I No Longer Support Ron Paul

I just sent this e-mail to the Campaign for Liberty:

I’m not a Republican because, as a libertarian, I consider the Republican Party to be the worse of two evils.  I have decided not to continue to support Ron Paul because of his cheap, opportunistic refusal to support Gary Johnson.  I appreciate all he has done for the libertarian movement, but in the end he’s just another Republican. I have removed my name from your mailing list, and I do not support you.

Romney-and-Obama Supporters Are Good Germans

 I am voting for Johnson not because he is not the lesser of two evils.  I am voting for Johnson because he stands for freedom, while Romney and Obama stand for totalitarianism.  Romney favors tariffs, a significant increase in government.  If your aim is to reduce government, Romney is the greater, not the lesser, of two evils.  

The same was true of Reagan in 1980.  He claimed to be for small government, but he did not reduce government, and he opened the door for massive increases in local taxes through his new federalism, whereby he downloaded programs to the states. Carter had stopped inflation by appointing Paul Volcker as Fed chairman (who implemented monetarist policies starting in 1979); he had deregulated the airlines and trucking.  Reagan reignited inflation and a 25-year stock bubble through supply-side economics, instituted new regulation in areas like human resource management, and did NOT reduce the federal government.  Can you  claim that Reagan was the lesser of two evils?  With the Republican-conceived $29 trillion bailout of banks, the Republicans' bunkum has grown old.   There has been no bigger expansion of the state than the Republican-conceived $29 trillion bailout of 2009. To support Romney is to support socialism.

Choosing between Romney and Obama is choosing between two candidates who support the Federal Reserve Bank’s swap of $29 trillion in real assets for banks’ failed investments. The Fed’s printed money comes out of my pocket--it is stolen.  

I oppose both thieving gangsters:  Romney and Obama.  Neither Romney nor Obama are the lesser of two evils. They both represent significant, direct harm to me and to this country;  their supporters participate in their national socialism, just as the good Germans did under Hitler.

Presidential Debate II: With Bums Like These, America Will Lose

Tuesday night's presidential debate frightened me. Two big goverment losers, neither in touch with the ideas of freedom on which the country was founded, advocated extremist, crackpot ideas. Two friends of banks avoided any discussion of any issue that mattered. Romney, with his China bashing and advocacy of tariffs, opposes freedom.  Obama, with his ignorance of the history of and reason for the Second Amendment, is a clown.  What is especially striking about Obama is that he went through three years of Harvard Law School, claims to have specialized in constitutional law, and is ignorant about the Constitution.  With these two clowns, America is in trouble. Making matters worse, the organizers of the debate, reflecting an increasingly totalitarian America, excluded the only worthwhile candidate: Gary Johnson

Philips Electronics Pulls Debate Funding

In this dismal, uninteresting, and tragic presidential election, the only bright spots are Gary Johnson's candidacy and his six percent polling result. Minor parties rarely get more than one or two percent. Six will be the best showing in the Libertarian Party's history and, finally, some evidence that a few Americans are beginning to reject the Progressivism that the Republican Party established in 1908 with the reelection of the first Progressive president, Theodore Roosevelt.  Johnson is the only candidate who questions the current monetary regime and favors sharp reductions in government.  In contrast, both Romney and Obama favored the largest expansion in government in our lifetimes, the bailout of Wall Street, which is no longer discussed in the pro-Fed media.

Philips Electronics is a historically Dutch firm that was founded in the early twentieth century and has been a consistent competitor to GE.  With 125,000-or-so employees, Philips is global. It does  business in more than 100 countries; its scientists and executives speak multiple languages.  Unlike GE, Goldman Sachs, GM, or Merck, Philips has little to gain from the favors of Obama and Romney.

US News (h/t Mike Marnell) reports that Philips and the venerable YWCA have pulled their support from the presidential debates because the Commission on Presidential debates  insists on excluding Governor Gary Johnson.  Manipulation by the pro-Fed establishment is  not new. In the Republican primary, the Republicans and the media cheated against Ron Paul. According to US News:

 In a letter announcing its sponsorship withdrawal, Philips wrote that it was concerned the commission's work "may appear to support bi-partisan" instead of "non-partisan" politics. The YWCA similarly wrote that it was dropping out because it is a "non-partisan" women's organization.

Americans have a diehard bias in favor of the two-party system. Given the two parties' performance, the bias is self-destructive.  Gary Johnson offers a libertarian alternative to twin advocates of Progressivism, whose ideas have caused the real hourly wage to stagnate for the past 40 years, have been responsible for increasing income inequality, have attacked economic innovation, and have cut your standard of living in half unless most of your wealth comes from stock-and-bond appreciation.

The rule that only candidates with 15% or more in the polls can participate in the televised debate evidences the diminution of democracy and freedom in the United States.  The United States has become a two-party-based oligarchy chiefly responsive to corporate interests. Given how infrequently third parties have obtained 10% of the vote, setting the bar at 15% is a clever way to ensure that the presidential debates are limited to unbalanced Progressivism.

Gary Johnson on Ron Paul

Rasmussen's Odd Gary Johnson Coverage

A few months ago I noticed that the Rasmussen polling firm, which seems to represent the Republican establishment, is covering the presidential race in a peculiar way.  It asks prospective voters whether they will support Romney, Obama, or some other candidate.  The firm thereby marginalizes Gary Johnson, who is on the ballot in all 50 states  and threatens Romney, who is running neck and neck with Obama.  

Today, Rasmussen released special poll data that finds that, while 16% of voters like Gary Johnson, 20% don't; two percent consider him very favorably, but eight percent consider him very unfavorably.  Rasmussen links to the actual questions asked about Johnson, which are as follows:
 

1) If the Presidential Election were held today, would you vote for Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama or Libertarian Gary Johnson?

2) Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of Gary Johnson?

What's odd is that in their analysis of their findings the Rasmussen people don't reveal what the percentage answers were to question one.  Elsewhere, they continue to reveal that four percent would vote for "some other candidate," but they don't say what percent answered "Gary Johnson" to question one.  Here is what they write:


>Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states but is largely unknown to the nation’s voters. 

>A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 16% of Likely U.S. Voters have a favorable opinion of Johnson while 20% offer an unfavorable view. Only one-out-of-10 have a strong opinion of him: Two percent (2%) have a Very Favorable view of Johnson while eight percent (8%) have a Very Unfavorable one. (To see survey question wording, click here.) 

The important questions concern Johnson's percentage and the extent to which he diminishes Romney's chance.  For some reason Rasmussen sidesteps giving the answer.   Given that  today (August 25) Obama is beating Romney by one or two points and has been since Ryan's nomination, that would seem to be an important question for the Republicans.  

Since the Republicans are the second of two big-government parties, and Americans, a nation of squealing rats on a sinking ship, are happy with their choices--squealers-in-chief Romney and Obama--I am getting my life boat in order.  Besides voting for Johnson, I am looking into buying real estate in Chile or Uruguay and am going down there for a first look this winter.  I have been told that the Bush family already owns a huge parcel in Uruguay.

Gary Johnson for President

Johnson Threatens Romney's Viability

Gary Johnson may prevent Mitt Romney's election in November. Real Clear Politics says that Johnson aims to utilize increasingly important social media; if the strategy is successful and Johnson wins 15% in three national polls, he will participate in the national debates. This will be an important step to ending the two-party system, which has led to increasing corruption and ever bigger government.  Politico notes that an Arizona survey found that Johnson will receive nine percent. The poll, published by Public Policy Polling on May 23, notes that, in a head-to-head race, Romney leads Obama by 50 to 43 percent in Arizona. Although 80% of Arizona voters say that they are not sure of their opinion of Gary Johnson, question 11 indicates this:

11. If the candidates for President this year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Libertarian Gary Johnson, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 41%
Mitt Romney................................................... 45%
Gary Johnson ................................................. 9%
Undecided....................................................... 6%

According to The New Mexico Watchdog, also based on a Public Policy Polling poll, Johnson was polling at seven percent in a three-way race among himself, Obama, and Romney. Obama wins against Romney in a two-way race, but wins by a 75 percent larger margin (48-44 versus 46-39) if Johnson is included. 

Johnson says that he has an eight percent support level nationally.  Public Policy Polling is a Democratic poll.  Unfortunately, the Republican Rasmussen poll so far has excluded Johnson.  Its results may therefore be distorted in Romney's favor.  If Johnson is polling more than five percent, polling firms should include him. Their margin of error (confidence interval in percentage terms) is smaller than Johnson's support.  In other words, they can't argue that Johnson's effect will be overwhelmed by random noise. It is bigger than random noise, and it will hurt Romney.

It is unfortunate that the GOP has chosen to pursue a big-government strategy.  I would like to see Obama unseated, but the cycle of pitting a corrupt, big-government Republican against a corrupt, socialist Democrat needs to end. Those who oppose the expansive state that Romney advocates will be drawn to Johnson.  His name recognition is still low, so six to eight percent may be significantly less than his ultimate support. The law suits being planned against the Romney campaign by Lawyers for Ron Paul (h/t Mike Marnell) may add to Johnson's support. Lawyers for Ron Paul alleges significant voter fraud and criminality in the Romney campaign.  If these allegations are extended over the next five months, they may raise the support level for Johnson.   The 15 percent target means that anyone who favors less government wastes their vote by supporting Romney.

New Gary Johnson Commercial

The other day, I was speaking to a waitress who supports Obama. She said that she dislikes the Republicans because they pander to special interests.  I suggested that Obama has overseen $29 trillion in swaps and other subsidies to global banks.  He has overseen bigger subsidies to Wall Street and banking than all of the preceding presidents in history combined contributed to all other special interests combined.  The waitress did not reply.  Mike Marnell, with whom I was having lunch, suggested that she would not change her vote. The American voter is a mindless drone. Voting for continuing the current system is a matter of habit. It is not going well; Americans are not doing well; the real hourly wage has not increased in four decades.  The conservative (in the European sense) philosopher Joseph de Mistre said: "Oute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite," that is, "Every nation gets the government it deserves."  Perhaps America deserves Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I hope that Gary Johnson proves that possibility wrong.

Jon Stewart Interviews Gary Johnson

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Ron Paul, Not Alexander Hamilton, Can Save Europe

In its May 26, 2012 issue,  The Economist has several excellent lead stories on the European crisis. It argues for democratic reform, political integration, and EU-wide supervision of banking.  It suggests that the costs of an EU break-up would be high, but the European public lacks an appetite for additional integration. Besides a European banking bureaucracy, The Economist argues for a European assumption of debt, which it calls mutualisation. Quoting Professor Vernon Bogdanor of King's College, London, its writers remind us that Alexander Hamilton fashioned American federalism through the federal government's assumption of debts. 

Europe needs Ron Paul, not Alexander Hamilton.

I do not doubt that a breakup of the European Union would be costly.  As well, I do not doubt that most Europeans, especially the innovative and hardworking ones, would have been better off without it.  In a letter to the editor in the same issue, Alexander Singer of Athens points out that the use of the catchword austerity with respect to recently mandated Greek reforms, in effect rejected in the May 6 election and now being re-polled on June 17,  is misguided.  Peloponnese garbage truck drivers are paid monthly pensions that are 50% above the wage of starting schoolteachers, according to Singer.

Regardless of the merits of Greek public pension policies, they are not market driven. A garbage truck driver who has saved and accumulated a fortune of one million dollars is entitled to an $80,000 pension.   One who has spent 15 years' worth of wages on hookers while sleeping in the back of his truck, only to retire at age 50 on a generous public pension, is not.

Nevertheless, the question is not whether a garbage truck driver should be paid a generous pension, but rather whether the driver produced value to justify it. Decisions about the equilibration of supply and demand are best left to markets; unions' political power allows them to divert wealth from poorer and less politically influential workers to themselves. 

The Greek government has made no attempt to equilibrate marginal wages and productivity, nor does the question matter to most Greeks, who are like children harping for an extra candy bar without an inkling as to from whence candy bars spring. It is evident that, to gratify a nation of childish fools,  the Greek government has, in yet another display of failed democratic processes, stolen the wealth used to pay that garbage truck driver from French banks. Now, French workers will be asked, through a ridiculous election outcome in France, to subsidize the French banks through monetary expansion, supposedly a "growth" strategy.

The economic incompetence advocated by the world's economists offers a convenient rationale for bankers to force workers to pay for their frivolous errors. Workers pay through inflationary policies that reduce real wages.  This is done in the supposed name of the workers themselves. Of course, The Economist's readers (bankers, lawyers,  politicians, public employees, executives, and university professors) are the true beneficiaries of stimulus policies and monetary expansion.  Since the ending of the world's reliance on gold in 1971, workers' real wages here in the US have not increased. 

The solution to Greece's and Europe's problems is recognition that more government causes greater harm.  The way out is through stabilization of money and long term stimulation of innovation and hard work through elimination of unnecessary government bureaucrats, starting with pointless institutions like the European Commission, a body whose purpose requires a Kant-sized metaphysics tome to explain.

Although there were inequities in the federal assumption of the Revolutionary War debt in the United States, there was at the time no doubt that every state had to some degree contributed to the war. There were reasons for states like Virginia and Maryland, which had repaid their war debts, to object to paying off less conservative states' debts. Nevertheless, Hamilton asked none of the states to subsidize unearned pensions for 50-year-old buffoons. In fact, many of the valiant soldiers were deprived of their pay, which was in by-then-valueless continentals.

To stabilize Europe's monetary system, the gold standard should replace the euro.  The European Central Bank should be shuttered, and the profligate French and German banks, which respectively lent to Greece and Spain, according to The Economist, should be put into whatever European equivalent to chapter 11 there may be.

One of the great ironies of the 1980s was that just as the USSR had proved itself a failure, Europe adopted a central authority akin to the Soviet Kremlin's. Every step of the way infertile bureaucratic wasters in the EU have advocated increasing government, regulation, and bureaucracy.  These privileged halfwits, who have produced nothing of value and have overseen a massive real estate bubble and debt collapse, have destroyed value.

As a European currency, gold is a better alternative than the euro  because it is not subject to quack economic theories advocated in places like The Economist, The New York Times, and most university economics departments.  Not one important economist in the world, including The Economist's staff, which spends all its time studying Europe, foresaw the current default-and-banking problems. The European bankers who lent to Spain and Greece are almost as dumb as the bankers in the US who have made one failed investment after the next for the past 60 years and who have survived only by means of one public subsidy after the next.   It is time that the global banking cancer was excised. Businesses that do not produce value, and $29 trillion in subsidies from the Fed so far say that the US banking system has not, need to die.

Recall that it was Hamilton, advocate of federalism, who favored central banking and opposed hard money.  Today, Ron Paul and his colleague Gary Johnson offer a set of solutions that can free Europe from the Carolingian dream of its uniting under a central authority.  Let Europe free itself from the medieval ideas of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Economist and The New York Times.  

A gold standard is how Europe should begin to reform itself.

Crying for Assemblyman Jim Conte

 On May 10 Long Island Politics.com re-posted and then Alex Jones's Infowars re-posted an article about a heart-breaking bill put forward by one of New York's Republicans, Jim Conte (h/t Mike Marnell).  Increasingly, the two party system is irrelevant because both parties have become totalitarian. Democrats advocate socialism and bonuses to rapacious public officials.  Republicans like Conte advocate fascism and ever greater suppression. Conte gives us a good reason to support Gary Johnson this year.

Conte proposes to illegalize anonymous Internet posting.  While I almost never post anonymously, most who have posted on my blog do.  I'm not big on anonymous posting because I think people should take responsibility for their ideas. But illegalizing it?   Is Conte an American? What kind of slime has the two-party system produced?  What rock did Conte climb out from under?

I suspect Conte is ignorant enough not to know that the entire Federalist Papers was written anonymously under the pseudonym Publius.  Anonymous opinion pieces were typically written by both the Federalist and the Jeffersonian press throughout early America.  Since Republican Conte is ignorant of the basic values on which America is based, he does not know that he is attacking one of the great traditions of American freedom.

Like a good fascist, Conte uses a pretext to attack free speech: Internet bullying. That is how totalitarians have whittled away freedom since the dawn of time. 

According to the Wikipedia article about the Federalist Papers:

At the time of publication, the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret, though astute observers guessed that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were the likely authors. Following Hamilton's death in 1804, a list that he drew up became public; it claimed fully two-thirds of the essays for Hamilton, including some that seemed more likely the work of Madison...The authors used the pseudonym "Publius," in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola...

All of this is well-known to Americans but not to Jim Conte.  Watching today's America implode through pond scum like Conte drives me to tears.  In Conte's honor, I'm listening to Roy Orbison's "Crying."

Romney Outpolls Obama

The Rasmussen Poll finds that Romney noses out Obama 46%-45%.  I'm trying to figure out whether that's good or bad.  Rasmussen also finds that in a national generic congressional poll the Republicans are leading by 46% to 36%.  The difference is volatile, though; last week it was less than half that.

The numbers may result from Obama's unpopular health care law.  Rasmussen finds that 53% of the public favor its repeal.  If 53% favor repeal and 45% favor Obama, either almost all the 9% undecided presidential voters favor repeal, or some Obama supporters do.  That makes sense because we're talking about American voters. It would be interesting to know whether a few percent both favor Obama and favor repeal of Obamacare.  Also, the public is skeptical of Obama's economic program.  Rasmussen finds that only 49% of Americans say that their home is worth more than when they bought it, and only 27% think that the country is headed in the right direction.

All of this raises the specter of a double-breasted Republican victory: Republican control of congress and the presidency. On the one hand, that may have the effect of repeal of the health care law. Also, it would slow the environmental initiatives of the Obama administration: the attacks on energy development, the local initiatives like Smart Growth and LEED, and the concomitant attacks on home rule and democracy.   Unfortunately, the Republicans have backed erosion of home rule and land rights too, but to a lesser degree.  It is not clear that government will shrink under double-breasted GOP control; rather, the Republicans have previously consolidated Democratic expansions of state power and big government.  If they do, in fact, repeal Obamacare, it will be a first.

At the same time, the Republicans have been good at causing inflation, expanding military spending, and government tyranny.  All of this goes goes back to the Progressive era, with the establishment of the Fed (under Democrat Wilson, who was elected with the aid of Republican Roosevelt), the FBI, and the Palmer Raids.  (Incidentally,  if you haven't seen Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar starring Leonardo DiCaprio, I recommend it.)

The Bush administration accented the problems with Republican government:  crony capitalism, pork barrel waste, and monetary expansion.  In other words, the problems with electing Republicans are about the same as the problems with electing Democrats.  The difference is that the Republicans bloat government to subsidize Republican special interests while the Democrats bloat government to subsidize Democratic special interests.  Both subsidize Wall Street. 

I am in favor of  a third party, either the Libertarian Party or a new party if Ron Paul chooses to establish one.  Governor Gary Johnson would be a first-rate candidate on the Libertarian ticket. He is more moderate and more competent than either Obama or Romney.  Unlike Romney, who is a crony capitalist who has made his living through connections and monetary expansion, Johnson built a real business from scratch.  He did not expand government in New Mexico; he fought a Democratic legislature to restrain government. In America, now, a third party candidate like Johnson is a more moderate choice than either a Democrat or a Republican.

Pathetic Crew of Republican Candidates are Big Government Drones

Unfortunately, CNN excluded one of the few imaginative voices in the Republican Party, Gary Johnson, from Tuesday night's debate.  Of the candidates present, only Ron Paul had anything to say in support of freedom and against socialism.  Cain's 9-9-9 plan, which would impose a sales tax on lower income people, is cruel. Rather than think of new methods of taxation, Republicans should be thinking of new ways to restrain spending.  Ron Paul was the only candidate at the debate who is not a socialist.

Ron Paul has a plan to terminate five cabinet positions:  the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior, and Education. He has also proposed to close a large number of unproductive military bases in places like Spain and Korea that do not protect the United States.  None of the other candidates was willing to discuss these proposals when Paul brought them up.  Instead, they remain loyal to a dishonest Federal Reserve Bank system that has sucked working Americans dry financially.  That Main Street Republicans support any among this bank of candidates is an indictment of the democratic process.

I can see why Comrades Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Cain, and Bachmann remain silent about the Departments of Energy and Education.  Since they were established, education results have collapsed and energy costs have exploded, and neither agency, which together employ thousands of unproductive bureaucrats, has anything useful to say about either subject.  But this topic was avoided. To socialists like Gingrich and Romney, the Department of Education is a necessity.    

Mr. Cain, a former Federal Reserve official who has participated in the legalized theft involved in the bailout and the central bank-based fractional reserve system, offered a defense of  Wall Street, a socialist cancer on American capitalism.  Mr. Cain has participated in a racketeering organization, and his appeal to Republicans suggest a profound stupidity and incompetence among rank-and-file Republicans and the inept media that they consume, specifically including talk radio.

Except for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, voting for a Republican in 2012 will be a wasted vote.

The Federal Budget and the Crisis of Democracy

This chart shows that there is little difference between Ryan's and Obama's budget proposals  That the Ryan proposal created controversy is evidence of a moribund political and economic system.  Chart courtesy of Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute.

This past April Michael Filozoff (h/t Candace de Russy) wrote a cogent analysis of Paul Ryan's budget proposal. The proposal created a stir but, as Filozof  shows, it is anemic--it accomplishes too little too late.  America will be the new Greece because, as Filozoff points out, Ryan is a congressman who faces biennial elections but the budget won't be balanced under his proposal until 2040. Ryan's proposal will reduce the deficit to a "whopping $385 billion" in ten years.  Why can't the budget be balanced now?

The American government has not been able to live within its means for 44 of the past 50 years.  An excessively democratic constitution that permits the majority to loot from those who produce wealth will not permit rational management.

I would add to Filozoff's analysis that the two party system is like a casino in which addicted gamblers liquidate their holdings.  There are two types of bettors. The conservatives, who bet on failed wars, and the progressives, who bet on failed social programs. Their wagers are colorful entertainment, but the casino owners are the only ones who win in the end.

The casino owners are specific special interests, starting with Wall Street.  Wall Street and a host of other special interests benefit from deficit spending and will resist, through the legacy media and through political pressure, any attempt to manage the American state rationally.  That is, Wall Street sells the financing on which government depends, directly profiting from deficits. It therefore pushes for deficits via the media, which legitimizes absurd federal programs. Wall Street profits from waste because the monetary expansion necessary to fund the waste is the sole reason that there have been consistent increases in the stock market since 1940. Wall Street's interests are linked inextricably to debt and to inflation because rising stock markets stimulate demand for their products.


In a free market when stocks go up new firms enter and profits (hence stock prices) decline. Stock markets have no reason to go up over the long term unless interest rates are artificially reduced over time and/or government regulation inhibits new firms. There is nothing in the theory of economics that predicts a consistently rising stock market. No economist has predicted stock market fluctuations based on economic theory (although some have used price earnings ratios and other indicators that have nothing to do with economic theory).

The Federal Reserve Bank has consistently expanded the money supply, reducing interest rates since 1932 to below market levels, and, since 1970, this has caused the real hourly wage to stagnate (due to inflation caused by the monetary expansion) despite productivity increases. There are, of course, short exceptional periods of rate increases to reduce inflation, but the chief trend-breaking exception was in the early 1980s under Jimmy Carter's and Paul Volcker's Fed.

Two effects of artificially depressed interest rates have been excessive expansion of Wall Street and bloating of stock and real estate prices at the expense of the real hourly wage.  As well, there has been misallocation in myriad other ways, to include dislocations that have come about because of Milton Friedman's policy, implemented by Richard M. Nixon,  of separating the dollar from the international gold standard and so expanding the dollar's role as a reserve currency around the world. This has made the dollar more valuable than it should be, resulting in the exodus of manufacturing. 

A Historical Perspective

The Ryan proposal hearkens back to a proposal of the first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton.  In 1795, right before he resigned, Hamilton wrote "Report on a Plan for the Further Support of Public Credit." In it he laid out a plan to extinguish the federal debt over 30 years.  According to Hamilton's biographer, Ron Chernow (p. 480):

He wanted new taxes passed and old ones made permanent, and he showed painstakingly that he had striven to reduce debt as speedily as possible...Hamilton's proposals were rolled into a bill passed by Congress within little more than a month of his departure as treasury secretary.

In fact, the large federal debt incurred from the Revolutionary War was not extinguished within 30 years, in part because of the War of 1812. As the statistics on Treasury Direct show, the national debt did not come close to being extinguished until Andrew Jackson was elected president in 1828. Then, it took eight years for him to abolish the Second Bank of the United States, the forerunner of today's Fed. In 1836, the year Jackson abolished that era's Fed, the national debt had been reduced to $37,513.  Abolition of the debt went hand in hand with abolition of the Fed. That did not end the federal debt, as subsequent presidents increased it. But the 19th century did not see consistent expansion of debt because Jackson abolished the Second Bank in 1836.

Conclusion

Currently, there is one candidate who favors abolishing the Fed: Ron Paul. In addition, there is a candidate who favors introducing competition into the monetary system: Gary Johnson.  Unless Americans choose to think outside the box and elect either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the radical incompetence that we have been witnessing will continue to the bitter end.  Meanwhile,  I am betting on gold and silver.

New York Libertarians to Back Paul or Johnson

I just received this in an e-mail from Dave Nalle of the Republican Liberty Caucus:

I heard from secondary sources that the LP of NY voted to not support a LP candidate if Ron Paul or Gary Johnson got the GOP presidential nomination.  

The LP usually gets one or two percent. It can't hurt but it wouldn't win a general election. I doubt a good candidate could win in New York under any circumstances.

Gary Johnson Announces His Candidacy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Sue Winchester
801.303.7924
Media@GaryJohnson2012.com

GARY JOHNSON ANNOUNCES HIS CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDENT

April 21, 2011, Concord New Hampshire - Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson today announced that he is seeking the 2012 Republican nomination for President of the United States. Johnson served as governor from 1995 to 2003. The announcement was made Thursday morning on the steps of the New Hampshire State House.

Announcing his candidacy, Johnson released the following statement:

“Let’s talk about America.

Today’s mess didn’t just happen. We elected it -- one senator, member of Congress and president at a time. Our leaders in Washington, DC, have ‘led’ America to record unemployment, a devalued currency, banking scandals, the mortgage crisis, drug crisis, economic crisis, loss of our nation’s industrial might – and a long list of other reminders our nation is way off course.

Why am I telling you this? Because America is better than this. And because I can help fix it.

I’m a fix-it man.

Before I was governor of New Mexico, I started a one-man fix-it business that I grew into an American dream with more than a thousand employees. My formula for success was simple. I showed up on time, did what I said what I’d do, and knew what I was doing.

I did the same thing as governor, exactly. Within two terms, I’d eliminated New Mexico's budget deficit and cut the rate of state government growth in half while reducing the state workforce by over 10%, without laying off a single qualified state worker. Saying no to waste, corruption and political games is easier than you think. During my two terms I vetoed 750 pieces of bad, unnecessary and wasteful legislation, and used the line-item veto to save millions of dollars. I was called “Governor Veto,” and accepted that nickname proudly.

America needs a ‘President Veto’ right now – someone who will say ‘no’ to insane spending and stop the madness that has become Washington. That’s why I am here today to announce that I’m running for President of the United States. And I don’t do so lightly.

President Obama is about to raise and spend $1 billion in a reelection campaign to keep America on the track it’s already on. I would ask: How much more of this track can we stand? How much more financial stress can we handle? How high do taxes have to go? How much deficit is too much? How much more of the Bill of Rights do we have to lose before we say not just no, but HELL NO?

It’s time to put one of our own in the White House. I have the qualifications, the ability and the know-how to do the job. I also have a track record. I’ll do what I say I’ll do.

I look at the rest of the field running for president, and that song by The Who comes to mind. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. You know the one. We ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again.’ What’s the definition of insanity? It is to keep doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome.

I’m ready for a different America. I’m ready for the day when a person can build a good life on a decent income, and we can take our government at its word – when people have more to smile about. I’m ready for peace and prosperity and some American dreaming. I’m ready for America to be AMERICA again.

Our current president will not lead us there. None of the professional Washington set will. We have to get there on our own.

I’m here in New Hampshire today because I can – and will -- do a better job for you as president.

I’m optimistic about our chances. Winning freedom is what America does.

We’ve got this.”

Following the announcement, Governor Johnson will spend three days in New Hampshire meeting with supporters, visiting local businesses and on Saturday, April 23, hiking and skiing the well-known Tuckerman’s Ravine in the White Mountains.

Please contact Sue Winchester or Lizz Renda at Media@GaryJohnson2012.com or 801.303.7924 to schedule an interview with Gary Johnson. New Hampshire on-site media contact: Brinck Slattery, 603.703.2846 or Brinck@GaryJohnson2012.com and Matt Simon 603.391.7450 or Matt@GaryJohnson2012.com .


# # # #


About Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson: Gary Johnson, a Republican and two-term Governor of New Mexico from 1994-2002, has been a consistent and outspoken advocate for efficient government and lowering taxes. During his time as Governor he vetoed 750 bills and cut the rate of state government in half.

Sue Winchester
Press/Media Relations
Gary Johnson 2012
801.303.7924
suewinchester@garyjohnson2012.com
GaryJohnson2012.com

Reason Blogs My Interview with Gov. Gary Johnson

Reason Magazine's Jesse Walker just e-mailed that Reason has blogged my interview with Gov. Gary Johnson that appeared on the RLC site. Reason's blog is entitled "Johnson makes some sweet, sweet sounds."