Equality, justice, fairness, morality vs. liberty and faith (and a Happy Easter, or Pascha, to all)

Do you think it’s possible to achieve true equality? How about social justice? Perhaps an end to any of the litany of social ills such as racism, discrimination, persecution or whatever the intolerance may be? The answer is clearly no. Unfortunately, human beings are imperfect, always have been and always will be. Doesn’t mean we can’t strive to cure these ills though.

It would be nice if we could say that all activists amongst us were following the road of good intentions in attempting to cure what ails us, but we are imperfect, aren’t we? Take racism for example. It’s hard to believe it’s been nearly half a century since Dr. King delivered his infamous “I have a dream” speech. He referenced the Emancipation Proclamation of a hundred years prior . A century and a half of society decrying slavery and inequality based upon the mere color difference of one’s skin. How far have we come?

In some respects, we have made progress. But in others, nothing has changed. It’s a sad testament that we actually have a race industry in this country, but we do. Why? Money. The lure of one form of evil is greater than the satisfaction of defeating another. Thus we’ll continue to see the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton front and center at every opportunity to further promote divisiveness and keep racism alive and well. It’s a prosperous business.

What’s the most frustrating and disappointing point when it comes to solving societal ills? When the cure isn’t directed at the cause. Look at the current furor over same-sex marriage. It has nothing to do with “rights” and everything to do with eligibility to receive government benefits. There are gays that aspire to achieve true equality in the eyes of society. To be accepted as just another human, no less, no more. Yet those that drive the debate see to it that their cause becomes just another scheme to redistribute wealth and secure votes.

Virtually all aspects of the equality/justice movement have been hijacked. Equality has become ‘equality of outcome’. Justice is now ‘social justice’ and is based upon legal precedent rather than established, traditional law. Political correctness has trumped freedom of religion.

I raise these points to ask if it is feasible for liberty to survive amongst the push to legislate morality, equality and justice? Why? Because when the purity of the basis to solve societal ills is compromised, it must come at the expense of something else. A ‘balanced approach’ as our President likes to call things. We aren’t attempting to solve problems, only to shift blame and profit off of the debate.

If our intentions were true, liberty could surely stand and even prosper alongside the fight to fix our humanity defects. However, we don’t really want some of those “true intentions”. Equality? Do you think we really want it? What would it mean, particularly in our world based upon all things government?

Would people want equality if it meant every American paid the same income tax? Not the same rate, the same amount. Isn’t that equal and fair? One person, one tax. Depends upon where you fall on the income scale as to your view of the “fairness” of true “equality”.

Government discriminates everyday by selecting some groups of people to reward and some to punish. How about the child tax credit? It’s meant to help lower-income parents get along. Should they be rewarded for a life choice? Lifestyle choices are behavior issues. Government is rewarding a behavior by targeting one group against others. Those who elect to not have children by making that lifestyle choice don’t receive the benefit the government hands out those who do. Certainly not fair or equal.

There are an astounding number of examples one could cite in which government picks the winners and losers based upon behavior and lifestyle choices. Those who trumpet equality all day long likely would not be so inclined if they were presented with just how many life events would be affected if true equality were to be implemented.

Equality, justice, fairness, morality, etc. We can’t pick and choose when they apply. Most who promote them do so out of personal gain. To right a wrong in their life. No one can fault them for the desire to do so. So long as they realize the extent to which it really means.

American society today, along with their elected officials that represent their views, doesn’t reflect the true intentions I mentioned earlier. We have become a divided country of special interests. Sometimes they align with others strengthening their impact. However, in all instances in which the intentions aren’t true liberty pays the price.

There is a tipping point. When liberty is compromised enough at the expense of these special interests, freedom is gone and nothing short of a revolution can restore it.

Public discourse today over our rights isn’t very practical since most of the time we aren’t even debating the same thing. Tough to get a consensus opinion when we can’t even agree on the ground rules.

I read an article promoting Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights – http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp.

These are always interesting to read with detailed explanations of why traditional rights arguments fall flat and Rand’s theory succeeds. For instance, here is the intro to the article.

What are rights? Where do they come from? One’s answers to these questions determine whether one is capable of defending a free society. If one does not know the nature and source of rights, one cannot know whether rights are real or imagined. And if rights are not real, there is no foundation for freedom; governments and societies may do as they please.

The traditional answers to the above questions fall into three categories: (1) Rights are moral laws specifying what a person should be free to do, and they come from God. (2) Rights are political laws specifying what a person is free to do, and they are created by governments. (3) Rights are moral laws specifying what a person should be free to do, and they are inherent in man’s nature. But each of these theories is demonstrably false, and a person or society attempting to defend freedom on such grounds will ultimately fail—as Americans are failing today.

Essentially, Rand’s theory subscribes to the notion that anything faith-based is flawed and cannot serve as a foundation to defend rights. If rights extend under natural law or from God himself, supporters can’t prove anything so the whole premise must be thrown out according to Rand.

The article then attempts to explain why the Rand idea of “observation based morality” is superior. Therein lies the problem. I always find this problem with those who wish to defend their view based upon “observation” as opposed to opinion. Observation of reality, as some like to call it, is merely your opinion. Use the glass half-empty, glass half-full analogy for an example. Reality can have widely-varying observations amongst people. The way I see and interpret something may be entirely different than you do. Does that make a sound basis for what reality is?

I’m not trying to delve too deep here and enter the debate over just what reality is, but it is clear that humans cannot ever agree on the basis for the argument, let alone a solution. We aren’t programmable robots and our minds are capable of vastly different interpretations of the same things. Even reality is different to different people so any “observation of reality” is still nothing more than your opinion.

The point is that the Rand theory can also be easily discounted as somewhat of a faith-based theory in that you must believe that all humans are capable of the same level of observation. It is no more sound based upon Rand’s own principles than a truly faith-based belief system.

The author quoted Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich challenges anyone to identify another possible source of inalienable rights: “If you are not endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable rights where do they come from?”

Is observation superior to faith? I think not. Not to mention the fact that observation based thinking cannot account for how our little universe came to be. Wrapping your head around the concept of the really big picture is difficult enough without having to rely upon science to deliver a provable account to explain it all.

So where does that leave us on this beautiful Easter Sunday? Are you comfortable looking within for all the answers? Can you sufficiently prove your own theories as to what equality, justice, morality, fairness, liberty and faith should be not just for you, but for all? Not this guy, I can’t do it. I’ll leave it in the hands of the Almighty. Makes much more sense to me especially when taken in context of explaining what it all means.

On behalf of CBS, I’ll apologize to apologists everywhere for their non-apology

(Reuters) – U.S. TV network CBS has apologized after its Emmy-winning reality series “The Amazing Race” angered veterans with an episode featuring Vietnamese communist propaganda.

The show’s host, Phil Keoghan, apologized before the start of Sunday’s show for the March 17 episode in which participants in Hanoi were required to memorize a pro-communist song and use a downed U.S. B-52 bomber aircraft in the city as a prop.

“We want to apologize to veterans – particularly those who served in Vietnam – as well as to their families and any viewers who were offended by the broadcast,” said Keoghan, reading from a statement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/television-theamazingrace-idUSL2N0CH1QV20130325

There’s only one problem with your apology CBS. You never apologized. There’s a very simple concept in play when it comes to apologies. You must have remorse for your actions, for what you did. Merely stating that you apologize if someone was offended simply means it sucks to be you. Nowhere did CBS ever say “we were wrong” or “we shouldn’t have ever aired the episode”. They only pointed out that some viewers were offended and they feel bad about that, but not that what they did was the cause to begin with.

Very similar to the criminal that gets caught. They feel badly that they got caught but not that they committed the crime. Should they be called the Communist Broadcasting System?

Have farmers replaced big oil as the most evil according to the left?

How many times have we heard about “big oil” profiting on the backs of the taxpayers? Endlessly from the democrat party. The rub is that the tax loopholes and credits are all legal and are NOT supported by the right. At least not by conservatives and libertarians who are against special treatment for any industry.

So if the left and right are both against tax breaks why do they still exist? Because lobbyists and special interests work both sides of the fence in the beltway so it’s a political issue for public consumption while at the same time members of Congress from both sides get the perks.

Just for fun, I thought I would venture over to a leftist website to get their take on the evil oil corporations. The Center for American Progress fit the bill quite nicely with this title.

Big Oil’s Lust for Tax Loopholes
Oil Prices and Profits Rise While Big Oil Defends Its Tax Loopholes

Of course, our President weighed in on this issue.

“To help pay for [clean energy investments], I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. … I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.”

Just how much money are we talking about here in the form of tax loopholes?

The administration estimates closing these Big Oil tax loopholes would save “approximately $4 billion per year in tax subsidies to oil, gas, and other fossil fuel producers.”

$4 billion dollars a year is a whole lotta change, my friend. Heck, it would even keep the White House open for tours if we closed those loopholes. We all remember the stink raised from the N.Y. Times article demonizing G.E. for taking advantage of legal tax loopholes to save $3.2 billion. Does Obama call out G.E. the way he calls out big oil?

Now let’s venture over to another leftist website to get the take on ethanol subsidies. The left likes subsidies for “green” energy projects. A thoughtful person may ask, “why does the left despise legal tax breaks and promote legal subsidies if they both harm the taxpayer?”. Of course, the answer is political agenda. From the Huffington Post.

“Don’t Blame It on the Rain: The Ethanol Mandate Is a Bad Idea in Any Year”

The annual ethanol mandate subsidizing farmers totals about $6 billion dollars. That’s a lot of money to pay farmers to burn our food supply. Wait a minute, in fact it’s MORE money than the evil oil companies received in tax breaks last year. Who woulda thunk it?

Now, the author at the HuffPo doesn’t seem to like these handouts to the farmers.

“Our government should not be picking big agriculture as winners over the environment and the poor. It’s time to stop requiring cars to burn food.”

Seems to make sense. Of course, government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers in industry. Like bailing out auto companies. But more to the point, if subsidizing farmers is bad, then why does the USDA do this? http://www.abc12.com/story/21770265/record-crop-insurance-payout-stirs-subsidy-debate

Farmers will be paid a record $16 billion in crop insurance claims for 2012 because of the widespread drought, a staggering amount that has critics calling for changes to what they say is an inefficient taxpayer subsidy the government cannot afford.

While farmers buy crop insurance from private companies, the federal government subsidizes their premiums and picks up the tab for losses over a certain amount. One analyst estimates the federal tab for 2012 will come to about $11 billion.

Whoa! Stop the presses! $11 billion dollars in insurance subsidies? On the backs of the taxpayers? So let’s see here, $4 billion in evil oil company tax breaks, $6 billion in ethanol subsidies and $11 billion in farmer’s insurance losses? How many people do you think even realize that taxpayers forked over that much to the farmers? Are farmers now the most evil group on the planet? After all, the left is calling for an end to everything Bush. Bush era tax breaks for big oil. Bush era subsidies for ethanol. Should it now be Bush era insurance payouts to farmers?

By my calculations, farmers received $17 billion last year between ethanol and insurance subsidies far outweighing the paltry $4 billion for big oil. Of course, we hate big oil because we all have to drive cars and they raid our wallets with their price fixing of gasoline prices, right?

Well, don’t we all have to eat? Why don’t we despise our farmers for raising food prices at the same time they are getting massive bailouts from taxpayers? Do we only hate things we can blame on Bush?

The answer is to end all subsidies and tax breaks for all industries. Bailouts as well. No special treatment. Now, that’s never going to happen since politicians from both sides love their power trip and getting their palms greased by lobbyists. But that won’t stop all of them from “fighting on your behalf” in the hallowed halls of Congress.

Obama finally sets foot in Israel – a scheduling error or just part of the agenda?

My, where has the time gone? President Obama has finally set foot in Israel, in what is purported to be our best ally in the Middle East. He couldn’t find the time during his entire first-term in office. Or perhaps it was a matter of priorities? So what has changed?

The Palestinian Authority’s pending new unity government including Fatah and Hamas. It’s no coincidence that Obama finally shows up at this critical time in the process. The trip is to accomplish a multitude of things but a couple that stand out relate to funding the Palestine Authority.

U.S. law prevents funding terrorist organizations, so a central theme of the Obama trip is to legitimize the unity government agreement between Fatah and Hamas. Defenders have denied for years that Palestine funding intended to support humanitarian actions and infrastructure support for the West Bank, controlled by Fatah, ever makes it to Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Clearly with the new unity government set to take over, that denial will no longer be possible.

To satisfy Congress, Obama had to make the trip to show his involvement and oversight if you will as to the “new” leaf turned over by Hamas. The trip has already paid dividends as nearly half a billion dollars in U.S. aid was released recently. A State Dept. briefing yesterday confirmed this.

To date, we have moved $295.7 million in Fiscal Year 2012 money, 200 million of that – see, this – numbers don’t – oh, and 200 million in Fiscal Year 2013 assistance. So breaking that down again, 200 million in FY2013 ESF money was direct budget support for the Palestinian Authority; 195.7 million in FY12 Economic Support money went for development and humanitarian assistance implemented by USAID; 100 million in FY2012 for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; and then in February – at the end of February we notified Congress about another 200 million that we’d like to move.

Obama had to journey to Israel despite his obvious disdain for having to bite the bullet and do so. After all, what else would one expect from a muslim? But, he had to do it as Israel controls the taxes and tariffs collected by goods passing through Israel into Palestine. They regular withhold these as a form of economic sanctions.

The $107.31 million Israel released is only a one-time reprieve however. Arab nations have a supposed “safety net” in place to subsidize the Palestine Authority budget whenever Israel withholds the tax/tariffs, yet they haven’t come through as promised.

Obama was well-prepared in advance for the trip. He met with a multitude of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas groups prior to leaving and had his marching orders in hand – http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-meets-with-anti-israel-pro-hamas-groups-before-trip-to-israel/.

Obama has quite a bit on his plate when you consider all that he needs to accomplish at the same time. He needs to maximize the public pain inflicted back home in America from the relatively miniscule sequester cuts. He also had to take the pain himself and visit Israel to pay lip service to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. And he had to play referee at the Palestine unity government negotiations (along with financier Qatar I might add) to insure that U.S. aid keeps flowing despite the law in place to prevent it.

Funding Hamas with the approval of Congress and Israel at the same time? Well done. Funding Hamas at the same time sequester is bringing government to a halt back home? Well done. Funding Hamas while sequester stops White House tours and starves the staff of Debbie Wasserman Schultz while Biden toughs it out in Paris with a half-million dollar price tag? Wow, really well done Mr. President.

Nobody ever said fundamentally changing America while promoting a global Islamic Caliphate would be easy, did they? So far, Obama has shown himself to be up to the challenge.

State tax rankings

The Tax Foundation has released their 2013 rankings for comparing states by their tax burdens. Read the entire report here – http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ff2013.pdf

Here are some highlights.

Tax Freedom Day.

Tax Freedom Day represents how long Americans must work
into the year before they have earned enough money to pay all
federal, state, and local taxes for the year.

Ranked best was Tennessee followed by Louisiana and Mississippi. Worst was Conneticut followed by New Jersey.

The state business tax climate rankings.

Best was Wyoming followed by South Dakota. Worst was New York followed by New Jersey.

The report is chock full of information useful for making comparisons, particularly if one is considering relocating. Just breezing through it makes a flat tax look fantastic.

Friedman’s spoons stirring the fiat money soup

I came across two things today while surfing the internet that would seem to have no logical connection to one another, yet that are strangely linked. A quote from the famous economist Milton Friedman and a fiat money scheme called Bitcoin that is making news in Europe due to the Cyprus banking crisis. Friedman and fiat money aren’t generally associated with one another.

First, I read another article referencing the jobs works program with spoons story that always gets falsely attributed to Milton Friedman. Falsely in that it wasn’t his original idea, he was merely reinterpreting it. You can always find stories on the internet that generally reference either George Will or Stephen Moore talking about the Friedman quote. More on that in a minute.

Second, I was reading today’s blog post from a good friend of Spellchek, the Asylum Watch. You’ll need to go there and read his post to get the basis for this post as he covers the Bitcoin story.

Here is the George Will version of the Milton Friedman spoons story.

The one idea that we seem to have dropped, happily so — remember the phrase was “shovel-ready”? We were going to create government jobs.

It put me in mind of a great story Milton Friedman used to tell. He went to Asia in the 1960s and was proudly taken by the government to see a public works project. They were building a canal. He was struck everyone was digging the canal with shovels. Friedman says, why no heavy earth-moving equipment?

They said, oh, this is a jobs program. So Friedman says, why don’t you give them spoons instead of shovels? I think we understand, now, the sterility of government trying to create jobs.

Now, my intent here is not to posthumously knock Milton Friedman for not originating the spoons story. In fact, you can’t find a direct quote anywhere from him, only the retelling of his story by others, so maybe Friedman gave credit for it that wasn’t retold. Regardless, the originator of the quote was William Aberhart, a politician from the Social Credit party of Alberta, Canada. Here is his quote.

On September 13, 1935 William Aberhart gave a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto. He recounted an anecdote in which he delivered a version of the saying: 4

One of the school graduates came to me to pay his respects to the school; he told me he was in charge of helping on one of the Dominion air ports. I said to him, “I suppose you use modern machinery in your air ports?”
“No, sir.”
“Why?”
“Well,” he said, “if we used modern machinery in the establishment of air ports there would be very little need of men to help us to do it, for they would do it so rapidly and easily that there would be no need of man labour. We give them picks and shovels and put them out to do it in the old-fashioned way.”
I smiled and said to him: “It would probably be just as well to give them spoons and forks; it would take them still longer to do it.” It seemed to me so ridiculous; we let modern machinery rust at the road side or air port and make those men bend their backs in order to give them the purchasing power to buy the necessities of life, and hardly that.

As you can see, the spoons story has been around for some time. It’s just strange that an iconic quote attributed to Friedman actually came from a fiat money redistributor like Aberhart. There are other versions circulating as well – http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/10/spoons-shovels/#more-2826.

What was strange was the tie-in between the social credit origins of the spoons story to this new Bitcoin money scheme. If you haven’t ever heard of
social credit before, it is essentially a philosophy to equalize production with consumption. I’ll quote Gary North to explain it.

The Social Credit movement began in 1917. The fundamental
idea of Social Credit is that capitalism suffers from a major
flaw: it does not create sufficient bank credit to allow consumers
to buy the entire output of industry.

North wrote an entire book on social credit theory that will explain why it, along with the variations of it we still see today, won’t work.

Admittedly, this is some pretty “dry” stuff to read. However, the point is that we always see new variations of fiat money schemes. Anything that eliminates fractional reserve banking certainly sounds good on the surface and you’ll easily get followers to take notice if there is a way around it.

As North also pointed out in his book.

As the reader will see, I regard the real-bills doctrine as
erroneous and fractional reserve banking as immoral: legalized
counterfeiting. Thus, I am also opposed to Social Credit economics
and all of its inflationary first-cousins.

Any fiat money system that is inflationary can be traced back to social credit style theory. John Maynard Keynes bought into it. Certainly, Obama buys into it as do all supporters of economic activity through artificial manipulation. The stimulus spending for example. In fact, if you’re really bored, here is a link to the platform of the Alberta Social Credit League. It’s a bit scary to see how much of what our government is doing today to our economy is directly out of this platform. Good socialist ideas never die, they just resurface over time.

Now wait, you say, Bitcoin is actually a deflationary system. It begins as inflationary and then later deflates. There simply isn’t space here in a blog post to rationalize monetary systems. North’s book on social credit is over 300 pages alone. Just suffice it to say we need, as Ron Paul always says, honest money. No manipulation. Anything else leaves the door open for the common man to get fleeced.

At any rate, I found it a little wierd to see Friedman indirectly connected to a fiat money scheme.

Can inducing a stroke be the cure for liberalism?

Liberalism is a disease. It is an affliction that doesn’t happen by chance, it is the direct result of indoctrination via academia or some other external influence, generally in our youth. The good news is that much like some physical diseases such as asthma, we can simply outgrow it as we age. Thus we tend to see many younger liberals finally see the light and convert to conservatism later in life. Unfortunately, the bad news is that irreparable damage may have already occurred to our rights and the American way of life along the way.

I ask the question in the title of this post not out of curiosity for I have actually witnessed this phenomenon. Yes, it’s true! Well, sort of.

What I witnessed was not an induced stroke. It was a stroke that happened to a brother-in-law of mine due to years of heavy drug use. So in a way, it was induced, just not proactively as a cure for liberalism.

However, that’s just what the result seems to have been. My brother-in-law, let’s call him Lefty for purposes of this story, was a died-in-the-wool democrat for the many years I have known him. A union worker in the sheet metal trades, he was also a union steward. Lefty fit the standard description of a liberal democrat.

His American made cars always had some sort of barrage of bumper stickers promoting “buy union” or “buy American” alongside whatever democrat candidates were running for office. Of course, he’s been an advocate of all things Obama and refuses to watch Fox News. Needless to say, politics were avoided at all family functions as much as possible in order to avoid resurrecting the Hatfield-McCoy type of family division.

We also had to stick to the standard Ford-Chevy battles we here in the midwest have had ingrained in us for many a decade. Should you try to convince Lefty that the most American made car you can buy is a Toyota, he would launch into a tirade that I’m surprised never induced a stroke on the spot.

At any rate, Lefty suffered a heart attack some years ago that left his heart functioning at only 15% of its capacity. I didn’t believe anyone could survive such an event, but he did. He never worked again as he never fully recovered and remains today on long-term disability. Fortunately for Lefty, the union benefits package is substantial and he has managed to get along OK with relatively inexpensive drug costs and the like.

Some in the family speculate that Lefty returned to dabbling in drug use. To this day, I still don’t know if this is true, however, he had a stroke some 6 months ago which really surprised everyone as we thought he had put all of his health issues behind him.

This brings us to the amazing transformation. Lefty has recovered for the most part from the stroke. The doctors tell us it’s an on-going process due to the fact that he is rewiring his brain. He actually has an improved long-term memory now recalling things he had long forgotten. His short-term memory is not good at all. He has some problems with his peripheral vision but just last week was able to pass the test and resume driving.

By far the most astonishing change has been his politics. He is no longer a liberal. He’s like a little kid that just discovered some secret that no one else knows and can’t wait to tell everyone. Gone are all the bumper stickers. Now, he’ll never drive a Toyota, but that’s OK by me. We can now discuss such a wide variety of topics that were always off-limits before. He hasn’t seen the light on everything yet, but he’s well on his way.

Scientists tell us that the right part of the brain controls speech and emotions and the left side controls movement and logic. Clearly, that doesn’t equate to politics as the left is all based upon emotion and the right utilizes critical thinking. However, in the case of Lefty, the evidence shows that the brain can actually rewire itself and correct this small oversight the Good Lord apparently never saw coming.

Now, I would never want the liability to suggest that we should encourage all liberals to head down to their local pharmacy and see if they can purchase just such an inducement drug, but if they should happen to take it upon themselves to do so…well, you get the idea. Hey, you never know, it may even be covered under Obamacare!

Sen. Lindsey Graham, you met with the Benghazi survivors? Why won’t YOU tell us who they are?

Via Newsmax – http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/graham-benghazi-survivors/2013/03/15/id/494949

Sen. Lindsey Graham charged on Friday that survivors of the Benghazi attack have been “told to be quiet” and feel that they cannot come forward to tell what happen in the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. consulate that killed four Americans.

“The bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth,” the South Carolina Republican told Fox News, “They’ve been told to be quiet.

“We cannot let this administration or any other administration get away with hiding from the American people and Congress — people who were there in real time to tell the story,” Graham said.

Sen. Graham, the survivors may have been told to be quiet, but has anyone told you to do the same? Why won’t you name the survivors you’ve met with? Could it be that the Benghazi investigative committees haven’t revealed the other agencies involved such as the CIA or NSA? Or could it be worse? Foreign nationals or even the CIA detainees suspected to have been held there and perhaps the reason for the attacks?

The only rational explanation one can draw from the White House issuing the gag order for the survivors is that even revealing their identity and organization associated with would be damaging to either the administration or the U.S. in general. They could simply order them not to give the press any details whatsoever and control any interviews. It seems that’s inadequate so it must be their very identities that need to be concealed.

Makes one wonder why Sen. Graham would be pushing for a public pressure campaign to get the State Dept. to name names rather than just do it himself.

Democrat and Republican leaders agree we do not have a debt crisis

“We don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt,” President Obama said in an exclusive interview with George Stephanopoulos for “Good Morning America.” “In fact, for the next 10 years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place.” – http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/president-obama-no-debt-crisis-135407566–abc-news-topstories.html

“We do not have an immediate debt crisis,” the Ohio Republican said on ABC’s “This Week.” – John Boehner

“We do not have a debt issue right now, but we see it coming. So let’s get ahead of this crisis,” the Wisconsin congressman told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” – Paul Ryan – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/17/boehner-ryan-us-has-no-imminent-debt-crisis-but-argue-issue-must-be-fixed-now/

“We are not having a debt crisis.” – Paul Krugman – http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/opinion/krugman-the-gops-existential-crisis.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&

“You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” – Dick Cheney – http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm

These quotes serve to illustrate our one-party system of government in America. Conservatives and libertarians had better get used to it as they are not part of the establishment leadership of the GOP. That outlook is expected from the democrats and their leading economist, but when the GOP stands down on the debt as it seems to on all important issues, it’s only natural to conclude that they are one and the same.

That’s a tough pill to swallow for many on the right. They point to Paul Ryan and his budget proposals that spend trillions less than their democrat counterparts. True enough, however, none of the Ryan budget proposals shrink the size of government. They slow the growth rate, but not the size nor do they address actually reducing the debt. We’re only talking about reducing annual deficits that continue to grow the debt.

So why are they all wrong? Why do have a debt crisis today? Simple, because our only opportunity to pro-actively deal with the debt is now. Once the Fed is forced to raise interest rates (when, not if) the debt service costs will eliminate any chance of being in control of managing the debt. The time for action is now, not when it’s too late.

There are other factors as well. The currency war currently underway has unpredictable outcomes. The U.S. dollar has always had an arrogant attitude toward its place as the world’s reserve currency. To think that will never change is naive. As is the assumption that the largest holders of our debt, China and Japan, will always keep rolling their bonds over rather than calling them in one day.

You really don’t have to get into a long diatribe about monetary and fiscal policy to understand a basic premise. If the Federal Reserve continues to artificially manipulate interest rates and buy multiple billions of bond debt each month, it won’t end well. Those policies have consequences and they may be delayed in their effects, but those effects are unavoidable.

There are a number of analogies one could make concerning debt and why it’s a crisis now. For example, if you were diagnosed with pre-diabetes, would you wait until the onset of full-blown diabetes to deal with it? Would you change your diet and lifestyle habits right now to prevent it? Exactly.