Congressman Watt – Charlatan or Economic Imbecile?

Congressman Mel Watt (D-NC) is either a charlatan or ignorant of basic economics.  Either way he is unfit to serve in Congress let alone serve as chairman of the Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee.  This week Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) announced that Watt took the knife to his bill to audit the Federal Reserve – The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 (HR 1207).  According to Paul, Watt as chair of the above mentioned committee cut out “just about everything”  in preparing the bill for a full committee vote.

Specifically, Watt eliminated the provisions requiring audits of the Fed’s transactions with foreign banks, its deliberations on monetary policy, the activities of the Open Market Committee, and disclosure of communications between the Federal Reserve Board and reserve banks.  Essentially the bill has become a shell of its original self.  Paul, of course, does intend to attempt to restore the bill to its original form during Financial Services Committee deliberations, but that is not the point.  The point is why has Congressman Watt gutted a bill that has over 300 cosponsors in the House and the support of a large majority of Americans?

It could be because he is repaying the financial industry which has throughout his career in Congress contributed over $890,000 to his campaigns.  That would be only fair given how much they have helped him maintain power and the privileged perks of members of Congress – great healthcare, great salary, and a great pension plan.

But, what is funny and ironic is that the industry that is second in contributions to Watt is organized labor at $873,000.  Big banks and labor unions make strange bedfellows?  You would think their interests are so diametrically opposed that they would not be #1 and #2 in contributions to the same member of Congress.  Labor union support of Watt is also curious given that North Carolina is a Right to Work state and not nearly as unionized as the People’s Republics of Massachusetts and California.   But, not to worry, Congressman Watt has traditionally taken care of unions as well.  He has supported every “entitlement” program that comes down the pike in favor of their leadership.  The list has included minimum wage, the “right” under law to collective bargaining, so-called fair employment practices, social security, socialized medicine – the list goes on and on.

So, if the congressman is so busy serving big banks and labor unions, what has he done for the actual people who elect him every two years?  Well, very little.  You see by supporting the Federal Reserve and bailing out big banks through legislation he is supporting the perpetuation of inflation.  Our dollar has lost 95 percent of its value since the Fed was given control over it by Congress in 1913.  But, most folks don’t understand how the Fed imposes this hidden tax on them by debasing our currency causing prices to rise.  Instead Watt and his ilk blame capitalism for rising prices and offer socialized medicine, minimum wages, and other socialist schemes to combat the higher cost of living for families.  If they would just support sound money in the first place there would be no perceived need for these wasteful programs.

So this is where the charlatan or economic imbecile question comes into play.  Does Watt understand that his support for the banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve System is what actually causes hardship for labor and ordinary Americans in his district?  Does he realize that by gutting HR 1207 he will help to continue the debasement of our currency?  Has it clicked in his head that his support for or at the very least his blind eye toward the reckless monetary policy of the current Fed leadership will be responsible for the future hyperinflation we will experience.  Has he considered his own culpability in the coming collapse of the dollar which will usher in an era of even higher unemployment with a drastically reduced standard of living in America?

Given the bubble mentality around Washington, a reasonable person could conclude that Watt is both a charlatan and an economic imbecile.  He is an economic imbecile because he must believe that economic doom caused by Fed policies is not inevitable otherwise he would not support them in light of the fact that the collapse would also affect him negatively.  He certainly is a charlatan because like many members of Congress Watt has the best of both worlds.  Special interests of all stripes get federal goodies from him which personally cost him nothing.  In return those special interest groups guarantee his reelection every two years with huge cash contributions to his campaigns.  In the meantime, our national debt is grotesquely high, our manufacturing base continues to move overseas, our financial industry is bankrupt, and the dollar is on the brink of collapse.

This is the essence of our problems.  Too many charlatans and imbeciles have been in charge of Washington for far too long.  Unfortunately all good things must come to an end.  The federal gravy train that Congressman Watt and his comrades have built to continually get reelected is about to crash.  When it does they won’t understand it, but they should because it will be caused by the fraud they have perpetuated on America.

Using the Criminal Justice System to Reward Political Support

Last Wednesday, President Obama signed a bill into law which adds acts of violence against the disabled, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender folks to the list of federal hate crimes.  This increases coverage of the federal hate crimes protections which previously only included race, religion, and national origin.  In typical Obama euphoria, activist instantaneously proclaimed the measure to be the most important since the civil rights acts empowering blacks were passed in the 1960s. 

Of course, those of us with clearer, less emotional heads on our shoulders know that hate crime legislation is nothing more than politicians pandering to their base of support by providing them with a special interest perk in an effort to energize that base for widespread support at the next election.  Now, maybe that is a little cynical or I am just resentful because I personally do not fall into any of the “protected” categories.  I am from the United States, nominally Christian, white, and a middle aged man.  Now, this is not a knock against folks who are not what I am.  As a matter of fact, I have chosen to live a lifestyle that places me in a small minority of the population of the places where I live.  Thus, I consider myself very tolerant.  The point is that in essence hate crime protection places a greater importance on some lives over others.  More resources will be spent to pursue a murderer that killed another simply because the victim was gay or black or from Haiti.  The offender could spend more time in jail because his crime was motivated by the sexual orientation, ethnicity or religion of the victim.  We have totally politicized the criminal justice system and thrown equal protection of the law out the window by affording special protections to some groups and not others.

I know that our friends on the compassionate left will say, “Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim’s community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim’s community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law.”  I hear their argument, but don’t all victims of crime experience a special emotional and psychological impact?  Why isn’t rape included in the protections?

At the end of the day, if someone kills you your just as dead regardless if it was an act of passion, greed, revenge or hate.  Perhaps there are some who hate me for what I write in my blog.  If they kill me for it, too bad, hatred motivated by political speech is not covered under federal hate crimes protection.  Should it be?  My 1^st Amendment rights were violated.  See, this is the problem with hate crime legislation.  Instead of just dealing with all criminals appropriately, the politicians would rather use the criminal justice system to score political points.  It is another example of shameful, unconstitutional behavior on their part.

So, what does dealing with criminals appropriately mean?  It means equality under the law – the same judicial process and rights are guaranteed to all.  It means that criminal justice, with certain enumerated exceptions, is solely the domain of the states.  Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution specifies that Congress only has the power to “provide for the punishment of counterfeiting, to define and punish piracy and felonies on the high seas, and to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases over…the seat of the government of the United States.”  Period.  All other crimes are the jurisdiction of the states under the 10 Amendment.  Therefore, Congress and the President have acted unconstitutionally again.

Once criminal justice has been secured to the states, they must reconsider how to deal with criminals.  Those that are dangerous to society without regard to any one special group should be put away.  States need to view crime as a violation against individuals and not necessarily society as a whole.  After all, if I hit your car don’t I owe you and not society?  Why is harm done criminally any different?  For instance, in addition to going to jail murderers should be forced to make reparations (work off their debt) to their victim’s family.  Wouldn’t this make the victim’s family more whole than just putting the killer in jail to live off the fruits of the taxpayer?  In the case of a hate crime, the punishment would be particularly effective and possibly even a deterrent if the potential killer faced serving the kin of his hated victim.  The 13^th Amendment to the Constitution would allow this and I for one would then favor the abolition of the death penalty.

If we are truly going to reach our goal of a color blind, gender equal, who cares what your sexual preference is society, then our laws must reflect those values.  We cannot make unjust laws to offset the unjust laws of the past.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  Criminal justice should be secured back to the states anyway.  It is constitutional and that way federal politicians will no longer be able to use the system to reward their political constituencies.

New Federal Medical Marijuana Policy Fraught with Peril

On Monday Deputy Attorney General David Ogden issued a memo to federal prosecutors in 14 states regarding the Obama Administration’s position on medical marijuana.  The memo declared that prosecutors “should not focus federal resources in your states on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.”  Ogden’s directions went on to give federal agents the authority to go after those whose marijuana distribution actions go beyond what is allowed by the various state laws.  In essence, the memo gave prosecutors wide discretion in determining which cases to pursue and which to ignore based on their interpretation if any state laws are being broken.  On the surface, this seems like a compassionate gesture towards those suffering pain from maladies like cancer, glaucoma, and spasticity.  However, upon closer inspection, the Administration simply didn’t go nearly far enough and its position is fraught with peril.

First of all, how can there be a law that the government doesn’t enforce.  I realize there are a lot of old outdated laws on the books that governments do not enforce, but federal drug laws are a big deal.  Now, don’t get me wrong I would like to see all substance laws repealed on the grounds that individuals have an absolute right to do to their bodies what they choose as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of others.  Of course, being stoned, driving a car, and hurting another through those actions should still be illegal.  But, if you want to smoke a joint in the privacy of your home it is your natural right to do so.

The problem with the Administration’s new position on medical marijuana is that instead of saying go ahead and break the law and we will look the other way the Justice Department should be petitioning Congress to repeal the law outright.  What law will he decide not to enforce next – immigration laws?  Oops, I forgot he doesn’t already.  After all, isn’t the President nullifying an act of Congress because he is refusing to enforce its law?  This is no different than when states nullify an act of Congress or when juries release defendants because they believe the law the accused is being tried for is unjust or unconstitutional.  In both circumstances Uncle Sam gets snooty and cries fowl.  Why is the President any different?  Perhaps Congress should sue him at the Supreme Court to require him to enforce the law.

It is also concerning that the Administration is giving wide discretion to prosecutors in pursuing cases.  Naturally, some prosecutors are more gung-ho than others when it comes to prosecuting these types of cases.  Thus, equal protection of the law could be violated simply because there is no concrete legal standard involved only the judgment of individual prosecutors.  And besides where is it ordained that federal agents have any role in enforcing state laws?  This is clearly a violation of our institutionalized federal system.  Next thing you know, FBI agents will be given the jurisdiction to issue traffic tickets on the nation’s interstate highway system.  No, federal agents enforcing state laws will lead to a further erosion of state’s rights and bring us that much closer to federal hegemony over all matters. 

Of course, drug laws are not within the realm of the federal government per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution anyway.  The states retain the right to regulate drugs under the 10^th Amendment.  There are state pharmaceutical laws and licensure in all 50 states.  You would think that somebody in the political establishment could come up with a common sense compromise that protects states’ rights yet maintains regulation over medical pot.  Perhaps federal law banning its use could be eliminated and control of the issue totally transferred to the individual states.  The states could then treat pot like they treat codeine and Prozac – as a behind the counter drug dispensed by pharmacies like CVS, Rite Aid, and Walgreens.  After all, like the aforementioned drugs pot does have significant medicinal value.  This approach would ensure that worthy patients receive the medication their doctors prescribe, states would retain their right to regulating drugs, and federal prosecutors could focus their attention where it belongs – on cases like mail fraud and illegal immigration.

At the end of the day there will be no peace on our streets until Washington ends the so called “War on Drugs” completely.  In all fairness to the Administration, with its recent medical marijuana stand it has gone further than any previous administration in at least attempting to curb one abuse of that conflict.  Let’s hope this experiment goes well and as a result Mr. Ogden issues another memo declaring the federal war on drugs over.