Our Constitution gives Congress direct authority over America’s monetary policy. Among the enumerated powers Article I, Section 8 grants to Congress is this one:

“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures …”

Boaz ItsHaky, Candidate for Connecticut’s Third Congressional District, considers Sec. 8 to be unambiguous. And, there is no amendment of the Constitution that permits any entity to meddle in this responsibility of Congress.

And yet, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 has effectively nullified a portion of Sec. 8 by granting the quasi-independent banking syndicate known as the Federal Reserve Banking System discretionary control over America’s money supply.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. The Federal Reserve Act was designed to end a cycle of commodity bubbles that hurt the economy. And, the Act only permitted the twelve Federal Reserve banks to issue loans and inject cash as needed to ensure liquidity in their regional marketplaces.

Things went quite wrong from the start. A sharp recession in 1921 challenged the Fed as a commodity bubble expanded beyond their expectation. The Fed responded by loosening the money supply, but only after the recession had already ended. According to Great Myths of the Great Depression”,

Economist Murry Rothbard, author of “America’s Great Depression”, used a broad measure that includes currency, demand and time deposits, and other ingredients, to estimate that the Fed bloated the money supply by more than 60 percent from mid-1921 to mid-1929. Rothbard argued that this expansion of money and credit drove interest rates down, pushed the stock market to dizzy heights, and gave birth to the “Roaring Twenties.”

And the Great Depression. Once the money bubble burst, the Hoover administration undertook massive government intervention in the form of price controls and excessive tariffs. It would take nearly twenty years for America to climb out of the hole the Federal Reserve had dug. But the Fed’s position was strengthened by the event, not weakened.

By 1971, the Treasury Dept. ceded all powers to the Fed to regulate the value of our money. Recently, we have lived through several commodity bubble bursts courtesy of the Greenspan-Bernanke “loose money” policy: the dot.com bubble in 1998, the housing bubble in 2008, as well as many shifts and market seizures that the Fed was supposed to prevent–but rather created with its loose credit policies, shady deals with chosen favorites, and casino-style credit swaps.

Boaz ItsHaky is on record for auditing the Federal Reserve Banking System from top to bottom. He wants to know why the world’s most secretive and exclusive banking syndicate has been playing dangerous games with America’s hard-earned money.

Even more so, he will strive to uncover the special relationship between the biggest investment banks on Wall Street and the Federal Reserve banking system, as well as the deals these entities may have struck with Greece and other faltering countries abroad. Are We the People going to bail out member states of the EU? Boaz ItsHaky wants to know!

Furthermore, Boaz ItsHaky wants to restore the Federal Reserve Act to its original intent, and firmly uphold the U.S. Constitution to its purpose, beginning by restoring Congress as the regulator of our money. After all, “stop the spending” isn’t just a campaign slogan to harp on. Its a core principle that demands critical judgment from our elected representative. (And a lack of such principle among the incumbents has burdened us with deficits for the last decade.)

Boaz ItsHaky can do this for us if We the People send him to Congress in an historic election in 2010!

The challenging state of government welfare entitlement programs may make the best recruitment tools yet for young people who are either detached from politics or completely sold to the Democrats. Take Social Security, for example.

Social Security is a trust fund whereby the current generation of workers pays the retired generation, with the promise and expectation that they, too, shall receive pay upon retirement. It is simple at the core, but the stark reality is, paying off early investors with funds taken from later investors is defined as a Ponzi scheme. Its sort of what Bernie Madoff was doing, until the money ran out. So, Bill Frezza over at RealClearMarkets recently asked:

Why do kids put up with this? Last time I checked they were old enough to vote. An entire generation is being systematically robbed by their parents with nary a peep. Why aren’t they marching in the streets like we did? When they do show up at the polls like sheep ready to be shorn, they pull the lever for kumbaya politicians promising to stick them with the bill for an ever-expanding menu of unfunded middle class entitlements.

And that’s the biggest reason why Social Security is going bankrupt, and much sooner than people think. The “trust fund” has run out of trust because it is raided on a daily basis to pay for hundreds of other entitlement programs that have nothing to do with retirement but would end if it weren’t for Social Security.

At any rate, Frezza concludes the kids aren’t marching because their baby-boomer parents failed to raise Gen-X to maturity, and their kids are basically unaware of the impending disaster being thrown upon them by their parents. Perhaps. But perhaps their parents also failed to instill a sense of social outrage to match an ability to think clearly. (Just who was matching and protesting in the 60s, anyway?)

Taking over where the parents left off, Democrats are extremely successful in recruiting young people as party servants. Go to any polling place on election day, and one is bound to find teens holding Democrat campaign signs nearby. Republicans have failed to attract youth members, and that’s partly why the party rolls are declining precipitiously. So, what makes the Democrats so appealing to the youth? There are two reasons.

First, there is an active outreach to welcome young people and engage them in party activities. Young people are recruited for social engagements, and those who choose to be active participants are rewarded with accolades, recognition, and responsibility.

Second, the Democrats appeal to youthful idealism. They successfully invoke community, activitism, group participation, and social justice. As a political entity, they promise to help people and make the world a better place, which is attractive to young people in their late teens and early 20s, who themselves are starting to live independently but feel a need for external help and a place to belong.

Naturally, the Democrat propaganda is just that: they lure young people into their machine with idealism just long enough to have some sort of investment in the system: a political career in the nitty-gritty powerhouse, or just clinging to the hope that a better world is just around the corner if only Democrats win the next election and finally make all those promises come true.

For Republicans to even think about success in the 21st century, they had better take a cue from the Democrats and appeal directly to a class of voters who are alive now and (we hope) will have a longer and fuller life than the previous generations.

There is no reason Republicans cannot seize the mantle of youthful idealism and social justice, and perhaps the best way to do it is to appeal to simple logic. Ask a (very) young person to consider the following:

• What if the government has a social program that helps poor people?
• What if that program relies on tax money to keep it active, so it continues to help the needy?
• Now, what if the government spends so much money on other things, there’s not enough left to help the poor?
• What if the government tries to raise taxes to get more money, but it makes businesses close and the unemployed workers become poor?
• What happens when these people and others like them need help from that program?
• How much longer before you and your friends will be asking for help from that program, but its been closed because there’s no more money in it?

Ultimately, you’re asking young people to wonder what good a comprehensive socialized system will do anyone when it fails.

Like social security will.

The philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats should not be whether the government should be helping people, but rather how those people are being helped. For the Democrats, a top-down command-authority is clearly their solution for society’s woes. Thomas More’s Isle of Utopia was a dictatorship, after all.

Republicans should rather encourage youth to employ their unique individualism to solving communal problems, to recognize the individual as the source of community strength, and that “people power” is actually practiced and embraced by the party of Lincoln, the same who freed the slaves on the basis of equality and liberty.

For Republicans to end the Democrat domination of the young voter, clear principles will not just need to be advertised, they will need to be highlighted, promoted, and most importantly, put into practice!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 7, 2009, 1:12 AM

Boaz ItsHaky, Third District’s Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, enthusiastically endorses Cassidy for Class President at her School!

After hearing about Cassidy’s bid for the position, Bo reviewed her campaign platform and gave it two thumbs up.

“The importance of reading and awareness of the spread of Flu and MSRA are timely policies for Cassidy to highlight,” Bo said.

And what about her campaign?

“I’m really impressed by the work she’s putting into her campaign,” Bo exclaimed. “It tells me she won’t let her classmates down once they elect her Class President.”

Class President is not just a popularity contest. It is an important exercise in civics for all young people.

“Being Class President will be a great experience for Cassidy, and an inspiration for her friends and classmates,” Bo added. “Cassidy will have an executive position. She will listen to her classmates, negotiate and compromise with teachers, and make decisions.”

Cassidy’s classmates will have a role in her Presidency as well.

“It’s not just casting a vote and then its over,” Bo stresses. “Voting her President is only the beginning. Afterward, Cassidy will advocate improvements her classmates would like in class, and mediate difficulties between the class and their teachers. It is up to the class to make the most of their new Class President.”

Boaz ItsHaky is a strong supporter of civics education and participation by young people. And Cassidy surpasses his expectations and hopes for our future leaders.

Cassidy’s campaign website is http://www.creativemovements.com/cassidy and supporters may email her at princessbabbles@aol.com!

Go, Cassidy! GO!

Please excuse our pre-Halloween playfulness here. Its just that when something as particularly dreadful as H.R.3962 gets sprung on Congress at the last bitter moment, we can’t help but giggle nervously, look around, and wonder if this is all part of some mischief night prank. After all, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was seen hovering around it like some sort of medium at a seance.

H.R.3962 is another one of Rep. John Dingell’s environmentally-friendly recycled lobbyist hashes. So far its just titled “To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.”

We’re waiting on our tip-toes for the next great Democrat acronym, but since all the good ones have already been taken (AHCA, AAHCA, AHFA, AHAA, AAAA, AAA, etc.) we’ll jump the gun and call it “Dingell’s Universal Medical Bill” or DUMB.

Now, we won’t bother ranting and raving about DUMB’s jaw-dropping page count. Been there, done that with Dingell’s pre-DUMB offering, H.R. 3200. Hate to credit the creepy likes of Alan Combs for anything, but he pointed out that nobody questioned the page count of the Patriot Act when it was rammed through Congress. So who should raise a ruckus over the leaning tower of DUMB that was threatening to topple onto Rep. John Boehner the other day? Certainly not us!

Nor shall we raise the issue of “shall” appearing more times throughout the text of DUMB than Sen. Chuck Schumer before a press conference podium in any given week. “Shall” is one of those antagonistic words best left in the earlier works of Shakespeare. Nobody in their 260s and younger actually uses that word in normal conversation. “Thou, thee, thy, shall.” Most bills drooling out of the Congressional offices sound like the King James version of the Bible, only without divine inspiration.

Nor must (aha! “must” not “shall!”) we take on the fact that nobody’s still finished reading Dingell’s other “Nightmare on C Street Southeast,” alternatively titled AHFA. Or AHCA. Or one of those handy acronyms.

Republicans keep demanding 72 hours for the public to glance at a bill before its ram-rodded through Congress like ball-shot in a Parrot gun, but hey! We don’t know anyone who got through Dan Brown’s novels in less than 72 hours. And his stuff’s one-quarter the length and occasionally entertaining.

Let’s face it. We’re slow readers. We like to absorb the nitty-gritty details. Look, we’re still stuck on page 994 of AHFA (or is it AHCA?), where “Ye Lords & Ladies of the manor shall forfeit a goodly portion of crops & fruits of thy forest & heath, lest toiling peasants of thine fields succumb to privation & black death…”

No wait. Wrong bill. That was Title XI Sec. 23 Subsec. 12(A)(1)(a)(iii) of Pelosi’s Medicare overhaul from that other fright-fest, the 110th Congress.

We won’t even bore the kids with pointing out how utterly two-faced it is for Dingell to put “reduce the growth in health care spending” in the title of this crushing behemoth. Great. It’ll reduce health care spending. But where? At the drug store? Will bandages for mummy-wrapping be cheaper after DUMB is signed into law?

Call us crazy, but adding “only” $90,000,000,000 a year to the budget (plus another $90,000,000,000 to cover the lies being told on Capitol Hill) isn’t saving anything. Running a deficit like we are now has never happened in history for a very good reason: It can’t be done. Oh, the Byzantines tried it a couple of centuries ago (when “shall” was the hot word among the nobles and clergy) and we know how THAT ONE turned out: The Fall of Constantinople makes “Saw VI” look like a haunted hay ride!

The biggest problem with DUMB (Oh, how to pick just one! It’s like rummaging for the last Twix in a big crystal bowl of Milky Ways and Snickers while trick-or-treating, isn’t it?) is its bare-faced, pig-headed stubborn blatantness. Hate to get personal here, but come on! A goodly portion of America is deeply offended by the blanket-law bill-dumping practices of the veteran incumbent Democrat leadership.

There ought to be a law against littering Capitol Hill like this. But we figure THAT law won’t be enacted until after Pelosi and the other ghosts of the 111th Congress are exorcised in the 2010 elections.

All right! Forget about these real-life nightmares! Let’s get down to some pumpkin carving, skeleton-hanging, and don’t forget to drop a few lumps of dry ice in a tub of water for good effect.

Halloween is a time for plain fun. Who wants the ghouls of the DNC scaring us out of our wits with their wicked games, anyway?

Senate Democrats have “let the smoke out of the back room,” so to speak. New draft details of Senator Max Baucus’ health care reform bill (abbreviated to AHFA) have been made public, and there is little to like about the latest revisions. In this bill, the “public option” is disguised as something that states can “opt out of.”

We’re not sure who is being targeted in this latest push for public option acceptance, but it is unlikely to gain traction for the simplest reason: States will not be able to opt out because of what we like to call the dreaded “Stimulus Effect.”

Back in the winter, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA (pronounced ERROR) disbursed billions of federal dollars to the states for pork projects galore. The states almost fell over one another to grab for this “Free” money. Only the governors of Texas and South Carolina threatened to refuse the grab-bag on grounds that complying with ARRA’s fine print was unconstitutional. But the state legislators crushed gubernatorial opposition to hop aboard the cash train.

Democrats expect much of the same panic-excitement seen during ARRA once Sen. Baucus’ AHFA is enacted. One need only ask the obvious question: What state in its right mind will “opt out” of a health plan paid for by the federal government? What legislature will bring themselves to say “no” to federal cash?

Several states have public option health plans, including Massachuestts and Vermont, while Connecticut has a limited plan. Will these struggling cash-strapped states retain their own tailored plans while the federal government dangles a “paid-for” plan of its own? Unlikely.

The other, more pragmatic reason no state will ever “opt out” is the legal maxim that federal law preempts state law except when state law is more stringent. This means, any state that wishes to “opt out” will have to enact a public option plan that offers more coverage than the federal law.

So, the Baucus bill with its heavily advertised “opt out” clause is a mirage. Its impossible on every political level. And its patently dishonest of the veteran incumbent Democrats to invoke the dreaded “Stimulus Effect” as a way of terrorizing states into accepting their plan.

Ever since the new administration was inaugurated, a tidal wave of legislation has surged forward from the Democrat leadership. Nearly all of this work is old. That is, most of the bills were killed in previous sessions of Congress, or were written by lobbyists and special interests waiting sometimes years for a moment such as this.

And, during the last nine months, the incumbent Democrats have accused the Republicans of being “the Party of No” because GOP leaders repeatedly urged their colleagues to slow down, if only long enough for legislators to obey the Constitution and actually read what they’re voting on. Furthermore, one after another, the Republicans offered bipartisan alternatives, only to be shut down and shut out.

In reality, the Democrats are the REAL Party of NO, and here are several reasons why:

1. TARP. Even before the election, Democrats accused the Republicans for not supporting the TARP bailout of the biggest, richest banks. For questioning the moral right of the government to pick and choose which bank should be allowed to take taxpayer cash and then use it to become richer and more powerful, the Republicans were already being called the “Party of Doing Nothing.” But the Democrats were the ones who said NO to sensibility and moderation.

2. Stimulus. When the Stimulus came around, the GOP was already stereotyped as “The Party of No” for not supporting a comprehensive recovery plan. But the Republicans denounced the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (pronounced ERROR) as an inflation of welfare. Republican lawmakers issued dozens of amendments, but they were killed in committee by the Democrats, who said NO to steering tax money toward solid infrastructure projects this year.

Even progressive activists who advocated investment in public works as a good stimulus were unhappy with the expansion of welfare by ARRA. The progressives knew nothing in the stimulus package would actually help the economy or build public infrastructure. And, the Democrats said NO to stimulating the economy through tax breaks and targeted stimulus measures as the Republicans had requested.

3. Budget. The Democrats’ 2010 budget was released with great fanfare, and received by the public with great anxiety. Never before had so much money been committed to so many special interests. In response, the Republicans issued a structural blueprint of how they felt the next budget should progress: their plan called for moderation in the tough economic climate, especially as the IRS released a warning on revenue loss.

The incumbent Democrat leadership responded with ridicule, saying their budget had no numbers, and the media declared the GOP dead in the water. Within a week, the Republican alternative budget was fleshed out with numbers, but it was too late. Speaker Pelosi had the votes to pass her monolithic creation. And the Democrats said NO to compromise and NO to respect for the American taxpayer.

4. Cap-And-Trade. Rep. Henry Waxman’s job-destroying Global Warming bill was rushed through Congress. The quicker, the better. So many special interests stood to benefit from the penalties on American manufacturers, grants for unproven green industries, and carbon trading  in the gambling house called Wall Street. All while doing literally nothing to alleviate climate change.

Immediately, the Republicans submitted their comprehensive “New Manhattan Project” for encouraging the strategic development of alternative energy. Grants for research and development would expand to full federal funding where progress toward sustainable energy solutions were proven. But Rep. Waxman denounced the bill as “a prize-giving competition” compared to his bill. The Democrat Party said NO to rewarding innovation and creative problem-solving.

5. Health Care Reform.Time and time again, Rep. Rosa DeLauro has denounced the Republicans for being a party without ideas, a party of “No.” In her House floor statement of April 29, 2009, Rep. DeLauro said:

If you listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they were missing in action over this last 8 years. It is hard to believe that they were in charge. It is a little bit like “see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.” They were gone from the playing field over these last 8 years. We will not let a party of “no” stand in the way of a reformed health care system that the majority of Americans so desperately want.

Long before Senator Kennedy’s terrible AHCA and Rep. John Dingell’s even worse AAHCA, there was the Republican’s bipartisan Patient’s Choice Act (PCA). It would enact major reforms to the industry and still keep government from intruding on the all-important doctor-patient relationship. The PCA promises to reward innovation, allow doctors the freedom to practice medicine as they see fit, and broaden the patients’ choices, while streamlining administrative work, reducing liability costs, and cutting down on fraud.

But the PCA is going nowhere. That’s because the Democrat leadership has said NO to giving the American people the right to choose what’s best for themselves and their families.

6. “Bipartisanship”. Like the rest of the veteran incumbent Democrat leadership, “bipartisanship” in the 111th Congress is simple: Vote with us! Or get NOas an alternative. Rep. DeLauro unequivocally stated:

We will work to craft bipartisan legislation, but the American people are not interested in process. They are interested in results.

For 12 years, the Democrat minority thundered about bipartisanship, about being included in the legislative process because they had been voted into office by Democrat constituents. President George W. Bush responded by including Democrat proposals into his agenda. The result was massive deficits. When Rep. DeLauro said,

But let’s be clear. It was under their leadership that a $5.6 trillion surplus turned into the historic budget deficit that President Obama and this Congress inherited a deficit of well over $1 trillion in 2009.

She really meant, “Let’s be clear. It was under Democrat guidance and authorship and pressure that massive entitlements were signed into law.” Only audacious denial of facts allow Democrats to get away with blaming the last Administration for debts and deficits when their administration will be tripling deficits each and every year!

Here is the truth about the last eight years: The problem was bipartisanship, offering the Democrat opposition a voice that did not belong to them. Because of this, an era of prosperity and record tax revenue still kept us trillions in debt.

When it comes to the last eight years, the blame game is rightly bipartisan. Both parties frittered away a great opportunity to use record revenues to balance the budget and reduce the debt while protecting manufacturing jobs.

What has happened since January 2009, however, sits squarely in the lap of the real Party of NO: The Democrats.

And now for a little exercise in (meta)physics for over the weekend.

Economists schooled in the theories of von Mises and Hayek have been warning of the dollar’s imminent collapse for some time now. Images of Germany in October 1923 (or Zimbabwe this year) illustrate governments’ fiscal policies run amok. And yet, the U.S. Dollar as a reserve currency maintains itself in relation to other benchmark currencies around the world. There doesn’t seem to be much sign of weakness in this corner of the otherwise lumbering economy.

And that’s what’s so worrying.

For some reason, I’ve been noticing flash-points in nature. Such as the moment enough heat interacts with the compounds atop a match head, causing a swift flare-up of enormous size compared to the chemicals. Or a thick, grey cumulus cloud passing overhead, looming dark and threatening, suddenly releasing a torrential downpour without warning. I believe these are examples of the second law of thermodynamics in action.

Flash-points occur in the man-made world as well, sort of metaphysical copies of natural law. And can happen with similar, unexpected violence.

In the early morning hours of April 26, 1986, workers at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant decided to test the safety procedures of Reactor 4. They reduced its power to bare minimum levels, to see how the reactor would behave if it had to be depowered in an emergency.

After the test, the workers increased power to bring it back online. The reactor remained at the bare minimum.

The workers increased the power a little more, expecting the reactor to kick in. But it didn’t. Still at bare minimum power. The supervisor nodded for another increase. And another. The workers brought up the power to normal operating level. And…

BANG!

A flash-point had been surpassed. Suddenly. Unexpectedly.

It wasn’t gradual. It wasn’t measurable. It just happened. It was a property of physics that hadn’t fully been taken into account.

The rest is history. Thousands dead. Mass contamination. An unforgettable, historic disaster.

Back to the present day, and the worst of the economic crisis appears to be in the past. The new administration warns of more clean-up ahead. This involves continuing to create huge amounts of credit out of thin air, and floating vast loans with bonds “promising to pay” at some time in the future.

Investors, well, those who survived the slaughter of autumn 08, appear confident in the dollar. It’s their last refuge. Stocks have been flat, and commodities have remained in the basement. So what’s left except the greenback?

While investors are pumping their hopes into the dollar, the government has not seen fit to change its ways. In fact, it intends to fight fire with a daisy-cutter and triple the actions that brought on this crisis in the first place.

The Fed has widened the credit line like the Grand Canyon, the Treasury department is floating their loans in record auctions, and investors are buying them up, insecure about the path they’re treading but certain there is nowhere else to put their money.

Like a financial Reactor 4, the sluggish banking system is being injected with more and more credit. More and more cash will be have to be disbursed. More and more government-backed securities will choke the marketplace.

They will spend more, and buy more, and print more…

Question is, when is the flash-point? The point at which the banking system melts down faster than Reactor 4, spewing hyper-inflation all across the world?

At what point will the last refuge of the global investor crumble, and her/his investments get consumed in a conflagration entirely made by an irresponsible, unrealistic government completely at the mercy of an unpredictable but inviolable natural law?

Most importantly, do the movers and makers of this imminent exercise in natural physical laws understand what’s happening? Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke seems to think he can shut the pressure valve in time to stop an explosion. He must think the Fed can call in its loans and raise interest rates just as the irruption begins.

But nature has a funny way of defying expectations while still remaining true to physics. The dollar may well go Chernobyl one early morning while the rest of us are tucked in bed.

It remains for We the People to hold onto our umbrellas and hope the next torrential downpour won’t be in worthless greenbacks.

Rosh Hashanah begins at sundown. It is the Jewish New Year. And, like any other change of the year, one is called on to look back at where we were, and at the same time, look forward to where we’re going.

Lately, much has been made in the mass media about the tone set by conservative and libertarian activists. As one should expect, the most widely broadcast images reflected demagoguery, which left-wing commentators used as evidence of intolerance and hatred, rather than focusing on what caused the emotions in the first place.

That’s a given. Because this is politics. And it is not new.

When President George W Bush was in office, Democrat demagoguery exceeded and expanded old boundaries of acceptability. Fast-forward to the present, and liberty-minded Tea Parties and tax protests are doing the green thing: recycling old Democrat demagoguery!

Is it good? No. Anger and passion are never far from hot-button issues, but boundaries of taste and respect were put in place for a reason.

Is it unpatriotic? No. America is blessed with a fountain of tolerance and freedom, and has never yielded to authoritarianism. Using nazi symbolism as an eye-catcher in protests is tasteless but not illegal.

Ironically, legal or civil efforts to suppress the rights of protesters is more likely to vindicate the authoritarians of the past than obnoxious protesters waving paper signs decked with swastikas.

What’s concerning is the boundary of taste and respect being shoved completely out of view by Democrats. Former President Jimmy Carter seized hold of the spectre of race and has wielded it as a weapon. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has gone much further:

“The Speaker is now likening genuine opposition to assassination. Such insulting rhetoric not only undermines the credibility of her office, but it underscores the desperate attempt by her party to divert attention away from a failing agenda,” Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

The Democrats have taken unacceptable actions to keep the dying healthcare debate on life support. But their tone is likely to be adopted and recycled by their Republican opponents. And then what? Shall we have to bear lectures on the barbarity of the modern political discourse? Or witness a conflagration of more and more demagoguery?

As the Jewish New Year heralds a year before the next general election, we earnestly hope and pray our patriotic demagogues on both sides of the aisle turn away from garish sign-waving and name-calling. And, that our conservative and libertarian friends will invest their energies in a real grassroots effort to halt the growth of authoritarian government and educate the people about sound fiscal policy, commonsense legislation, noninvasive regulation, and responsible politics in Congress.

Shana Tova!

A particularly brutal piece of legislation has been passed. H.R. 3221 is called The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), but it neither aids students nor does it remotely suggest fiscal responsibility. Naturally, Rep. Rosa DeLauro is the loudest champion of this intrusive and ultimately abusive bill, and its passage was by a strict party-line vote.

According to the Congresswoman, H.R.3221 “reforms the system of federal student loans to save taxpayers $87 billion – and invests $77 billion of those savings back into education, particularly by increasing funding for the Pell Grant program and creating an Early Leaning Challenge Fund to increase high-quality early childhood education and development for low-income children.”

Ordinarily, people cannot contradict themselves after only two words, but Rep. DeLauro does. Taxpayers CANNOT save $87 billion and spend $77 billion of the same money at the same time. They can’t even save $10 billion of what’s left over.

That’s because We the People will be on the hook for an additional $50 billion, and any student who applies for a taxpayer-subsidized government-controlled loan will have to perform community service (yes, much like convicted criminals currently have to).

According to Neal McClusky at CATO@Liberty, the CBO reports that this thing will cost an additional $50 billion. The CBO identified a net cost to taxpayers of about $600 million a year. Then it estimated SAFRA would cost an additional $33 billion after accounting for lending risk. Now, CBO estimates the cost of expanding Pell grants could be almost $11 billion greater than estimated. If you add all of those things together, the cost of SAFRA has flipped from a promised $10 billion savings to a $50 billion loss.

Meanwhile, all of the subsidies that the government hands out as Pell grants will be prohibited from going to private lenders. Only government lenders will handle Pell Grants, meaning the private student loan industry is finished. (This sounds a bit like that “government competition in health insurance”)

The reason for this is because provisions of the GIVE Act and Rep. DeLauro’s own Summer of Service Act demand students and young people for a civilian “volunteer” corps. H.R. 3221 fulfills the body count. Of course, volunteering in GIVE-speak will mean “serve or don’t go to college” for many young adults.

Finally, many opponents of H.R. 3221 denounce a $500 million grant to the Department of Education in order to design a national curriculum. Its being called unconstitutional, since providing education is the domain of the states, not the federal government

The collision of government-managed student loans, compulsory community service, a national curriculum, and national pre-school is a shocking intrusion into the lives of our young people. And, Rep. Rosa DeLauro on the wrong side of the issue again.

UPDATE: 03/19/2010 3:33PM. SAFRA has been attached as Division III of H.R.4872, the Health care reconciliation bill. But Title VI, the Defund ACORN Act, has been left off the bill.The sex-slavery activists at ACORN will continue to receive public funding to advise criminals on how to import, enslave, exploit, and sexually abuse vulnerable women and children.

Happy Constitution Day! Yes, exactly 222 years ago, on September 17, 1787, the most important legal document in world history was signed by the state delegates to the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia. It was ratified by the state of Delaware in 1789, and many other states followed suit. Our great nation has been growing and prospering ever since.

The document itself is a little rough around the edges, but the laws penned on its surface have ensured the personal liberty of each and every American when he or she stands before the federal government.

Let’s work together to make sure this noble achievement never yellows and fades from the conscience of our elected legislators or from the President of the United States, whose first job is to guarantee all bills she or he signs into law are Constitutional.

Here are two sections of our Constitution that deal with Congress:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

• The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

• To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

• The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
• The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
• No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
• No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.)
• No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
• No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
• No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
• No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

While the Boaz ItsHaky Campaign crew was scattered across the globe this summer, visiting family, looking up old friends, and enjoying a little R&R, the 111th U.S. Congress fast-tracked Rep. John Dingell’s H.R. 2749, which we called the “Fear of Food Act.” It passed the House 283 to 142 (Roll Call no. 680) with a good number of Republicans joining on the third vote.

Now, Rep. Rosa DeLauro had warned us that “sometimes the dangers that threaten the safety and health of American families … lurk in our fridges and on our kitchen tables.” The Congresswoman adds, “And yet, for too long, the cornerstone of our food safety system – the FDA – has had only ancient tools and an outdated mandate at its disposal.”

By this, Rep. DeLauro means the FDA could not hand out higher fines, and didn’t have a mandate to target local family and organic farms. Until now. Because that’s who will be targeted by the newly empowered FDA inspectors. It’s typical Washington irony that Reps. DeLauro and Dingell proposed legislation in response to a deadly salmonella outbreak in a large food production facility, and yet the legislation effectively exempts largest producers by virtue of their ability to comply. (That’s not a misstatement, but the harsh reality of this legislation: it gives the big PAC donors a pass while putting the screws on the small operations.)

Anyway, its the opinion of some obvservers that FDA did have enough inspectors and tools to spot salmonella threats, but still failed to do so!

Much like the IRS, whose auditors famously target thousands of small businesses for every corporation, the FDA inspectors will go after the local and family-owned organic farms while strategically avoiding large production facilities and international agro-corporations. Its a matter of laziness: small targets rarely have a cadre of lawyers at hand like the large facilities. And yet, our fridges and dinner tables are likely to have products from the large corporate farms.

Worst of all, small family-owned farms and organic producers are expected to pay astronomical permits to pay for the FDA’s expansion, which will create fields of paperwork and auditing. For example, an annual registration fee of $500 is imposed on any “facility” that handles food. But for what? To pay for FDA paperwork handling? In addition, warrantless searches of business records, directives on farming methods, widespread quarantine powers, excessive penalties are all part of the new American farming experience.

Frankly, H.R. 2749 incorporates the very worst of Rep. DeLauro’s much-maligned H.R. 875. The only real difference between Rep. Dingell’s bill and Rep. DeLauro’s is that the Congresswoman’s splits the FDA, creating the Food Safety Administration to handle the excessive bureaucracy that will arise from the new regulations. No doubt, Rep. DeLauro will have to strip H.R. 875 of redundant passages should H.R. 2749 be signed into law.

For the sake of our farmers, let’s hope it doesn’t.

Its September. Another one of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s extended vacations is over. Another relaxing month at a gorgeous secluded villa is in the past. Time to go back to Washington and “do the peoples’ work.”

With a majority in the House of Representatives and a super-majority in the Senate (vacant Massachusetts seat notwithstanding), the veteran incumbent Democrats should have no problem enacting every single piece of legislation that falls in their lap.

So why the trouble over this health care reform? Why is the public being given a chance to speak its mind, to question the ruling party, to raise awareness of their fears? Why hasn’t the Democrat leadership solidified itself and pushed forward on the national healthcare plan (hr676.org says) everybody really wants?

Now, H.R. 676 is the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act. It proposes to widen the current Medicare system to cover everyone in the United States. There are 92 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

With a formidable list of supporters such as this, with a critical piece of legislation such as this, and a powerful mandate from the 2008 elections that gave the Democrats absolute legislative and executive authority, what’s holding them back? (A few town hall meetings that have gotten ugly?)

So, as the veteran incumbent Democrats file into the Capitol building to hear from the President of the United States on how important healthcare reform is, I’m dropping the gauntlet and making a challenge:

Vote on H.R. 676! Go on! If the Democrats really have a mandate from the people, if they really know what’s best for all of us, if they are truly convinced private insurance is broken and only the government can take care of us, then they must vote on the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act and pass it! They must do what they feel is right.

Shouldn’t they? Isn’t that why they think they were elected to office?

According to key Democrats, the town halls are an extension of right-wing talking heads, not representative of the true feelings of the people. There should be no difficulty dismissing rabble-rousers, paid demonstrators, and trouble-makers in order to pass real reform everybody wants.

Make no mistake. If nationalized healthcare was passed, it would be popular (at least to start). If its cheap, people will pick it up in an instant. There is little doubt that people would drop their expensive plans to adopt a cheap government alternative. That’s what happened in Hawaii when the childrens’ health plan was open to all. (Of course, the system went bankrupt in a matter of months. Some legislators did not consider that middle- and upper-class people might want free coverage for their children too.)

Only problem is, the government has never really been in the business of satisfying customers, Medicare included. Private sector insurance is notorious for fighting claims, but they have also designed plans with a view to satisfy their customer’s wishes regarding coverage and care. Otherwise, the customers might shift over to another carrier. (By contrast, H.R. 676 proposes WYSIWYG satisfaction: “What you see is what you get.”)

So, come on, incumbents! Find some backbone. Practice what you preach, and preach, and preach! Ignore your constituents and vote on Medicare for all!

I dare you.

Boaz ItsHaky