Matt Falconer versus Steve Precourt Florida House District 44

When word Matthew Falconer was about to announce his candidacy for State Representatives it sent shockwaves throughout the establishment in Tallahassee.
It has been reported Falconer’s likely opponent, Steve Precourt, leaked the news to Florida Speaker Dean Cannon who abruptly terminated Matthew Falconer’s appointment on the State’s Government Efficiency Task Force.
Cannon’s office released a statement saying he “did not want the appointment to be used for political purposes.” Matthew Falconer was placed on the task force because of his passion for reform and his ideas.
A day later Falconer received a call from the incoming Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford which is amazing given how busy the Speaker is during the last weeks of session. The Speaker politely let Falconer know he and leadership will be “supporting” Precourt.
The Speaker “controls” the “Florida Leadership Fund” which will have an estimated $15 million to spend supporting candidates of their choice. Precourt will have basically unlimited funds raised from special interests. And the average person can only donate $500 to any statewide campaign.
Another State Representative e-mailed Falconer suggesting he not run and reminded him Precourt will have access to “vast sums of money.”

Florida House Representative Steve Precourt supports billion dollar projects the Florida tax payers do not need, cannot afford, and do not want

The question is why are the most powerful people in Florida worried about a single candidate for a state house seat?
The answer is power. The “establishment” does not want to lose their grip on power in Florida.
Falconer has a rock solid conservative record and strong support amongst conservatives in central Florida. His plan is to restore faith in government through ethics reforms, a plan that calls to eliminate leadership funds.
These funds collects millions of dollars from special interests who benefit from government spending. In Falconer’s announcement speech he stated; “the reason we build bridges to nowhere and government rail systems no one will use is because an army of special interests profit from them; lawyers, lobbyists, engineers, and government contractors.”
And he is right.
The establishment in Tallassee does not want things to change. They do not want a reformer even if the public desperately wants reform.
Steve Precourt may be a terrific gentleman but he is part of the problem. He gets almost all of his campaign money from special interests. And he made/makes his living as an engineer designing government rail systems.
How dependent on construction industry contributions is Precourt?

The Florida's constriction industry earnings are down 47%, five plus years of decline

Precourt was a principal in the civil engineering firm DRMP, Inc. or Dryer, Riddle, Mills, & Precourt, a firm with a well establish record of service and value for the dollar. Capitalism build America and Precourt should be proud of his contributions to DRMP.
Looking back on a partial list of the 2006 contributions, at the height of the housing boom, Precourt received an astonishing 34% of his contributions from the industry and individuals working in the industry. This is more significant than the 34% number because any serious candidate will receive contributions from major industries just because they are a serious candidate.
It would be safe to say the civil engineering, construction, land development industry strongly supports Precourt. In normal economic times this would be perfectly acceptable. Today with massive inflation beginning, corruption, and economic desperation in the construction industry we do not need politicians trying to score one huge contract, usually billions of dollars for rail projects, for their special interest group of friends.
Frantic and worried politicians do not make good policy decisions. In 2011 Precourt has raised approximately $105,000.00 with much more expected.
The 2006 contributors to Precourt reads like a who’s who in the civil engineering and construction industry. Metha, AAGAARD, Ardaman, Boyer-Singleton, C. T. Hsu, Capri, Castle & Cooke, CH2M, Dewitt, and prominent individuals in the industry such as Ernie Cox of Ardaman & Associates. Since 2006 Precourt’s contribution list has expanded considerably to other special interest but the strong ties to the construction industry are plain to see in public records.
This is very important for voters to understand and see the potential catastrophe that can happen if a politician beholden to an industry decimated and desperate for any and all public works projects. Some construction projects may be needed and desired but others, such as the billion dollar rail projects, may be so expensive they saddle taxpayers with unneeded and unnecessary higher taxes for decades.
Desperation does not make good public policy.
Simply put we do not want distracted people in the legislature. We do not want a legislature representative whose overwhelming support comes from an industry that is frantically trying to influence, by any means necessary, projects that may or may not be needed by the public.
How desperate is the Florida construction industry?

The Florida Gross Domestic Product is still down 1.6% from 2007

In April 2006 the Florida construction industry made $42,029 (millions) and today $22,335, a drop of 47%. Earnings have dropped for five plus years with not one single quarter of increased revenues. That is an industry that is desperate and that is the industry Steve Precourt represents.
Everyone in the industry has been hurt. Everyone in Florida is affected by the industry and sympathizes with the industry, but we do not need huge government works projects that will waste resources in these desperate times just because we feel sympathy towards an industry.
The federal government can print money through the Federal Reserve to fund whatever they desire. Florida cannot.
The time has come to end the culture of corruption and put real citizen candidates in office. The days of the special interest candidates need to end and the days of citizen candidates are just beginning. The voters are waking up and in this race the choice is clear.
Full disclosure, I have worked as an unpaid volunteer for Matt Falconer’s 2010 Orange County Mayor’s contest. I have never received any financial compensation from any political candidate.

CBO Whistle Blower Lan T. Pham Exposes Mortgage Fraud

Portions of this appeared in Zero Hedge on 3-15-2012.
Lan T. Pham, who, as the WSJ described in early February, “alleges she was terminated [by the CBO] after 2½ months for sharing pessimistic outlooks for the banking and housing sectors in 2010″ and who “alleges supervisors stifled opinions that contradicted economic fixes endorsed by some on Wall Street, including research from a Morgan Stanley economist who served as a CBO adviser. As part of the review, Sen. Grassley’s staff is examining whether Wall Street firms or others exert influence that compromises the office’s independence.” As we observed in February, “what is most troubling is if indeed the CBO is nothing but merely another front for Wall Street to work its propaganda magic on the administration. Because at the core of every policy are numbers, usually with dollar signs in front of them, numbers which have to make sense and have to be projected into the future, no matter how grossly laughable the resultant hockeystick.”
“I realized that the true nature of the issues would not come out. Therefore, I am making public the letter that I wrote to Senator Grassley (Feb. 23, 2011) regarding circumstances that led to my firing after 2.5 months by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), particularly my writing about mortgage fraud and its roots in mortgage securitization that CBO sought to deny was a problem.

For clarification, the WSJ did not give proper recognition to some individuals. My “supervisors” was Dr. Deborah Lucas, who was CBO chief economist and assistant director, and is currently tenured professor of finance and economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). MIT Professor Lucas was called by the President to serve in a leadership role at CBO. Morgan Stanley economist and CBO advisor, is the Vice President of Economics Research at Morgan Stanley, Richard “Dick” Berner, whose policy framework for refinancing stimulus was to be incorporated into my writing. Dr. Lucas also shared with me analyses from Goldman Sachs, also on the CBO’s distinguish panel of economic advisors, on the housing market such as the banks’ limited risks on mortgage buy-backs.
As a Congressional senior staffer, financial economist, my initial responsibilities were to write a brief (paper) to Congress on the state of the foreclosure crisis and the alternative policy options, as well as cover banking and housing. Almost to the exclusion of other policy options, CBO Assistant Director Lucas and senior management worked around Morgan Stanley’s policy framework and related ideas to present to Congress as the policy choice (One would be correct to point out that CBO does not make policy). Below are excerpts from my letter to Senator Grassley:

I was repeatedly pressured by the CBO Assistant Director, Deborah Lucas… to not write nor discuss issues in the banking sector and mortgage markets that might suggest weakness in these sectors and their consequences on the economy and households…”
When I wrote about the emerging foreclosure problems in September 2010, CBO Chief Economist Lucas maintained that robo-signing was media “sensationalism,” “the kind of event of the moment where we should be adding skepticism, not just repeating the hype in the press”; CBO wrote that my writing about it “lacks judgment about what is important.” Exploring this further in the letter,
…Issues at the heart of the foreclosure problems pertain to securitization….and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), which purports to have legal standing on electronic records of ownership on about 65 million…mortgages… MERS…facilitated Wall Street’s ability to expedite the pooling of subprime mortgages into MBSs by bypassing standard ownership transfer procedures as the housing bubble escalated…
The implications have profound financial and economic consequences that would be of compelling interest to Congress and the public, but the CBO sought to silence a discussion of such risks, that in reality have been materializing. These risks put into question the ability of investors or bondholders to make claims on the collateral (the homes) that underlies trillions of dollars in MBSs, the bulk of which are now guaranteed by …Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This affects $10 trillion in residential mortgage debt outstanding, of which $7 trillion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs)…
…
The CBO dismissing such issues prevents an analysis of the risks, so that the public may be forced again to shoulder the consequences for which they have not been a given a voice or a choice.
A month later after being told by CBO Chief Economist Lucas to not repeat this media hype, Georgetown University Law Professor Adam Levitin, Special Counsel to the Congressional Oversight Panel and scholar at the American Bankruptcy Institute, raised essentially the same issues in his testimony before the House Financial Services Committee:
“The chain of title problems are highly technical issues, but they pose a potential systemic risk to the US economy. If mortgages were not properly transferred in the securitization process, then mortgage-backed securities would in fact not be backed by any mortgages whatsoever….
These problems are very serious. At best they present problems of fraud on the court, clouded title to properties coming out of foreclosure, and delay in foreclosures that will increase the shadow housing inventory and drive down home prices. At worst, they represent a systemic risk that would bring the US financial system back to the dark days of the fall of 2008.”
In response to the WSJ story, Director Elmendorf issued a public statement maintaining the integrity of CBO’s work, an excerpt which reads:
“…We have the utmost confidence in the objectivity of our work and devote considerable time and energy to explaining the basis of our findings as clearly as we can to help Members of Congress understand the work that we do.” (Bolded emphasis is CBO Director Elmendorf’s)
In early November 2010, a stunning example was CBO Director Elmendorf’s, a Harvard Ph.D. economist, view that employment growth in housing construction would spur economic growth, in his discussion of inputs into CBO’s macroeconomic forecast model. A question about the assumption was met with Director Elmendorf asking why they were “pessimistic” about such assumptions.
After my termination, Director Elmendorf stated that I should have followed directions from the more knowledgeable and experienced Chief Economist Lucas, taken the opportunity to learn from her. Director Elmendorf saw no ethical issues in her direction, but shifted to perhaps we had a difference of professional opinion. As I understand, Director Elmendorf and MIT Professor Lucas first claimed to Senator Grassley’s office that they could not speak about my termination due to personnel privacy protections, when none exists for Congressional employees. When given full immunity to speak freely to Senator Grassley’s office regarding my termination, they refused to speak.
It has been suggested to not mention these things in polite conversation, but I admit there were oddities following CBO’s termination. After CBO fired me at the end of the day saying “we do not know whether or what you know about economics, economic theory or finance,” I returned to my office to make a phone call. Everyone had left, but there was a silhouette of a man standing in the dark in an office across the courtyard watching me during the 15-20 minute phone call. Later, I came home to find some papers had been moved and could no longer find some important documents pertaining to this case. I attempted to retrieve these documents from my office at CBO, but the power to my office was shut down precisely as the documents from my computer were about to be e-mailed to me; the entire floor and building were unaffected. At about 3 a.m. during a week day, there was sudden a loud crash into my front door followed by complete silence. Perhaps it was just a complimentary early wake-up call.
The truth is still what it is.
As I have come to learn, the issue of foreclosure fraud ‘robo-signing’ seems to be spoken in hushed tones near the powers of Washington D.C. CBO has the ear of Congress and can make or break policies that affect the nation with its analyses.
Who is the CBO serving?
Lan T. Pham, Ph.D.

Town Hall Meeting with Florida District 24 Congresswoman Sandy Adams

Florida Congressional District 24 Congresswoman Sandy Adams
Another year and another Congressional Town Hall meeting. My current congressperson is first termer Sandy Adams from Seminole County, Florida. Her claim to fame is giving US Attorney General Eric Holder the toughest questions in the infamous fast and furious scandal. As a ex -cop she is excellent at interrogations.
Her degree and background is in criminal justice so I do not hold it against her when during town hall meetings she draws a blank when the inevitable economic questions arise. She no doubt has economists on her staff but most likely if they are Keynesians or monetarist they are useless on anything but the micro level. Economics taught in college textbooks is mostly useless go big government, go Federal Reserve bull crap feed to the public to ensure future leaders think the answer to every economic problem involves printing more money.
Still…
I like Congresswomen Adams more than “Choo Choo” train, 10 term Congressman Mica.
Because of redistricting the two will face each other in the Republican Primary this August.
Adams is the “Tea Party” candidate even though she voted for the $2.4 trillion debt ceiling increase August 5, 2011. Mica by contrast is, in my humble opinion, corrupt as they come supporting his special interest colossal waste of money billion dollar train Central Florida does not need. Adams is a strait talker and would turn someone who attempted to bribe her into the authorities in a New York minute. Give me the ex-cop over Mr. Corruption, thank you.

Florida District 7 Congressman John Mica will face Adams in the Republican Primary in 2012 due to redistricting. Mica is a big special interest congressman.

Anyway back to the Town Hall meeting…
Congressmen and women, Adams is no exception, field the countless bulk of questions about economics, and inevitably they end up looking clumsy, because for most of them this is a strange subjects full of half truths, fairy tales, and propaganda.
So if I may be so bold here are some economic truths that cut through the fairy tales, propaganda, and myths.
For example one gentleman asked her about the GINI coefficient. Of course she was stumped.
The GINI coefficient is something taught in Development Economics in junior or senior level economics. It was an unfair question for her, she should have let me answer the gentleman, or one of her staff members.
So what is a GINI coefficient?
This index measures the degree of inequality in the distribution of family income in a country. The index is calculated from the Lorenz curve, in which cumulative family income is plotted against the number of families arranged from the poorest to the richest.
The index is the ratio of
(a) the area between a country’s Lorenz curve and the 45 degree helping line to
(b) the entire triangular area under the 45 degree line. The more nearly equal a country’s income distribution, the closer its Lorenz curve to the 45 degree line and the lower its Gini index, e.g., a Scandinavian country with an index of 25. The more unequal a country’s income distribution, the farther its Lorenz curve from the 45 degree line and the higher its Gini index, e.g., a Sub-Saharan country with an index of 50. If income were distributed with perfect equality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the 45 degree line and the index would be zero; if income were distributed with perfect inequality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the horizontal axis and the right vertical axis and the index would be 100.

This is the economic graph both Republicans and Democrats need to understand, it should be called "monetizing the debt" but the official name is "U.S. Treasury securities held by the Federal Reserve: All Maturities (TREAST)."

Got it?
No?
Well neither did Adams.
Who would with the exception of an economist?
The gentleman indicated that the United States ranks 41 (40th according to the CIA World Fact Book) and that this was somewhat bad because the USA was ranked around countries like Mozambique, Jamaica, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Iran, Cambodia, and ekes Uganda. The implication being that civilized countries like Sweden and Norway have “low” GINI coefficient numbers of 0.23 and 0.25.
What the gentleman fails to mention is that the median purchasing power parity in “social justice” high tax countries of the European Union, Italy, Spain, England, France, and Germany, countries similar to the United States in population and ethnic diversity, is $33,900 compared to $48,100. The United States citizens make a whooping 35% more! Give me more inequality please, thank you.
The poverty rate is 15.1% in the USA, which in 2008 was 13.2%, compared to the 15.1% average in the five EU countries listed above.
So what is gained by having a “good” GINI coefficient if poverty is not reduced?
Your guess is as good as mine.

Florida will have new congressional districts for 2012

The GINI coefficient number is also describing a symptom, not the problem. Wealth inequality is created by several factors but the three biggest are:
1. The Federal Reserve. Simply put by creating inflation as a policy goal those that control the means of production can instantaneously increase their prices while working class people get a raise once a year. The reason JP Morgan (Republican) and John D. Rockefeller (Democrat) wanted a central bank was to pay workers in “soft” money, pay back loans in “soft” money that was worth less over time, and not suffer the continuous deflationary competitive market forces that hard money (gold) forces upon the marketplace. Companies constantly have to strive to cut cost, or lose market-share in a deflationary economic environment.
The answer would be to eliminate the Federal Reserve and go back to private money and 100% fractional reserve banking, but I am not holding my breath Congresswoman Adams will adopt that position anytime soon.
2. Taxes and specifically transfer payments, which hurt the poor disproportionately. In 1960 Social Security as a percent of the GDP was 2.8%, in 2010 it was 6%. In 1960 the federal, state, and local government consumed 26.2% of the GDP, today 45%. Simply put we have a larger government burden to pay for and the poor pay for this through lower wages, less benefits, and finally loss of employment.
3. Unregulated immigration. In 1970 only 4.7% of the population was foreign born, today 12.4%. Most of the immigrants compete for blue-collar jobs, lowering wage cost for the capital users, contributing to the spread between white-collar wages and blue-collar wages since 1970.
Politically incorrect subject matter not likely to be discussed during the campaign.

Representative Adams, Geneva, Florida 3-12-2012

So can Representative Adams be excused for not quite up on the intricacies of economic theory?
I give her a pass.
Another economic puzzler, is lowering the tax rate on the “rich” good for the economy?
Absolutely yes!
Democrats and Keynesians falsely believe that if you take money from a rich man and give it to the poor man the economy will be better off because the poor man has a greater marginal propensity to consume. In other words he will spend most, if not all, of the money.
What this fails to take into account is that the rich man does not put his money under the mattress. The rich man will;
1. Save the money in the bank and generate interest. In this case the money is being used by bankers to make loans, creating jobs for America.
2. Investing the money in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other financial vehicles. All these options create capital for economic growth whereas giving the money to government, then giving it to the poor man increases consumption, but will not improve the economy in the long run. Only savings and investment creates improved economic performance in the foreseeable future.
3. If the rich man decides to spend his money the money will enter the economy, and he will pay taxes on the money, just like the poor man with the exception that the government does not get a percent of the money as a redistribution tax.
The final economic puzzler, does increasing taxes increase revenue?
No absolutely not above 30%.
Fewer taxes are collected with a tax rate over 30%. The proof is right there in the Historical White House Budget Tables from the Office of Management and Budget combined with the Historical Top Tax Rates. Next time someone ask if increasing taxes will raise revenue the answer should be a resounding NO! And use the White House tax collection data since WWII to prove the point.
The Reagan economist Arthur Laffer looked at the historic top tax rate and actual taxes collected and came up with his famous Laffer Curve.
Simply put the top tax rate should be 25% or less. From 25% to 30% more taxes are collected, but with the result being slower economic growth. Over 30% corporations and individuals avoid the tax by engaging in tax avoidance behavior such as practiced by Warren Buffett or Mitt Romney getting paid with capital gains and not the higher taxable income. Simply put when you own the store you can pay yourself $1 a year and $1,000,000 in capital gains.

The best solution is a Fair Tax or Flat Tax.
Both are the same. Both eliminate double taxation, corporate taxes, dividend taxes, capital gains taxes; they simply come from different collection points.
Corporate taxes are counterproductive because they come from consumers, dividends, profits, wages, benefits, research and development.
Dividend taxes are double taxation. The IRS should get one chance to tax income, not two, three, or four times like today’s tax code.
Capital gains taxes are the most economically backward tax on the books. Why on earth would you want to tax someone for taking a risk and investing into the economy? As long as the activity is promoting job creation and growth it should be encouraged, not punished.
Taxes should not punish behavior we want as a society.
Finally every congressperson should know that inflation comes from the Federal Reserve printing money.
Since Obama was inaugurated the federal debt held by the Federal Reserve has increased 238%. The Federal Reserve now owns 11% of the national debt, or $1.6635 trillion. You do not have to be an economist to understand creating money out of thin air and buying your own debt is extremely inflationary.
In a way I feel bad for Congressmen and women giving town hall meetings, fielding questions which they have no background whatsoever. It would be as if I had to teach a law class, I would fake it, read a large amount of power points, and pray there were no law scholars in the audience who could cut me up into pieces if they so desired. So for my beloved congresswoman I certainly do understand why she does not know what a GINI coefficient is.

The Implications of the Greek Bail Out Explained in Simple Terms

Greek Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos
Portions of the following appeared in The Future Tense on 3-10-2012.
It seems like months and months and months have gone by with headlines proclaiming a new Greek bailout and the world is saved. Month after month all is good, unemployment down, economy growing, hope, change, green shoots.
But what is the real story that they are hiding?
Greece is a tiny spec in terms of the global economy. It is even a minute spec in terms of the European economy. The issue at hand here in these endless hours of Greece bailout negotiations is not regarding the quantity of money needed to keep Greece alive;
It is the terms of the deal that will then be used as a precedent for every domino down the line in the coming European bailouts.
That is why policy makers are walking on eggshells. A mistake with this Greece/”Bear Stearns” bailout may set the stage for the Portugal/”Lehman” moment that is right around corner.
Right now Greece is bankrupt. On March 20, they have bonds that will need to be rolled over, which they cannot finance. Without the bailout that took place on March 9, 2012, that roll over would not have happened and a Greek default would begin on March 21.
The financial leaders around the world desperately do not want a formal default to occur. They have been in negotiations for weeks trying to come up with a way to keep Greece alive for just a little longer. Why are they so concerned about insignificant Greece? This story has a very interesting twist.

To the elites its all numbers, to the people it is very real

Think of saving Greece as trying to disarm a bomb. If you make the wrong move the bomb will explode, possibly setting off other bombs that cannot currently be seen. These “off balance sheet” bombs are called Credit Default Swaps. CDS in simple terms are an insurance contract that is triggered if Greece is considered in formal “default.”
The key word here is “formal” default. If the European Union can avert a “formal” default they can prolong the inevitable collapse.
So, not only do the financial leaders have to come up with a way to give Greece money and write down a large portion of their debt, but they must do it without triggering the bomb. It is like an episode of “24″ with Jack Bauer only the story at times is even more unrealistic.
To keep the bomb from going off, Greece bond holders must “agree” unanimously to take a write down. The bailout March 9 said that private debt holders should agree to write down 107 billion Euros. The easy part was to put a number on the page. The more difficult part will now be getting every private Greek debt holder to agree to take a loss.

Generations of people all over the world have been indoctrinated by government schools that capitalism is evil, but government produces nothing and central bankers produce worthless paper. Facts that will never be taught to children.

Here is the first problem.
Many of the investors who bought Greek bonds also simultaneously purchased insurance (CDS) on the debt to hedge their position. If Greek debt went up in value then they keep the profits. If Greek debt defaults then they have the insurance payment to help cover losses. Greece’s plan is to show up at their office and ask them to “accept” a 50% haircut on their investment, which would then cause their insurance payment not to come in the mail.
What do you think their answer will be?
It will obviously be no. The hedge funds and investment bankers purchasing Greece debt are killers backed by financial algorithms. They care very little about the man starving on the streets of Greece.
There is a way Greece can avert this issue. They can issue a “collective action clause” which means that an agreement by a majority of bondholders would create a write down for all bond holders.
The problem?
As of this moment triggering the CAC would trigger the “formal default” bomb.
How this will be handled over the coming weeks is the crucial portion of the debt negotiations. If the bomb is triggered for Greece then it sets the precedent that it will be triggered for
Portugal,
Spain,
and Italy.
While Greece can easily be contained, Spain and Italy are impossible. The size of both the bailout funds needed and their bomb explosion are like Lehman x 1,000.

This is what all communist want, economic illiteracy, hunger, and violence

The second problem;
No one can see where the losses will be taking place in the banking system, which means no one will trust anyone. Money stops moving and freezes.
Its like a scene out of the 1981 movie “Body Heat” where the ex convict Teddy Lewis (Mickey O’Rourke) is asking Attorney Ned Racine (William Hurt), who is contemplating committing murder;
“You got fifty ways you’re gonna f… up. If you think of twenty-five of them, then you’re a genius… and you ain’t no genius. You remember who told me that?”
And that is where Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and European Central Bank President Mario Draghi are today, desperately trying to keep the illusion of normal for Main Street after the murder has been committed.
Where we go from here is impossible to know. We are so far over the edge of the cliff and into the abyss that it is truly staggering. The average person has no idea how thin the thread is that our entire financial system hangs on today.
The stock market, just as in the fall of 2007, is completely oblivious to the danger ahead.
The global debt crisis will not be contained.
We have one more deflationary downdraft ahead of us before the next major re-inflation upward.
The process could take years to unfold, or it could begin tomorrow.
Capital will flee Europe to America and it will take weeks, months, before investors realize America is just as bad off or worse than Europe. Federal, state, and local debt is 120% of GDP, the same as Italy. All debt, public and private is debt is $54 trillion; the GDP is $15.3 trillion. Can Americans afford to pay $180,000 per man, woman, child, elderly person?
The best option is to arrest the politicians and bankers who ran up the impossible debt, declare bankruptcy, and get on with life.

Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Thomas E. “Tom” Woods, Jr. is an American historian, economist, political analyst, and New York Times-bestselling author. He has written extensively on the subjects of American history, contemporary politics, and economic theory. Woods is considered a libertarian and is a proponent of the Austrian school of economics.
Woods graduated high school in 1990 and intended to major in math entering Harvard University. However, in a desire to strengthen his ability to argue against students supporting communism switched to majoring in history. A key turning point for the development of Woods’ views was his attendance of the 1992 Mises University conference, held by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and meeting Austro-libertarian economist Murray Rothbard while there. He then headed to Columbia University in 1994 to obtain a Ph.D. in history.
He served as a history department faculty member at Suffolk County Community College in New York until 2006, and is now a scholar and senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) in Auburn, Alabama, as well as a member of the editorial board for the institute’s Journal of Libertarian Studies and Libertarian Papers. He is also an associate scholar of the Abbeville Institute.
Woods was present at the founding of the League of the South, and has contributed to its newsletter. His past membership in the group has generated criticism, but Woods asserts his involvement was limited.
He was an ISI Richard M. Weaver Fellow in 1995–96. Woods was also the recipient of the 2004 O.P. Alford III Prize for Libertarian Scholarship and of an Olive W. Garvey Fellowship from the Independent Institute in 2003. He has additionally been awarded two Humane Studies Fellowships and a Claude R. Lambe Fellowship from the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University.
Woods is co-editor of Exploring American History: From Colonial Times to 1877, an eleven-volume encyclopedia.

How This Recession Has Battered Mainstream Economists: An Austrian Opportunity by Gary North March 9, 2012Posted by Economics9698 @ 19:05 PM North gre

North grew up in southern California, the son of FBI special agent Samuel W. North, Jr., and his wife, Peggy. North converted to Christianity in high school and began frequenting right-wing bookstores in the Los Angeles area during his college years. Between 1961 and 1963, while an undergraduate student, North became acquainted with the works of Austrian School economists Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and Murray Rothbard.
During the same period, he began reading the works of ultra-conservative Presbyterian minister Rousas John Rushdoony. North made it his life’s work to synthesize Austrian Economics with Rushdoony’s theological conservatism. Starting in 1967, North became a frequent contributor to the libertarian journal The Freeman where he had first read their work. He later joined the senior staff of the publisher, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), 1971–73. North received a PhD in history from the University of California, Riverside in 1972. His dissertation was The Concept of Property in Puritan New England, 1630–1720.
He served as research assistant for libertarian Republican Congressman Ron Paul in Paul’s first term (1976), and he shared a small office with the staunchly Calvinistic political philosopher, John W. Robbins, who later became a noted anti-Van Til, pro-Clark presuppositional apologist, author, and publisher. Also on the staff was economist and historian Bruce Bartlett, although in his pre-supply-side economics days. Many of North’s articles have appeared on LewRockwell.com.

What Federal Departments Should be Eliminated? 90% of Them

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of The Left, the Right, and the State.
One of the big myths out there believed by both the left and right is that we need the federal government to regulate profit crazed maniacs who would sell our children morphine and poisoned milk. Little thought goes into this logic peddled on Main Street. It is accepted as gospel, capitalist are crazed lunatics willing to kill grandma to make a profit.
But if a company sold a harmful product wouldn’t they get sued if we had property rights enforced?
Hush citizen!
The truth is the federal agencies are there to protect the elites by crushing Main Street. And Main Street supports the theft. We are held hostage by a privileged class and we enjoy it, often refereed to as the Stockholm Syndrome.
It is a wonderful thing for the government thugs when they can steal your money and brainwash your children into believing the theft is justified by educating helpless children in government schools. 90% of Americans are brainwashed fools, and we don’t even realize it.
And to top it off the thieves get the people to play blue team/red team politics so the theft is concealed from the public. Like a magician the ignorant masses are fooled year after year. Go Red Team/Go Blue Team!!! Ra, ra, ra.
Below is a blog from Ludwig von Mises on 2-29-2012 by http://www.lewrockwell.com/.
The article briefly covers the regulatory history that should be taught in Universities and Colleges across America. Instead we get “government is good, fiscal policy” and “Federal Reserve is good, monetary policy” propaganda. Complete hog wash economics that is nothing but a smoke screen to hide the elites theft from the public. For every 100 students who take economics maybe 1 will see the malicious fairy tales for what they really are.

Ted Kennedy lived like a king while wishing the rest of Americans lived like peasants and obedient servants. When it was his turn to die he turned to capitalist private doctors to save his life

Enjoy;
“Socialists want socialism for everyone else, but capitalism for themselves, while capitalists want capitalism for everyone else, but socialism for themselves.
Neither Ted Kennedy nor Jane Fonda practices a vow of poverty, nor are they taking any homeless into their mansions, while too many big companies try to short-circuit the market with government privileges. And one way they do it is through the regulatory agencies that acne Washington, DC.
If I may make a public confession (counting on the charity of Mises Daily readers): I used to work for the US Congress. I’ve since gone straight, of course, but the experience had its value, much as the future criminologist might benefit from serving with the James Gang.
For one thing, being on Capitol Hill showed me that, unlike the republic of the Founding Fathers’ vision, our DC Leviathan exists only to extract money and power from the people for itself and the special interests.
Ludwig von Mises called this an inevitable “caste conflict.” There can be no natural class conflict in society, Mises showed, since the free market harmonizes all economic interests, but in a system of government-granted privileges, there must be a struggle between those who live off the government and the rest of us. It is a disguised struggle, of course, since truth threatens the loot.

Department of Energy secretary Steven Chu, Socialism for the masses and capitalism for me

When I worked on Capitol Hill, Jimmy Carter was bleating about the energy crisis and promising to punish big oil with a “windfall profits tax.” But I saw that the lobbyists pushing for the tax were from the big oil companies.
And, after a moment’s thought, it was easy to realize why. There was no windfall-profits tax in Saudi Arabia, but it did fall heavily on Oklahoma. And as intended, the tax aided the big companies that imported oil by punishing their competitors, smaller, independent firms.
In the ensuing restructuring of the industry, also brought about by the price and allocation regulations of the Department of Energy, the big firms bought up domestic capacity at fire-sale prices, and then the Reagan administration repealed the tax and the regulations. Meanwhile, the big companies received contracts from the Department of Energy to produce money-losing “alternative fuels.”
In every administration, the tools of inflation, borrowing, taxation, and regulation are used to transfer wealth from the people to the government and its cronies.
At times, one or another of these tools becomes politically dangerous, so the government alters the mix. That’s why the Reagan administration switched from taxes and inflation to borrowing, and it’s why the Bush administration, with the deficit a liability, calls for more taxes, inflation, and regulation.
Authors note, here are the White House Tables, Table 1-3, that prove Reagan had no interest in reducing the size of government. Reagan set the then post WWII record for a budget deficit of 6% of GDP in 1983, a record that was not broken until the Obama Administration.
A tremendous amount is at stake in the re-regulation of the economy advocated by the Bush administration. Just one clause in the Federal Register can mean billions for a favored firm or industry, and disaster for its competitors, which is why lobbyists cluster around the Capitol like flies around a garbage can.
While claiming to need more money for — among other vital projects — a trip to Mars supervised by Dan Quayle, the president is boosting the budget of every regulatory agency in Washington.
Here are just some of those agencies, and the way they function: Founded by Richard Nixon, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is an antientrepreneur agency. Not only does OSHA target small- and medium-sized businesses, its regulatory cases are easily handled by Exxon’s squad of lawyers, while they can bankrupt a small firm.
Also founded by Nixon, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issues regulations drawn up in open consultation with big business — regulations that often conform exactly to what those firms are already doing. Small businesses, on the other hand, must spend heavily to comply.

EPA Secretary Lisa P. Jackson lives the good life on the taxpayers dime protecting special interest groups

Another Nixon creation is the Environmental Protection Agency, whose budget is larded with the influence of politically connected businesses, and whose regulations buttress established industries and discriminate against entrepreneurs — by, for example, legalizing pollution for existing companies but making new firms spend heavily.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development was founded by Lyndon B. Johnson, but its roots stretch back to the housing policy of the New Deal, whose explicit purpose was to subsidize builders of rental and single-family housing. Since LBJ’s Great Society, HUD has subsidized builders of public-housing projects, and of subsidized private housing. How can anyone be surprised that fat cats use HUD to line their pockets? That was its purpose.
The Securities and Exchange Commission was established by Franklin D. Roosevelt, with its legislation written by corporate lawyers to cartelize the market for big Wall Street firms. Over the years, the SEC has stopped many new stock issues by smaller companies, who might grow and compete with the industrial and commercial giants aligned with the big Wall Street firms. And right now, it is lessening competition in the futures and commodities markets.
The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to stop “cut-throat” competition among railroads (i.e., competitive pricing) and to enforce high prices. Later amendments extended its power to trucking and other forms of transportation, where it also prevented competition. During the Carter administration, much of the ICC’s power was trimmed, but some of this was undone in the Reagan administration.
The Federal Communications Commission was established by Herbert Hoover to prevent private property in radio frequencies, and to place ownership in the hands of the government. The FCC set up the network system, whose licenses went to politically connected businessmen, and delayed technological breakthroughs that might have threatened the networks. There was some deregulation during the Reagan administration — although it was the development of cable TV that did the most good, by circumventing the networks.
The Department of Agriculture runs America’s farming on behalf of producers, keeping prices high, profits up, imports out, and new products off the shelves. We can’t know what food prices would be in the absence of the appropriately initialed DOA, only that food would be much cheaper. Now, for the first time since the farm program was established by Herbert Hoover, as a copy of the Federal Food Administration he ran during World War I, we are seeing widespread criticism of farm welfare.
The Federal Trade Commission — as shown by the fascist-deco statue in front of its headquarters — claims to “tame” the “wild horse of the market” on behalf of the public. Since its founding in 1914, however, it has restrained the market to the benefit of established firms. That’s why the chief lobbyists for the FTC were all from big business.
When then-Congressman Steve Symms (R-ID) tried to partially deregulate the Food and Drug Administration in the 1970s to allow more new drugs, he was stopped by the big drug companies and their trade association. Why? Because the FDA exists to protect them.
OSHA, CPSC, EPA, HUD, SEC, ICC, FCC, DOA, FTC, FDA — I could go on and on, through the entire alphabet from Hell. I have only scratched the villainous surface. But according to the average history or economics text, these agencies emerged in response to public demand. There is never a hint of the regulatory-industrial complex. We’re told that the public is being served. And it is: on a platter.”
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of The Left, the Right, and the State. Send him e-mail, rockwell@mises.org.