Weaponized Agencies

Trim life shadows flicker and fall
But you still can't turn away
Get up and run before you stall
Before the edges fray
--Ric Ocasek

Given that the executive branch now includes dozens of agencies with strong armed capability, it should come as no surprised that influential politicians will seek to 'weaponize' those agencies against political opponents. The FBI, CIA, and IRS are particularly attractive in this regard.

McCarthy, JFK, Tea Party, et al.

In the recent years, there has been no better example of the weaponization of federal agencies than the concerted operations to take down Donald Trump. First as a candidate, then as sitting president, and now as a former president with future candidate potential. The FBI, CIA, DOJ, and even the military has been involved.

Yesterday's actions will be difficult for even many partisans to brush off as federal agents raided Trump's home in Florida.

Actions over the past few years have escalated to the stuff of authoritarian police states. The current administration is brazenly employing federal agencies to punish political opposition.

What authoritarians never seem capable of understanding is the extent to which their aggression strengthens the resolve of the liberty-minded.

Freedom Convoys

Sometimes the light's all shining on me
Other times I can barely see
Lately, it occurs to me
What a long, strange trip it's been
--Grateful Dead

Truckers around the world are joining Freedom Convoys. Originating in Canada, the conveys involve lines of semis driving slowly or stopped on highways in protest to COVID-related mandates. Some of the convoys stretch 20+ miles long.

As Rand Paul observes, Freedom Convoys reflect the time-honored American tradition of civil disobedience. "Peaceful protest, clog things up, make people think about the mandates."

Honk to show your support. 

Dambusters

Downpour on my soul
Splashing in the ocean, I'm losing control
Dark sky all around
I can't feel my feet touching the ground
--Jars of Clay

Not a bad symbolic portrayal of the current dynamic. 

What is causing the dam to crack? Political pressure from people who are increasingly waking up to the truth.

Route One

I won't be coming home tonight
My generation will put it right
We're not just making promises
That we know we'll never keep
--Genesis

In 2010 a 'red wave' poured over midterm elections across the country that replaced Democratic with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. The Tea Party wave was said to be a reaction to the far left policies led by the Obama administration.

With midterms in this election cycle still one year away, voters tossed leftist politicians at the state level, highlighted by a stunning route in Virginia. The governor's race in New Jersey that featured a hugely favored Democratic incumbent remains too close to call.

What might this portend in next year's midterm elections? Not sure. But Democrats from the president on down are in damage control mode. 

And surely reflecting on looming political consequences of the socialist policies they have been trying to shove down the throats of Main Street Americans.

Apples and Oranges

Jacob Moore: Can I have a copy of it? She doesn't keep pictures of her childhood.
Gordon Gekko: I don't even know you, and you already want something from me. So what do I get in return?
Jacob Moore: So you want to make a trade?
Gordon Gekko: Yeah. Okay. All right. I'll give you this and you give me another picture of Winnie--recent--without you in it.
Jacob Moore: I don't have one on me.
Gordon Gekko: I guess this one is on margin, huh?
--Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Jacob Hornberger offers a nice primer on free trade. Suppose Jess has 10 apples and Jen has 10 oranges. Because Jess would like some oranges and Jen would like some apples, they decide to trade. What would constitute a fair trade in this case? Many would likely say 5 apples for 5 oranges, or a 'price' of one apple per orange.

But this in incorrect. This is because individuals have their own subjective valuations based on their personal taste preferences. Jen, for instance, may like apples so much that she would be willing to part with 3 oranges in order to obtain an apple. Outsiders looking in might deem this trade 'unfair,' but to Jen it is completely fair given her affinity for apples.

The important point is that when two parties voluntarily engage in exchange, the price they decide upon IS the fair one because it motivated them to trade. And, because they did trade, both sides are better off than they would be others...lest they would not have traded.

When governments interfere with free, voluntary exchange, then that is when things become unfair. Through trade agreements, tariffs, sanctions, embargoes, et al., government intervention forces exchange prices away from the truly fair price that traders would voluntarily settle upon.

Because they prevent the fair market price, i.e., the prices voluntarily agreed upon between traders, from being freely determined, government-imposed restrictions on trade impair improvements in standard of living to be gained through trade.

Shred the treaties, lift the tariffs, and open the ports--even if other countries don't. By definition, free trade does not require government permission.

Tea Party Strong

Seems like yesterday
But it was long ago
--Bob Seger

Although, as these pages predicted, many Tea Party types elected years back have been co-opted by the state, some have stood firm as reflected by their voting record on spending cuts.

The few legislators willing to cut spending are Tea Partiers like @RandPaul, @SenMikeLee, @justinamash, & @RepThomasMassie https://t.co/pzMggcnOW5 via @dcexaminer #TeaParty #MAGA

— Jenny Beth Martin (@jennybethm) January 27, 2019

That so few remain demonstrates just how powerful statist pressure can be. But it also demonstrates that it is possible to stand strong in the face of such pressure.

Militia Clause

"The army is a broadsword, not a scalpel. Trust me, senator, you do not want the Army in an American city."
--General William Devereaux (The Siege) 

Ryan McMaken researches the rationale behind the Second Amendment with a focus on the 'Militia Clause' portion of the Amendment. The Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Review of the debates surrounding the establishment of the Second Amendment finds that our founding ancestors had a more sophisticated view of gun ownership than is often assumed. In particular, they understood that a large federal military that stood in peacetime would threaten liberty over time. "When once a standing army is created in any country," said George Mason, "the people lose their liberty."

To counter the threat posed by a standing federal army, the founders envisioned militias in each state. These militias were not of the organized variety similar to today's National Guard. Instead, they were 'unorganized' militias composed of people who could capably bear arms and organize if need be to defend their states against intrusion by federal forces.

Importantly, the Second Amendment, similar to the First Amendment, was not written for the states. Rather, it was written as a restriction on the federal government. The states were still free to regulate weaponry in their own constitutions and legislatures. Most state legislatures elected to include provisions protecting private gun ownership--both as an element of the state's overall militia strategy and for personal protection.

Interestingly enough, those present at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia toyed with the idea of 'select militia' of specially trained citizens not unlike today's National Guard. However, they rejected it out of concerns that a select militia would pose similar threats to a national army.

McMaken ends by noting that, ironically, many 'defenders' of the Second Amendment today also enthusiastically support a strong federal military establishment--something that many of our founding ancestors would have found incomprehensible.

Fed Independence Redux

Drawn into the stream
Of undefined illusion
Those diamond dreams
They can't disguise the truth
--Level 42

These pages have noted the myth of the Federal Reserve's 'independence' on several occasions (here, here, here). The Fed clearly depends on the government for resources, and it executes policy on behalf of the government.

Calling the Fed 'independent' is the height of folly, or delusion. It is an agency of the federal government.

On the back of President Trump's recent comments aimed at influencing Fed policy, and cries that Trump was trying to influence the 'independent' Fed, Ron Paul reviews examples of presidents doing just that--including LBJ tossing then Fed chair William McChesney Martin against the wall to get his point across.

Trump has a unique opportunity to shape the Fed during his watch as the possibility exists that he could appoint six of the seven Federal Reserve Board members by the end of his first term. Lest you haven't realized it by now, there is nothing 'independent' about presidents placing bankers on the Fed board.

Truly 'draining the swamp' would be to shut down the Fed. Doing so would turn off a primary spigot of resources currently flowing to the welfare-warfare swamp.

Our Spending Addiction

I'm travelin' down the road
I'm flurtin' with disaster
I've got the pedal on the floor
My life is runnin' faster
--Molly Hatchet

Rand Paul once again demonstrates wisdom all too rare on Capitol Hill. Empires ultimately fail because statesmen become addicted to spending. Because that spending always outstrips income, the difference must be borrowed. Economies are consequently crushed under the massive debt burden that empires accrue.

Paul observes that addiction to spending and debt infects both parties in the U.S. Democrats and Republicans mutually agree to fund each other's profligate ways.

The $21 trillion (and counting) question is what stops the pathology? We know that addicts rarely kick their habit without intervention. The most logical source of intervention would be US voters who remove Washington politicians who don't stop spending. Unfortunately, most voters have become dependent on government largess in one way or another. As such, voters act more like enablers rather than as an interventionary force.

Lacking interventionary will power, the country is permitting our spending addiction to escalate toward an inevitable crash of epic proportions.

93 to 1

Everybody's talking at me
I don't hear a word they're saying
Only the echoes of my mind
--Nilsson

In the 2013 confirmation vote for James Comey as FBI Director, only one senator voted no. Who was that?

Rand Paul, of course.

Paul's Penny Plan

"How many are left?"
--Col Robert Gould Shaw (Glory)

Senate rules say that if leadership and the Budget Committee do propose a budget by April 1st, then any senator can do it. Because no budget has in fact been put forward by the hierarchy, Senator Rand Paul plans to do so.

Paul's proposal is based on a 'penny plan' design. The penny plan idea is that small cutbacks in spending--just a penny on each dollar spent--add up to big savings over time.  His version of the penny plan proposes annual spending reductions of one percent annually over the course of the next five years, at which point a balance should be achieved between revenues and spending. Where precisely those one percent cuts would come from would be up to Congress.

Paul's budget also includes reconciliation instructions to provide for expanded Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to lower health care costs. Health care is by far the fastest growing category of federal spending.

Perhaps the most intriguing part of Rand Paul's proposal is that it promises to smoke out hypocrites--those who talk smaller government but act like statists. One he puts the proposal forth, Paul intends to force a vote on the Senate floor.

Will anyone stand with Rand?

Letters of Hypocrisy

All for freedom and for pleasure
Nothing ever lasts forever
Everybody wants to rule the world
--Tears for Fears

Right on cue, Justin Amash shares letters warning two different presidents about commencing offensive strikes against Syria. The first letter was written in 2013 to President Obama:

The second letter was written last week to President Trump:

The first letter was signed by 119 Republicans and 21 Democrats. The second letter was signed by 15 Republicans and 73 Democrats.

There are few repeat signatures.

Constitutional Convenience

And the parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
--The Who

How Democrats and Republicans evoke the Constitution only when it is convenient is well demonstrated when war is in the air. The constitutional requirement is that approval for war must come from Congress.

Both Democrats and Republicans know this. Unfortunately, each party prefers to evoke the requirement only when the other party occupies the Oval Office. Thus, Democrats generally call for congressional approval when a Republican administration is in place, and Republicans call for congressional approval when a Democrat sits in the big chair.

We observed the hypocrisy once again this week during the Senate confirmation hearing of Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo. Responded to questions from Senator Rand Paul, Pompeo said that the power of the president to authorize military strikes "has not been disputed" for some time.

In addition to observing that this power was well disputed by our founding ancestors, Paul observed that Pompeo himself, when a member of Congress, claimed that then President Obama needed congressional approval to strike Libya in 2011.

Demonstrating once again that, when your guy is in charge, you tend to put that nagging set of restrictions called the Constitution away.

Democracy, Incrementalism, and State Power

Louden Swain: Can 800 million Chinese be wrong?
Tanneran: Frequently
--Vision Quest

Jeff Deist discusses the danger that democracy poses to freedom over time. Using past examples of income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare, as well as the present situation related to gun control, he argues that these programs evolved over long periods of time as a result of incremental gains gradually obtained thru democratic process.

This is not a new argument, of course. Growth of state power thru incrementalism (a.k.a. gradualism or fabianism) has been discussed on these pages before. A necessary ingredient of incrementalism is ability to foster compromise, the favored strategy of statists for getting people to cede liberty over time.

He makes a particularly insightful remark near the end of the piece:

"Democracy is nothing more than the process of politically vanquishing minority viewpoints."

Indeed--as these pages have long observed. Democracy, defined as decision-making processes based on majority vote, strips rights from some for the benefit of others. Although the dangers of democracy were well known to our founding ancestors, they are little understood today.

Seemingly, democracy's incremental compromises that erode liberty grow chains of bondage so gradually that most people fail to notice.

Going Bust With Omnibus

In violent times
You shouldn't have to sell your soul
In black and white
They really, really ought to know
--Tears for Fears

With a multi-trillion 'omnibus' spending bill breezing thru both sides of a GOP majority Congress, we're once again reminded that there is little difference between your typical Hill Republican and the progressives that the party purports to oppose.

It’s a good thing we have Republican control of Congress or the Democrats might bust the budget caps, fund planned parenthood and Obamacare, and sneak gun control without due process into an Omni...wait, what?

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 21, 2018

The exceptions continue to be a handful of senators including Rand Paul, who yesterday actually printed out the entire 2200+ page bill (a 2+ hr endeavor in itself ) and spent the remainder of the day reading and tweeting bill provisions. He signed off last nite after about 500 pages.

Quiz Question #1: Calculate the time to read a 2232 page bill assuming each page takes 2 minutes to read.

Quiz Question #2: Estimate how many members of Congress have read the entire omnibus bill.

The other exceptions are House members collectively known as the Freedom Caucus. The Caucus has not been shy in its opposition to the spending bill. It also wrote the below letter to the president asking him to join the Caucus in vetoing the bill.

Were it not for these few Tea Party remainders, it would be difficult to maintain hope that sailing over the fast approaching cliff can be averted.

Spineless GOP

In violent times
You should have to sell your soul
In black and white
They really, really ought to know
--Tears for Fears

Congressional GOP members revealed their RINO core once again by teaming with Democrats to pass a two year spending deal: H.R. 1892, the Bipartisan Budget Act. The Act promises to elevate annual federal budget deficits north of $1 trillion--a level matched only by the early Obama administration years (Quick quiz: How must such budget deficits be funded? Answer to be discussed in a future post).

A few Republicans (e.g., Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash) held firm. Much of the same crowd that held firm on Obamacare repeal. Some of their pushback that calls out the GOP hypocrisy is captured below.

Sen. Rand Paul on the new senate spending bill: "If you were against President Obama's deficits, and now you're for the Republican deficits, isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy?" https://t.co/EPCvGs13hW pic.twitter.com/24yiMZ7ZqG

— ABC News (@ABC) February 8, 2018

Roll call for the massive spending bill... https://t.co/d66rM7rzPt

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) February 9, 2018

This morning, every Republican in Congress who blasted government growth under Pres. Obama gets to answer the following question with his or her vote: Do you oppose massive spending increases only when a Democrat is in the White House?

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) February 9, 2018

Judge Nap follows with this question:

What kind of politicians rail against deficit spending until they are in charge AND THEN SPEND MORE?
I stand with Rand @RandPaul against congressional Republicans who have rejected their core values.

— Judge Napolitano (@Judgenap) February 9, 2018

What kind of politician, your honor? Why, the spineless GOP type, of course.

Paul Plan

Has he taken
Any time
To show you
What you need to live?
--Zombies

After the failure of another flawed 'Obamacare Lite' healthcare bill, it appears that President Trump is preparing an executive order to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines. Essentially, this is Senator Rand Paul's 'association health plans' proposal.

This would be very positive and possesses far more potential impact than any health care reform discussed to date. Why? Because it fundamentally improves the system. As Paul observes, this plan frees the market by giving individuals the ability to club together in groups that would increase their bargaining power with a larger stable of insurance providers.

The plan is thought to not require congressional approval because authority for it already exists. The Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) already permits multi-state corporations to buy insurance across state lines. Paul thinks that the president can act on his own with an executive interpretation of existing law that expands the definition of who can form an association.

"The good thing about my plan is that it costs zero dollars," Paul adds.

That may be true, Rand, but it will take money out of the pockets of myriad special interests. It also subtracts from state power as it adds to social power. As such, expect those who a) benefit from the current arrangement, b) aspire toward a single payer healthcare system in the US...to object.

Frenemies

"We should stop pussyfooting about the goddamn Russians! We're gonna have to fight them sooner or later anyway. Why not do it now, when we've got the army here to do it with? Instead of disarming these German troops we oughta get them to help us fight the damn Bolsheviks."
--General George S. Patton (Patton)

An ancient tenet of strategic behavior is that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' The idea is that factions normally in opposition will be prone to form coalitions against common adversaries. Enemies become friends ('frenemies') in order to protect or extend their interests against another factions deemed more threatening than the dangers that the coalition parties pose to each other.

A classic frenemy relationship during WWII was the allied US and Soviet Union--two opposing states that banded together to fight a common Axis enemy.

Frenemies are almost by definition temporary relationships. If/when the coalition wins the fight against the common enemy, then frenemies will tend to view each other as opponents once again. The US/USSR coalition quickly dissolved after WWII and the adversarial relationship that followed polarized into a multi-decade Cold War.

In dynamic environments with many factions, frenemy relationships form and dissolve rapidly as each faction seeks to further its interests.

There is no better example of frenemy dynamics than modern politics--particularly politics grounded in democratic (i.e., majority rule) decision-making process. Years ago, for instance, we forecast the tenuous Tea Party/Republican Party frenemy relationship.

The name of the game in the political context is to build a large enough coalition to control the decision--either by winning votes outright or by causing other parties to not win. Factions that normally tear at each others' throats mutually support each other one day only to fight on opposite sides the next day.

Herbert's observations suggest that frenemy relationships become more frequent as democratically motivated factions fight for control of the strong arm of the state. Abundant empirical evidence is available to support claims that we are currently experiencing precisely this.

It is also straightforward to hypothesize that, extended over many periods, the frenemies game played in the political arena serves to hasten the chaos endpoint.

Half Full Healthcare

There's a battle ahead
Many battles are lost
But you'll never see the end of the road
While you're traveling with me
--Crowded House

Yesterday a group headed by Rand Paul was able to get a clean repeal of Obamacare bill before the Senate for a vote. This bill was nearly identical to the 2015 bill that attracted a near unanimous vote by Republicans when it was understood that then President Obama would veto it.

This time, when it was understood that President Trump would sign a clean repeal bill, seven Republicans, including Ohio's Rob Portman, voted against it which served to strike it down in the Senate.

While this seems a defeat for the cause of liberty, there are several reasons to assume a glass-half-full perspective. Tea Party types in the Senate who promised voters that they would act to repeal Obamacare did their job. A straight repeal vote was unthinkable until just a short time ago.

Moreover, Rand Paul's uncompromising actions in the health care arena strengthen his position as a leader for liberty. My sense it that this has positive long run ramifications.

Yesterday's vote also exposes several Republicans as progressives--a transparency that should also prove beneficial over time.

Finally, although a straight repeal would have directly alleviated Americans from the burden of the ACA, Obamacare as-is is destined to fail--perhaps within a year. Barring some version of 'Skinny Repeal' that strips away burdensome aspects of the ACA--a possibility that is still alive in the Senate--the burden of the failing Obamacare system falls back into the laps of progressives on both sides of the aisle.

The tap dancing to un-own the failure should prove entertaining as always.

Repeal Appeal

Second time around
I'm still believing
The words that you said
--Naked Eyes

On the back of Rand Paul's continued strong, outspoken stance and formal thumbs down announcements by several other Republican senators including Mike Lee, the idea of repeal now and discuss replacement later is gaining momentum. President Trump tweeted the following last night:

Republicans should just REPEAL failing ObamaCare now & work on a new Healthcare Plan that will start from a clean slate. Dems will join in!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2017

Several posts in agreement with Trump, such as this one from VP Mike Pence, followed. Now, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is turning his hat around:

The #Senate will vote on a repeal of #Obamacare combined w a stable, 2 year transition period as we work toward patient-centered #healthcare

— Leader McConnell (@SenateMajLdr) July 18, 2017

An up or down straight repeal vote of Obamacare seems increasingly likely.

This is what staying the course, prioritizing principle over compromise, and doing as promised can produce.