Make a pledge to shame defunct Keynesian Paul Krugman into debating Robert Murphy on Keynesian vs. Austrian business cycle theory. You will not have to pay unless Krugman agrees.

Two office workers discuss the upcoming debate on Keynesian vs. Austrian business cycle theory.
To read about the campaign, go to:
http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/cam…
To see Murphy tackle Krugman, go to:
http://mises.org/daily/4682
To see the Krugman song (sung by Murphy), go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzdhKM…

                          

If the GOP Pledge To America were a classic American burger, the rhetoric would be the bun and conservative fiscal policy would be the meat. This ‘burger’ of a “new political agenda” would please only a vegetarian since there is no beef. There is however, an extra-large, carb filled, empty-caloried bun of rhetoric to fill 30 seconds TV ads though.

The GOP recently presented their 46 page Pledge To America where they pledge to uphold the Constitution, support heterosexual marriage, create jobs, improve apple pie, cut spending, expand the empire, and sing the Star Spangled Banner. The pledge starts with a platitude to constitutionalists.

We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Uhhhhh…didn’t you already swear an oath to do just that same thing when you were sworn into office? Now, I’m supposed to believe you since it’s now a pledge? Well, at least they have admitted that the Tenth Amendment should be relevant and that’s a start.

The GOP also turns on the hyper-rhetoric machine to eleven and churns out the latest Tea Party hits:

We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity.

We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.

We pledge to make government more transparent in its actions, careful in its stewardship, and honest in its dealings.

We pledge to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of mankind.

We make this pledge bearing true faith and allegiance to the people we represent, and we invite fellow citizens and patriots to join us in forming a new governing agenda for America.

What does all this rhetoric mean in terms of real policy? Very little unfortunately. In the Pledge To America’s document the details are few and far between. However, there are many pretty pictures of the Statue of Liberty, U.S. flags, government buildings, slick politicians, and people selling meat…WTF? Butchers at a meat market? Okay. If this doesn’t make you want to break out in a song of “Proud to Be An American” I don’t know what will.

What few details there are illustrate the GOP’s impotency to seriously tackle government size and spending.

For example, their pledge to:

Cut Congress’ Budget

This year, Congress increased its own budget by 5.8 percent at a time when families and small businesses across the country are cutting back. We will make Congress do more with less by significantly reducing its budget.

This paragraph proceeds the pledge to only make “common-sense” cuts to discretionary spending meaning medicare, medicaid, social security, and national defense are off the table. There is no possible way to seriously cut into the deficit only trimming discretionary spending as it only consists of a small percentage of the budget.

The GOP also pledges to:

• Stop future tax hikes. I certainly hope so but why stop there? I want to hear about how you will cut taxes. We could go a long way towards recovery if we reduced the corporate and capital gains tax.
• Enact a 20% small business tax cut. I’m always in favor of tax cuts but again, why stop there?
• Stop the remaining TARP and stimulus spending. How many Republicans voted for Bush’s stimulus spending plans?
• Make an hard cap on spending. So they can stop themselves from voting for bigger budgets.
• Cut the congressional budget. Which both parties made too large in the first place.
• A non-security hiring freeze. Hey, that’s a fresh idea after thousands of new employees have already been hired throughout Republican control.
• Change procedural rules, the budget process, and reduce waste. I thought only the Democrats were selling that B.S. ?
• Repeal and replace parts of Obamacare. Great! Health care can start moving back to the free market. What! You support mandated coverage for pre-existing conditions? What part of free markets don’t you still get?
• Complete the Missile Defense Shield. Because crazy Iranians could kill us in a few years…not really…but they are the new boogeyman. According to the GOP’s pledge, bombs could stop dropping as early as 2015 despite any evidence of that being possible.
• Keep Terrorists Out of America. Both Democrats and Republicans agree. The continued infringement upon our civil liberties is what keeps a jihadist from killing you each day.

I know there are Republicans who will be completely unsatisfied with what amounts to a small chipping away from the leviathan of federal government. I know there are social conservatives who will be quite pleased and may ignore the rest of the pledge. I also know there are still plenty of Republicans in denial about the serious cuts that will have to be made in order to reduce the deficit. I know of Republicans who support the strong anti-terrorist message. However, I know of no honest Republicans who can say that this is a sincere effort at limited government policy and fiscal conservatism.

Politicians are running out of time to kick the entitlement can down the street. The nation cannot afford the empire or the current entitlement system. Both the welfare and warfare state are contributing to our economic malaise. Drastic change is needed now. The GOP has had an opportunity to try and redefine themselves as fiscal conservatives; demonstrate their commitment to limited government; and convince people that they have learned their lesson. That opportunity has passed, yet again.

                          

Immediate changes

The health care reform act goes into full effect in 2014, but some rules aimed at helping consumers (emphasis mine) take effect Thursday. Here’s a list of this fall’s changes, according to the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative:

•Eliminating lifetime limits on how much insurers will pay to cover claims in a policy.

•No more dropping of individuals, or “recision,” when an expensive illness results in big claims.

•No co-pays or other cost-sharing for preventive care, such as immunization or mammograms.

•Right to include children up to age 26 on family policies, whether they are dependent or not.

•No more refusal of policies to children with pre-existing conditions.

They must have a very different meaning of ‘help’ than I do as these requirements only increase the cost burden onto insurance companies which in turn will have to raise rates to cover these costs. It doesn’t take an economic degree to understand why this will increase the costs and decrease the coverage opportunities of the average health consumer. Notwithstanding the basic laws of economics, some regulators are still confused by these rate hikes calling them bizarre.

Health-insurance companies are raising rates in Colorado, ending sales of child-only policies and blaming their actions in part on the federal health reform law, moves that regulators call “bizarre” and consumer advocates are vowing to watch.

Yes, how bizarre that a private insurance company, who has to make a profit to stay in business, ask for a rate increase when they are being forced to cover more people and people with pre-existing conditions,  not being able to charge certain co-pays, eliminating lifetime limits, and will not be allowed to drop coverage for any existing individuals.

What’s truly bizarre is that politicians can manage to pass this health care bill without reading or knowing what’s in it and think that they can centrally manage the entire health care industry without consequences. What we are seeing is just the beginning of less health care choices and increased costs for everyone; exactly the opposite of what Obamacare intended, but exactly what liberty-minded writers predicted. On average, health insurance companies only have a 2-5 percent profit margin. You can’t ask them to increase services and costs without expecting the insurance companies to shift that cost burden onto the ratepayers.

Support the Independence Institute and vote for Amendment 63 to reclaim your rights to health care choice or Washington will continue to ‘help’ you.

                          

This will not only create jobs immediately, but will make our economy run better over the long haul,” Obama said on a public holiday two months before congressional polls which Democrats fear could bring heavy losses.

It’s a plan that says even in the aftermath of the worst recession in our lifetimes, America can still shape our own destiny.

Now that Obama is looking for more of your cash to ‘stimulate’ the economy let’s see how successful those previous stimulations really were.

Employment isn’t looking so good for the private sector but federal government employment is looking great. As a matter of fact, as a totally unqualified career counselor, I’d say living off of the government dole is the way to go. Apparently Obama’s vision of our ‘destiny’ is having everyone employed and supported by the federal government;  destroying as many private jobs as possible.

                          

The ad takes statements made by Buck entirely out of context but that much is to be expected by Bennet who cannot possibly run on his own record without causing independents to run away holding their wallets. 9News.com and PolitiFact.com both point out how Bennet’s campaign took Buck’s statements out of context of what he meant. Even Buck’s own campaign issued responses denying that he does not support the privatization of Social Security and the elimination of the Dept. of Education.

Therein lies the problem. The very idea of privatizing the Social Security ponzi scheme or eliminating the utterly useless Dept. of Education is now considered taboo. It’s actually quite unfortunate that Ken Buck doesn’t support these ideas as the supposed champion of the GOP, Ronald Reagan, once did in his 1982 State of the Union speech.

The budget plan I submit to you on Feb. 8 will realize major savings by dismantling the Department of Education

Even as recently as 1996, the GOP platform said the following:

The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning.

Even Reagan realized that Social Security was really a giant ponzi scheme. In 1975, he suggested that Social Security should be voluntary. However, after Ford beat Reagan in the 1976 Florida primary he soon realized that this was truly the ‘third rail’ of politics after losing the majority of votes to those 65 and older.

Have conservatives strayed so far from their supposed ideals in the last 35 years that even issues Ronald Reagan once espoused are now considered extreme? Apparently so, and that is why there are so many of us who can hardly tell the difference any more between the two parties. You can be sure though that when the GOP has it’s next Presidential primary debates, everyone will chant the name of Reagan with reverence but run away from many of his ideals as fast as they can – except of course Ron Paul who will be labeled by the other GOP candidates as an extreme nut. If only the Bennet ad were true.

Chuck Moe is a Contributing Author at People’s Press Collective, Your Source for Colorado Politics

                          

Liberty On Tour was at Invesco Field doing outreach activities while football fans tailgated prior to the Bronoco’s game. For several hours they handed out information, gave bus tours, and spoke to people about liberty. All was well until an Invesco Field parking lot employee called the Denver Police since she felt that she had been ‘mocked’ after she had told LOT to not offer ‘free’ beer to other tailgaters.

Earlier that day, LOT was asked to removed a ‘free beer’ sign from the bus. LOT complied immediately. They were then asked to not say ‘free beer’ but that it was okay to offer beer to people (Beer was being used as an enticement to get literature passed out and get people over to talk about liberty – which is not illegal according to a Denver police officer.) LOT then stopped using the term ‘free’ and continued handing out literature. Shortly thereafter, the Invesco field employee called her supervisor who then called the police.

Within a few moments, Adam Mueller was handcuffed and detained while Pete Eyre was being detained and interviewed. As the video shows both Adam and Pete were handcuffed and taken into custody. Adam adopted a passive and non-resistive posture and while they carried him to the detention area the police bent his wrist backwards and was checked in by a paramedic.After several hours they were released with charges of interferance, disturbing the peace, and disobeying a lawful order. Their video cameras were also confiscated for unknown reasons. Again, Adam, Pete, and those of us assisting them were doing nothing illegal…nothing.

Below is some very poor Iphone video of the incident.

LOT Denver Outreach-Adam

LOT Denver Outreach-Pete

Situations like these illustrate the need for web sites like Cop Block.

If you’d like to meet and speak with Adam and Pete, they will be a special guest at the Red Rocks Liberty on the Rocks this evening, Aug 30 at 5:00. These guys have had a lot of challenges (both RV issues and legal) lately and could use your financial support so come meet with them and help ‘em out. They are doing good work for liberty.

                          

Join Liberty on the Rocks as they host Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre of Liberty on Tour! There are two separate events and you are welcome to join them for one or both.

Activist Panel Discussion:

Liberty on the Rocks will host an educational panel discussion with activists Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller as they share tips and overall best practices for spreading the message of liberty through video, engaging in outreach and navigating online social networks in order to reach a larger audience. The panel discussion will be held at the Independence Institute on Thursday, August 26th from 6-8 pm. There is no cost to attend, although there will be a suggested donation of $5-$10 to support these activists with their current Liberty On Tour project. For a donation of $20 or more you will also get a Liberty on Tour t-shirt!

Liberty On Tour Social Meet-Up:

The Liberty on Tour Denver-area meet-up will be held on Friday, August 27^th at the Fox and Hound in the Burgundy room. They will be joining us from 7-10 pm. Their famous RV “MARV” will be in the parking lot where Pete and Adam will be happy to provide tours as well as interesting stories about where the motor home has been and the things it has seen. Having traveled around the country now twice, these two liberty activists have some very interesting stories to tell!

The Fox and the Hound is located at: 5150 E. Arapahoe Road in Centennial. Here is a link to a Google map.

Check out the Liberty on the Rocks Events Calendar or our Facebook Page to find more information on these events.

The goal of Liberty on Tour as stated on their website:

Liberty On Tour is a dynamic project of two friends, Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller, who are touring 13 cities in 13 weeks in their RV dubbed MARV while advancing a message of voluntaryism. Along the way they’ll interact with a wide variety of individuals at meetups and other events, cover timely stories and relevant historical incidents and cover/engage in local activism. They hope to be an educational resource and bridge between those new to the ideas of liberty and those already involved.

Below are some examples a few videos they made on their previous tour, the Motorhome Diaries:

Larry Reed Shares Why he Fights for Liberty and the Future Direction of FEE

Todd Wynn from Cascade on Climate Change

Amber Gunn from Evergreen Freedom Foundation talks about EFF

Montana Residents Reject State Solutions offered by the Concord Coalition

                          

The GrandJunctionSentinal.com posted an article today (thanks CompleteColorado.com) that described these ‘monumental’ plans by the Bureau of Land Management.

Broad swaths of western land, equivalent to the size of Colorado and Wyoming combined, should be considered “treasured lands” and managed without regard to state lines or other jurisdictional boundaries, according to an internal Bureau of Land Management document.

A similar article was posted by the Salt Lake Tribune on Aug. 8th in which Rep. Bishop doubts Secretary Salazar really wants to hear from the public regarding BLM use and the same memo, “Treasured Landscapes — Our Vision, Our Values.” is mentioned.

Both articles discussed some aspects of the memo but neither gives a link or download to the actual leaked .pdf file. The Salt Lake Tribune article does say:

Bishop spokeswoman Melissa Subbotin pointed to a leaked Bureau of Land Management memo that discusses future uses for federal lands as evidence that the “listening sessions were for the public, not the secretary.”

Parts of the internal Obama administration document — which Interior downplayed as “brainstorming” — were released by Bishop in February. More pages came into public view this week, but they speak only in general terms of considering 130 million to 140 million acres as “treasured lands.”

While I appreciate the Grand Junction Sentinel and Salt Lake Tribune efforts keeping their government leaked source material confidential, it seems ridiculous considering the leaked government document is happily residing on a house.gov server under the directory of robbishop.  Coincidence that Rep. Bishop’s first name is Rob? I think not.

link to BLM memo on government server.

In case Robbi closes up shop and the link goes dead, the Bureau of Land Management Treasured Landscape .pdf memo can also be downloaded.

How might the BLM vision affect Colorado? According to the memo the following areas under consideration in Colorado are the Alpine Triangle, Vermillion Basin, Dolores River Basin, and Hidden Gems areas. The memo also specifically mentions that the Hidden Gems, CO area is in Rep. Polis’s and Salazar’s districts.

In addition to the land grab the BLM is also asking for….wait for it….more money.

By the year 2015, funding for the Treasured Landscapes would total $398.4 million.

Using some of these funds, the BLM even wishes to purchase land where mining and energy permits are already pending further harming Colorado industries.

The BLM memo also mentioned the 1906 Antiquities Act several times throughout the memo in case Congress didn’t cooperate with their requests. This is one of those acts where the President can automatically designate land with a “stroke of the pen.”

Consider use of the Antiquities Act to set aside new national monuments where there are immediate threats to nationally significant natural or cultural resources on lands deserving NLCS status

While I’ve only had a short time to scan the memo, I already get a sense that this policy will be purely driven on “green” concerns while the energy, mining industries, and local communities concerns given lip service. The statement “managed without regard to state lines or other jurisdictional boundaries” should give every person cause for concern regarding property rights.

If conservationists want the land protected in the best way possible, they would promote private property rights. The best way to conserve land is for a property owner to care for his own land rather  than government bureaucrats.

Chuck Moe is a Contributing Author at People’s Press Collective, Your Source for Colorado Politics

                          

Once the story broke and Coastwatch was made aware, they have started to remove the false data images from their archive. They also just posted a notice on the front page:

NOTICE: Due to degradation of a satellite sensor used by this mapping product, some images have exhibited extreme high and low surface temperatures. Please disregard these images as anomalies. Future images will not include data from the degraded satellite and images caused by the faulty satellite sensor will be/have been removed from the image archive.

The big question now is whether this faulty data made it’s way into the NOAA database of global temperature climate models and if so, how much has this skewed the data. ClimateChangeFraud.com has asked NOAA whether this data is being used and NOAA has not responded.

This is just one of many examples demonstrating that the data climatologists are using to further the global warming scare needs to be reviewed by independent sources. As the group Public Enemy says, “Don’t Believe the Hype.”

                          

It is because ofthese cheese eating frenchy ideas that Josh Penry, Senatorial candidate Jane Norton’s campaign advisor, offered this strategic analysis in an email to Ross Kaminsky in which he wrote, “The 22 percent who dislike John McCain almost universally agree with McCain and Norton on the war – and thus disagree with the Surrender Monkey wing of the Ron Paul movement that Buck has shown sympathies to.”

Could Ken Buck be a Surrender Monkey too? He is on record that nation building should not be our job in Afghanistan. I’ve also heard rumor from an unreliable source that he eats cheese on occasion and is quite the fan of Jerry Lewis. The Norton campaign  will have to keep an eye on him.

How can we Coloradans become more aware of the Surrender Monkeys? First we have to know how to recognize the Surrender Monkey. Using key intelligence gathered from the Penry strategy email I recognized that Surrender Monkeys have a common trait. They like Ron Paul.

Fortunately, these Surrender Monkeys don’t blend in all that well and are easy to spot. Look for Ron Paul bumper stickers and signs, Revolution  t-shirts, pocket constitutions, and Austrian economic textbooks.

Don’t be taken aback by their normal everyday American appearance. These people are dangerous. With their knowledge of history and the founding documents, they can easily sway the “Penry” type of Republican into thinking Thomas Jefferson and George Washington might of had a point with their non-interventionist foreign policy ideals. Wait a minute…was Washington and Jefferson Surrender Monkeys too? I’d better call up the Texas School Board and get them to check their history books.

Where can we find these Ron Paul Surrender Monkeys? Everywhere. Apparently these monkeys have already infiltrated our neighborhoods, communities, and GOP precincts in large numbers. They commonly congregate in groups near Tea Party rallies, Austrian economic forums, anti-war demonstrations, End The Fed protests, and the Eiffel Tower.

When you come across a Surrender Monkey be very cautious. They are tricky and will try to use logic, facts, and reason to convince you that war isn’t always the answer. Pay no attention to their arguments and just tell them that sooner or later all the spilt blood and treasure will pay off….in a few more decades. Tell them to be patient and have faith in our nation building ways. Do not attempt to use any facts or evidence to convince them on the successes of empires because frankly there aren’t any to use. Just remember to try to convince them that our wise overlords have it all under control and all will be well.

If they resist the pull of the neo-con side, report them to your nearest GOP precinct captain so they can identify them on the voter rolls. This way Josh Penry and the Norton campaign will feel so much safer knowing where these Surrender Monkeys live.

Chuck Moe is a Contributing Author at People’s Press Collective, Your Source for Colorado Politics

                          

Would it surprise you to know that Colorado already has used nullification? When Colorado passed the medicinal marijuana amendment it was in effect nullifying Federal drug law. When Colorado and numerous other states defied the Real ID act, that was in effect, nullification.

Thomas Wood’s research goes into the “true” history of nullification and how some believed that not only do states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal law, but they have the duty. Here is a 7 minute video of Mr. Woods explaining these concepts:

In case you missed it, here’s another great interview with Tom Woods about his new bestselling book with a zombie:

That’s right Colorado. We have a duty to challenge unconstitutional federal laws. Electing new politicians hasn’t helped. Waiting for the judiciary to step in hasn’t worked. Expecting the Federal Congress to do the right thing is laughable at best. We either sit on our hands and hope for the Feds to correct themselves, or we stand up and get our Colorado legislature to just say NO MORE!

Visit Wood’s site to learn more about nullification and join the facebook group “Nullification by Tom Woods. Also don’t forget to visit the 10th Amendment Center for state’s rights information.

                          

In case you missed it, Friday was a big news story day for recent GOP primary losers. Multiple stories hit the wire and Yahoo news readers featuring the most pathetic cases of soon to be out-of-work politicians.

We’ve got GOP Senator Bennet’s election predictions in Nevada and overall whining about mischief in Colorado’s Tea Party.

“With the tea party creating the mischief that it is in Colorado, we may not win that seat. My sources in Nevada say with Sharon Angle there’s no way Harry Reid loses in Nevada,” he said about the GOP challenger to Democratic Senate majority leader.

In addition, Bennet also notes:

“That’s my concern, that at the moment there is not a cohesive Republican strategy of this is what we’re going to do. And certainly among the tea party types there’s clearly no strategy of this is what we’re going to do,” he said.

That’s right you mischievous Colorado Tea Partiers, you have no strategy of what to do according to the recent GOP Senate loser. No doubt, he is an expert on political strategy.

Next up is South Carolina’s recent GOP loser Rep. Bob Inglis:

Too many Republican leaders are acquiescing to a poisonous “demagoguery” that threatens the party’s long-term credibility, says a veteran GOP House member who was defeated in South Carolina’s primary last month.

While not naming names, 12-year incumbent Rep. Bob Inglis suggested in interviews with The Associated Press that tea party favorites such as former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and right-wing talk show hosts like Glenn Beck are the culprits

Bob’s referring to the those atrocious attacks that bailouts and Obamacare are bad of course.

RHINO suffering will always bring Lindsay Graham to the party with such mind blowing conclusions such as this:

“The problem with the Tea Party, I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out.” Now he said, in a tone of casual lament: “We don’t have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats.” Chortling, he added, “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”

Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected today because of people just like statist Lindsay Graham. Especially a 1976 Ronald Reagan.

Why does he still have a membership in the GOP?

Of course Yahoo also had to point out this hit piece blog roundup of  Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, and Tea Parties in general.

I’m sure it’s just coincidence  that all these stories were found at the same time on Yahoo’s news feeder Friday night when I logged in to my front page. They wouldn’t intentionally place those headlines together to run through the weekend? Would they?

The good news is that the tea parties are making a difference otherwise there wouldn’t be all these attacks.

I’ll be going on vacation tonight and I’m sure the “mischievous” Coloradans Tea Party won’t die out while I’m gone. Keep it up Colorado!

                          

The past several years have seen a revival of interest in the Austrian School of economics.  (For some background on the Austrian School, read this essay and this essay.)  I’ve assembled this resource list to help beginners embark on a program of self-education in the Austrian School.  I have marked a few titles with ** to indicate their importance.

                          

Why would 114 people who co-sponsored H.R. 1207 vote against it? Perhaps, the Federal Reserve’s lobbyists threatened members? Did 114 co-sponsors have a condition of bi-polar disorder? Or perhaps, most of these co-sponsors were just riding the ‘transparency’ train and decided to hop off at the last minute with never any intention of supporting the Fed audit. I suspect the latter.

Regardless, these members owe their constituents an explanation on why they oppose a simple audit of the Federal Reserve. Call your Colorado representatives today and ask them why they co-sponsored H.R. 1207 and then proceeded to vote against it. What are they afraid of? All H.R. 1207 does is ask for an audit of the Federal Reserve and report to congress:

Directs the Comptroller General to complete, before the end of 2010, an audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and of the federal reserve banks, followed by a detailed report to Congress.

These are the Colorado representatives who changed their support of H.R. 1207:

Jared Polis – CO-2

John Salazar – CO-3

Ed Perlmutter – CO-7

Chuck Moe is a Contributing Author at People’s Press Collective, Your Source for Colorado Politics

                          

A zombie sits down to interview Tom Woods on Tom’s latest book, “Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.”

http://www.TomWoods.com
http://www.NullificationFreeChapter.com

TomWoodsTV

                          

10 Things That Terrify Left-Wingers

These are the things that keep American Liberals awake at night.

Government was forced to stop intervening in the economy as it would reveal the centrally planned economic failures of the state.

That if people start organizing freely, and solving problems privately, many government employees would be without a job.

Left-Wingers also hold the conspiracy belief that businesses around the world are conspiring to create wealth and capital just to make everyone else poor; not creating jobs and opportunity. Ironically, that seems to be the job of Congress.

If the sheeple realized that they can spend their money better than a bunch of bureaucrats people might get angry that politicians are stealing and wasting their money.

They also fret over the conspiracy belief that if government doesn’t hand out money, food, jobs, health care and self esteem to people; the streets will be littered with poor, hungry, unemployed, unhealthy, and depressed people.

If affirmative action and minimum wage laws were repealed the poor, willing, and unskilled workers would find productive non-government jobs all on their own.

The conspiracy that individualistic thought behavior will grow and people may try to throw off their shackles of the state.

If gun control bans were eliminated it would reduce the need for the state to protect citizens as they could protect themselves.

If the Internet and media are left to the free market, the people would be able to choose their own media and content provider leaving them unsheltered from all the dangerous ideas in the world…like freedom.

Realizing the game is over and people are waking up to their socialistic ideas.

Chuck Moe is a Contributing Author at People’s Press Collective, Your Source for Colorado Politics

                          

This course is an in-depth exploration of the classic book The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, which has recently shot to #1 on Amazon after being featured on the Glenn Beck Program.

The course features 5 weekly lectures, forums, online readings and media, and much more. Students have an option to take the course without receiving a grade. All materials are provided online and for free, except for the main text, The Road to Serfdom, itself. This text is available for $17 at the online Mises Institute Store.

Click here For more information on this Mises course and information on Thomas DiLorenzo.

                          

Unfortunately, the rate of education inflation has skyrocketed since 1985.

College tuitions soar each year, advancing far in excess of the inflation rate.  The overall inflation rate since 1986 increased 100.14%, which is why we pay nearly double for everything we buy. On the other hand, during the same time, tuition increased a whopping 412.62%.

Essentially, what used to cost 10,000 in education dollars in 1986, now costs 51,000 dollars. What are our members of Congress doing about it? Unfortunately, far too much.

Colorado Senator Michael Bennet recently released an email press release about the work he and other Senators have done to spend more money on college education:

Earlier this year, we made an historic investment in higher education when we passed the Student Aid Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), which:
Expands the PELL grant program, so almost 9,000 additional Colorado students will be eligible to receive a Pell grant this year;
Increases the maximum Pell awards to $5,550 in 2010 and to $5,975 by 2017 and starting in 2013, the maximum award will increase to keep pace with cost-of-living increases;
Dedicates more than $8 million in additional resources to Colorado for College Access Challenge Grants to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared for, and complete secondary education;
Devotes $29,695,750 in resources to Minority Serving Institutions in Colorado;
Lowers the cap on income-based repayment. Students entering college beginning next year will pay no more than 10 percent of their income on their loans when they graduate. Borrowers who responsibly make their monthly payments will see their remaining balance forgiven after 20 years of repayment; and
Ends federal subsidies to private lenders, saving taxpayers more than $60 billion.

Senator Bennet apparently feels that by loaning and giving away more borrowed money from future generations, the current generation can spend more on tuition, have more debt, and even less of a chance to land a job upon graduation.

What Senator Bennet and most other politicians fail to consider are the unseen consequences of education price inflation. What all this “investment in education” has done is actually contrary to their desired results. Student loans and Pell grants has helped to created an education bubble similar to the housing bubble in that artificial demand due to easy money has caused price inflation.

B. T. Donleavy describes this education bubble in his recent article when he writes:

In the advent of the worst financial crisis seen in decades, there is much to be learned. Many economists agree that creating false demand will eventually create a bubble and crush a market much faster than the natural economic cycle. Take for instance the student loan market. Student loans, subsidized and unsubsidized, allow an 18-year-old to finance some or all of the next four years of his or her life, including living expenses. Morally, is it right to allow our children to start their lives immersed in debt?

In 1992, Congress increased the amount of money a student can borrow from the federal loan program with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The act also enabled students defined as “in need” easier access to funding. Now we see student loans dominating the higher-education industry and accounting for 50% of all financial-aid packages.

Richard Vedder, an Ohio University economist, in his paper “Why Does College Cost So Much?” describes demand as one of the factors in the cost explosion of higher education:

Rising Demand: The “natural” economic consequences of a rising demand—higher prices and a larger quantity consumed—are exacerbated by soaring third-party payments. Since 1994, financial-aid payments (mostly federal loans and grants) have risen by an extraordinary 11 percent per year. When someone else pays the bills, we become less sensitive to price.

Richard Vedder is the author of Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much (AEI Press, 2004). A version of this article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 23, 2005.

In 2009 Richard Vedder conducted an interview:

In Going Broke By Degree: Why College Costs So Much, Ohio University economist Richard Vedder lays out in plain language why, well, college costs so much.

Vedder, also a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, sat down at FreedomFest in mid-July with Reason magazine Editor in Chief Matt Welch to talk about college costs and more.

But won’t all these college grads get great jobs so they can pay off their investment? Not many will in these economic times. Sending kids to college unfortunately doesn’t create jobs. Factor in that only 57% of college students graduate in 6 years and you also have many people with a lot of debt and no degree. What may we see in the future? Here’s B. T. Donleavy‘s take:

A boost in educational funding for financing may come at a price. If the current trend continues, students will increase the amount financed and they will be paying for the majority of their education in loans. As the January 14 edition of the Economist notes, “only about 400,000 more Americans were employed in December 2009 than in December 1999, while the population grew by nearly 30m.” With an unemployment rate of 10% (real figures are closer to 17%), matters look only more ominous.

Millions of students will graduate with the same popular majors and compete for fewer jobs because a significant amount of manufacturing and industry has left the United States. The supply of students entering the job market will be endless, and businesses will lower the base pay of new employees because of their abundance.

The other scenario is that businesses will not hire them at all because they are fully staffed, thus creating a bottleneck in the job market. Unemployment, Social Security, and Medicare will all suffer from the supply and demand effects of this type of crisis.

So if you’re thinking of spending some time “finding yourself” in college while getting “educated” with majors that have no productive value (financially) or any reasonable chance of gainful employment, while paying for this with borrowed money, think again. Not only will jobs be in short supply, but even the jobs that are available will pay less. Senator Bennet: stop “investing” in education. You’re doing far more harm than good.

Chuck Moe is a Contributing Author at People’s Press Collective, Your Source for Colorado Politics

                          

The Federal Trade Commission has hosted a series of workshops on the Future of Journalism:  “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?”  Recently, the  FTC released a “Discussion Draft” on May 24th with the potential policy recommendations to “Reinvent Journalism.”

As expected, more than a few journalists have an opinion about the FTC’s reinvention of Journalism:

Jeff Javis writes:

What disturbs me most in this section is that the FTC frets about “difficult line-drawing being proprietary facts and those in the public domain.” Proprietary facts? Is it starting down a road of trying to enable someone to own a fact the way the patent office lets someone own a method or our DNA? Good God, that’s dangerous.

Andrew Malcom observes:

Would you believe: major changes to the copyright law, including government licensing provisions; government pilot programs to investigate potential new media business models, antitrust changes to allow media companies to unite on imposing online pay walls, establish a journalism division of AmeriCorps with government underwriting the training of young journalists, tax incentives per news employee, increased funding of public broadcasting, a 5% tax on consumer electronics and/or assessments on users of public airwaves.

Mark Tapscott hope journalists wake up:

Release of the Federal Trade Commission’s working paper on “reinventing journalism” makes it clear that there is no more time for diplomacy about this issue: President Obama is determined to federalize the news industry just as he has banking, autos, and health care.

The Washington Times editorial board mentions how expensive this may be:

The report also discusses the possibility of offering tax exemptions to news organizations, establishing an AmeriCorps for reporters and creating a national fund for local news organizations. The money for those benefits would come from a suite of new taxes. A 5 percent tax on consumer electronic devices such as iPads, Kindles and laptops that let consumers read the news could be used to encourage people to keep reading the dead-tree version of the news. Other taxes might be levied on the radio and television spectrum, advertising and cell phones.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air mentions:

This looks like an attack on blogs — and an attempt to turn back the clock to 1993 in terms of the voice that news consumers have in news delivery.

As The Capitol Burns put out a youtube video about the proposed recommendations.

With press like this regarding the FTC’s proposed regulations many people have become concerned that the government is in effect – taking over the media.

Henry Waxman isn’t concerned about the government “support” though:

Others have raised red flags about the dangers of government support of the press.

I have an open mind on all the above proposals.

Oh okay…never mind then. Might all these concerns be for nothing? I mean, Henry’s cool with it.

Well the FTC would like you to know that there is indeed, nothing to worry about. All of these articles are just “misinformation.”

Recent press reports have erroneously stated that the FTC is supporting and proposing some of the public comments (for example, taxes on electronic devices, favoring one medium over another).

[T]hrough this document, we seek to prompt discussion of whether to recommend policy changes to support the ongoing reinvention of journalism, and, if so, which specific proposals appear most useful, feasible, platform-neutral, resistant to bias, and unlikely to cause unintended consequences in addressing emerging gaps in news coverage.”

Nothing to see here….move along folks. Just because the title of the official FTC report is “Potential Policy Recommendations To Support The Reinvention of Journalism” doesn’t mean they are potential policy recommendations. Also, despite the footnote disclaimer that says, “It reflects only the tentative analyses and possible policy recommendations assembled by FTC staff in the Office of Policy Planning.” the FTC wants to be clear these are not possible policy recommendations.

These ideas are simply possibilities on “whether” they might consider or recommend  the potential policy changes. The process of government control of the media is very complex and the FTC understandably doesn’t want to leave any stone unturned when it comes to new ideas on controlling the media and internet. Think of this draft as a pre-draft draft or as a pre potential recommendation report that really means nothing at all. All those previous workshops since December of 2009 have simply been mere scribbles on napkins so to speak. Or in the FTC’s words, “a compilation of ideas.” They just subsequently took those scribbles of ideas and produced an official draft policy paper on FTC letterhead, sent emails, press releases,  web updates, and distributed the paper to the world. Just because an official government agency prints some official looking draft of potential policy recommendations doesn’t mean we should pay any attention nor should we be critical. The FTC would appreciate the public and especially journalists to hold all comments and criticism until the policy recommendations ideas are actual law.

If you have further interest in more FTC “ideas” there will be another workshop on June 15th at the National Press Club. But be warned. There will be no possible policy recommendations discussed even if the FTC releases another discussion draft titled “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.”