrutiny.

Please join us in our call for legislative transparency by
signing the petition at http://readthebillfirst.org”

I think this is important whether you agree with the bailout or not Congressmen should read the bill. Let’s all remember this:

“On March 5, 1933, the day after Roosevelt’s inauguration, he called a special session of Congress which instituted a mandatory four-day bank holiday. This act provided for the reopening of banks after federal inspectors had declared them to be financially secure.

The bill also gave the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to confiscate the gold of private citizens, in exchange for an equivalent amount of paper currency which was subject to later devaluation with relation to gold.

Despite the importance of the bill, it was passed in immense haste by Congress. Few, if any, Congressmen had the chance to read the bill; most were only able to hear the clerk read it. Quite a few Congressmen vocally protested the haste in which the bill was considered, but nevertheless it was passed sight unseen.”

So join us in the fight to tell the Congressmen to read the bill. Even though I am pretty sure we could give them more time to read the thing and they won’t. There is no incentive for them too. Maybe I should write my own petition to get Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. Tom Coburn to put in bills direct insults to certain members. For example, Barney Frank loves killing puppies. That way his opponent in the next election can say Barney Frank loves killing puppies he voted for it.

~PCCapitalist