Thinking Creatively to Reduce Military Costs

France and the UK have come up with an innovative way to reduce taxpayer money spent on the military.

"Britain and France are preparing to reveal unprecedented plans to share the use of their aircraft carriers in a controversial step to maintain military power in an era of cost-cutting.

In a potential threat to thousands of shipyard jobs, the move would make it easier for Britain to scrap or downgrade one of the two replacement carriers which are already under construction at a cost of £5.2billion.

David Cameron and President Sarkozy are expected to outline the proposal in a November summit, which will lead to British and French flagships working together and protecting the interests of both countries.

The arrangement, expected to come into force soon after the announcement, would ensure that one of three ships - one French, two British - was always on duty patrolling the seas. At present, there are periods when both ageing British vessels - HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious - are in dock."

First of all, raise your hand if you even knew that France or the UK had active, patrolling aircraft carriers.

In all seriousness, France and the UK should be congratulated for considering this measure.

Yes, it certainly could mean that military jobs may be lost in both countries, in that neither military should need the same amount of personnel after this measure is adopted as they did beforehand.

However, the savings from reduced spending on the military should increase national investment in those countries, as that money is then redirected to more productive uses.

For the US, the best possible outcome would be if spending on our military was slashed, and if the US military's overall mission was reduced to defending our national security, and not saber-rattling overseas and starting wars with meaningless, tiny countries.

However, since completing redefining its mission will take a number of years, for now the US should consider employing creative measures like France and the UK to reduce the overall cost and burden on the American taxpayer today.

Report: US Wasted Billions on Iraq War

US government auditors recently reported that the US federal government has wasted billions of dollars of taxpayer money in unnecessary capital projects in Iraq.

"A $40 million prison sits in the desert north of Baghdad, empty. A $165 million children's hospital goes unused in the south. A $100 million waste water treatment system in Fallujah has cost three times more than projected, yet sewage still runs through the streets.

As the U.S. draws down in Iraq, it is leaving behind hundreds of abandoned or incomplete projects. More than $5 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds has been wasted on these projects — more than 10 percent of the $53.7 billion the US has spent on reconstruction in Iraq, according to audits from a U.S. watchdog agency."

This comes as exactly zero surprise to those that believe the US military should never have been sent to Iraq in the first place.

It seems pretty clear that once the disastrous decision to invade Iraq was made, one boneheaded decision after another has then been made in order to justify the original decision to invade in the first place.

Wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer in money to construct assets that the Iraqis don't want or can't use just compounds the original problem, which was to waste trillions of dollars invading a country that posed no national security concerns to the US whatsoever.

Ben Bernanke, Savior of the US Economy?

With a keenly awaited speech scheduled to be made today in Jackson Hole, press reports indicate that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is the best hope for turning our economy around.

"When Ben Bernanke addresses the annual symposium of central bankers in Jackson Hole tomorrow he does so against arguably the most challenging backdrop in his tenure as Federal Reserve chairman.

At the end of a week of gloomy reports, Bernanke faces mounting expectations from markets that the Fed will step in to prop up the US's faltering economic recovery. News of stalling business activity and dismal home sales have fanned talk of a double-dip recession at a time when all the easy options have run out. At the same time, divisions appear to be emerging among his committee of policymakers.

Bernanke's speech at the Wyoming symposium, entitled The Economic Outlook and the Federal Reserve's Policy Response, will be scoured for any signs that he will live up to his nickname of "helicopter Ben" and scatter more money over the faltering US economy.

Following a slew of downbeat economic indicators, market expectations are growing that there will be more quantitative easing from the Fed before the end of the year. Under the radical scheme, also used in the UK last year, central banks pour money into buying assets such as government bonds from banks and the commercial sector, pumping more cash into the financial system and at the same time cutting market rates."

Those that are looking to the Fed to somehow end our current economic recession are delusional. A strong case can be made that the actions of the Fed in particular are what led to the recession in the first place. Asking them to not just continue their harmful practices, but to increase the amounts and intensity is tantamount to asking them to send the economy into an outright depression.

As Ron Paul has long argued, the Federal Reserve should be dissolved.

Its actions, including setting interest rates for interbank lending and buying and selling US Treasury securities, are best handled by the free market, by accountable employees of the US government, or not done at all.

In fact, a functioning Federal Reserve is certainly not a requirement for a healthy economy, but rather a symptom of the government's plot to undermine our currency with inflation.

Contrary to the media's suggestions, in order to get the economy back on track, Americans need to take our country back from politicians who would tax and spend us to death. And we need to take the country back from those who elect these same corrupt, power-loving politicians in the first place.

Ridding ourselves of the government's tax and spend mentality would put money back in the hands of those who earned it in the first place, which would enable them to invest it which will create new jobs and a healthy, growing economy.

Bush Tax Cuts Did Not Cause Budget Deficits

As Congress begins their hand-wringing exercise about whether to extend the so-called Bush tax cuts, there has been a lot of chatter about how doing so would harm our economy.

Vice President Biden has been among the most opinionated.

"Doing so, he said, would cost $700 billion, worsen the nation's already dire financial situation and, in his words, is "just bad economic policy."

It must be true then that federal tax receipts dropped off a cliff in the years following the enactment of the Bush tax cuts because, you know, no one paid any tax, right?

Well, not exactly.

Federal tax receipts in 2001 were $1,991 billion. By 2009 (when federal tax receipts collapsed due to the recession), federal tax receipts were up to $2,105 billion.

What this demonstrates is that the budget deficit the country faces today is NOT due to a shortfall in revenue, but rather to overspending by the federal government.

Therefore, any "fix" to this problem that addresses the revenue side will prove to be a short-lived solution, unless and until government spending is addressed.

News Flash: US Marines Do Not Want Gay Roommates!

The debate over whether gays should be allowed to openly serve in the US military has taken a bizarre turn, as news reports indicate that they may not be completely welcome by some.

"The top US Marine on Tuesday said most Marines would prefer not to share a room with gay comrades, despite plans by President Barack Obama to lift a ban on gays serving openly in the military.

General James Conway, who has made clear his opposition to ending the ban, said if the law is changed the Marine Corps might look for volunteers willing to share quarters with gays as some "very religious" members objected to rooming with homosexuals.

"I can tell you that an overwhelming majority would like not to be roomed with a person who is openly homosexual," Conway told a Pentagon press conference."

This is not exactly ground-breaking, Pulitzer Prize style journalism.

It should come as exactly zero surprise to anyone that the average rough-and-tumble Marine is not interested in living in close proximity to a gay person.

That should not however be very high on the criteria of whether openly gay soldiers (sailors, Marines, etc.) should be allowed to serve.

I'm sure that if polled the average Marine would also say that they wouldn't want as a roommate someone who a) leaves his underwear lying around, b) flatulates while he sleeps, c) uses up all the hot water during his shower, etc.

However, the point of the overall debate should be whether someone should be denied the ability or right to serve in the military based on his sexual orientation.

Given the fact that gay folks pay taxes and have as much at stake in seeing to it that the US remains a healthy, functioning republic as heterosexuals, their ability to serve should not be in question.

Those who focus on this meaningless debate risk missing out on what should be the primary focus of any evaluation of the military: how to significant decrease its annual budget and return its primary focus to being defense-oriented in nature, not offensive.

Barney Frank Belatedly Gets Religion on Fed Support of Home Ownership

Representative Barney Frank has apparently ended his decades long support of federal control of the US housing market through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The money both of these institutions indirectly provided to unqualified home buyers over the years are at the heart of why we are in midst of significant housing price deflation.

"They should be abolished," Frank said in an interview on Fox Business, when asked whether the mortgage giants should be elements in housing market reform. "They only question is what do you put in their place," Frank said.

The Federal Housing Administration should be fully self-financing and Freddie and Fannie should be replaced with a new mechanism to help subsidize housing, Frank said in the interview.

"There is no more hybrid private-public," the Massachusetts Democrat suggested. "If we want to subsidize housing then we could do it upfront and let the budget be clear about that."

Fannie and Freddie Mac were government-sponsored enterprises, privately owned companies supported by the government, until the Bush administration took control of the companies in 2008 to save them from collapse."

The size of both of these institutions is unbelievable.

"Together, Fannie and Freddie and the Federal Housing Administration now back 90 percent of new U.S. home mortgages."

Frank was particularly blunt in attacking some of the policies that over the years have seen Fannie and Freddie gain such significance.

"In the Fox Business interview, Frank also was critical of public policy that promoted homeownership at any cost. He also said the federal government should not be a "backstop" in guaranteeing mortgages.

"There were people in this society who for economic and, frankly, social reasons can't and shouldn't be homeowners," Frank said. "I think we should, particularly, stop this assumption that you put everybody into homeownership."

It will be interesting to see if Frank is engaging in some pre-election grandstanding, or if he truly believes what he is saying.

The sooner the federal government moves away from providing home ownership support, the better off all taxpayers will be.

In point of fact, it has never been clear how federal involvement in the housing market can be squared with the limited role the federal government is granted by the US Constitution.

Obama Takes Correct Stance on Ground Zero Mosque

President Obama can't be wrong all the time, apparently. Although his economic and fiscal decisions since taking office last year have generally been disastrous, at least he has thought through the latest political fray and advised an appropriate outcome.

"Weighing in for the first time on the emotionally charged issue, President Barack Obama gave his blessing Friday to a Muslim group's plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York, saying, "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable."

In making his case for supporting the Cordoba House project, Obama, who once taught constitutional law, referred to the Constitution and the words of Thomas Jefferson .

"As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said. "That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan , in accordance with local laws and ordinances."

Of course Muslims have the same rights in the US and under the Constitution that members of other religions have.

What's important to note here is that President Obama represents all Americans, and as such should not be stepping in to favor one or another.

However, in times when the bully pulpit is called for, a President's default action should be to come down on the side of liberty and freedom.

That is just what he did. The decision of whether to build a mosque or not near Ground Zero is a decision that should be made by the owners of that private property, not the federal government, not the New York State government and not the local governments in New York City.

Too often people attempt to use the raw power of the federal government as a blunt instrument to achieve their own goals, whatever those might be. This is particularly true of President Obama, his party and their supporters.

President Obama for once did the wise thing and counseled all of those contesting the issue that the federal government comes down on the side of freedom and private property rights.

This will most likely be the only occasion for celebrating something he achieved during his entire presidency.

GOP Trying To Destroy Social Security?!?

President Obama yesterday suggested that the Republican Party is trying to destroy the Social Security system by advocating for changes that would radically alter how the system currently operates.

"President Barack Obama used the anniversary of Social Security to trumpet Democrats' support for the popular program and accuse Republicans of trying to destroy it.

Seventy-five years after President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Social Security into law, Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday: "We have an obligation to keep that promise, to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities and all Americans — today, tomorrow and forever."

Some Republican leaders in Congress are "pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall," Obama said.

He contended that such privatization was "an ill-conceived idea that would add trillions of dollars to our budget deficit while tying your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders and the ups and downs of the stock market."

It does without saying that politicians in Washington DC, Democrats and Republicans alike, have already destroyed the Social Security program, so no additional work in that regard is necessary.

Allowing full Social Security benefits to be claimed at the relative young age 65 (as life spans have increased well beyond that in recent decades) has doomed it due to the changing demographics in the US, and making it a veritable Ponzi scheme in that younger workers are in effect forced to pay money to older, retired workers is something that the SEC is supposed to exist to crack down on. In fact, it's incredibly unfair to younger workers that they don't have the option of opting out in first place.

At least some Republicans are willing to risk their own political capital by recommending an overhaul, such as proposing privatizing social security accounts. Democrats are much less willing to go there.

"Many Democrats adamantly oppose any cut in benefits to reduce costs and some won't accept a gradual increase in the retirement age, something that was done in the last overhaul in 1983. Republicans say an increase in Social Security taxes is out of the question, even for the wealthy."

That sums up the entire problem in a nutshell. The Social Security system is in grave danger of imploding in on itself, and countless politicians lack the courage to do anything about it!

Federal Workers Amazingly Overpaid

A new report shows that federal workers are completely overpaid relative to their counterparts in the private sector (this of course will not be news at all to those that have been aware of this growing problem).

"Government workers reportedly are now making twice as much as employees in the private sector.

For the past nine consecutive years, federal employees have received higher increases in salary and benefits on the average compared to nongovernment workers, according to a USA Today analysis.

Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said changes need to be made when other employees have seen their salaries in a holding pattern or slashed.

"Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he said.

Civil servants received salaries with benefits of $123,049 in 2009 on average compared to employees at private companies making $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis."

Who can possibly be surprised with this news? The level of graft and corruption within the government is at an all-time high. It's as if everyone and anyone associated with the government is over-reaching in order to grab their own "fair share" before the whole Ponzi scheme comes crashing down. The saying "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" seems appropriate here.

Americans cannot stand by and wait for current members of Congress to wake up and fix this problem for us. They (and the people who voted them into office) are ones who have created this sick environment in the first place.

We must elect politicians who think the current size of government is utterly ridiculous (and are willing to vote to defund most of it) and who are in favor of specific amendments to the US Constitution that will ensure that the federal government can never again revert back to its current size.

Consumer Confidence Continues to Plunge

Americans are growing increasingly frustrated with the direction of the economy, as consumer confidence has hit a near two-year low.

"Consumer confidence fell in early August to the lowest level since October 2008, a month after the collapse of Lehman Bros. sent the economy tumbling into a severe recession and financial crisis, according to the IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index out Tuesday.

The poll of 837 adults was conducted from Monday through Sunday, finishing two days after the Labor Department said private payrolls grew by just 71,000 in July. At that pace, it would take years to absorb the roughly 8.4 million people who lost jobs during the recession."

It should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention that people are growing more and more frustrated with the economic direction of this country.

Handing the keys to the economy to a political party that can do nothing except attempt to redistribute money from one group of people to another does not foster economic growth.

Rumblings of tax hikes (not extending the Bush tax cuts or imposing a VAT), talk of putting "boots on throats" and running massive budget deficits all suggest the Democratic party has absolutely no idea how to create wealth.

They do know how to "reallocate" people's hard-earned money, once it's been earned in the first place.

Hopefully the election results from last night give even more momentum to the more freedom-oriented, Beltway-outsider candidates, so that the country gets constructive "change" following the November elections.

Obama Brags Of His Own Politicking Skills

President Obama recently warned Republicans that he was going into campaign mode, and reminded them of his supposed prowess in "politicking".

In reference to the upcoming November congressional elections, Obama said: "Well, we can politick for three months. They forgot I'm pretty good at politicking."

The speech repeated the main campaign themes Obama has mentioned in recent months, particularly his assessment of GOP proposals as a repeat of failed policies from the previous administration.

Republicans are counting on voter "amnesia," the president said.

He framed the choice for voters as a decision on whether to return to policies that brought the recession or continue with policies that are "getting us out of this mess."

The narcissism the President demonstrates is simply staggering.

Yes, he did a very good job rising from complete obscurity to the office of the President in the manner of a few short years.

But much of that can be atttributed to mouthing platitudes that people simply won't buy this time around.

He's going to have to show himself to be a man of substance, not just one who throws taxpayer money around willy-nilly in order to "fix" problems.

And if he keeps saying his policies have gotten the country "out of this mess", in the face of near 10% unemployment and skyrocketing federal budget deficits, then he and his party are in for a much bigger beating in the November elections that anyone currently appreciates.

There's a reason that Democrats up for reelection are avoiding any association with him, and it's because they realize he and his failed policies are a massive liability.

Amending the Constitution?

House Republican leader John Boehner signaled his approval to amending the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution to prevent children of illegal immigrants from automatically being considered US citizens just because they were born on American soil.

"Changing the Constitution's guarantee of U.S. citizenship for anyone born in the United States is "worth considering" if it helps reduce illegal immigration, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives said Sunday.

"It's a serious problem that affects our country, and in certain parts of our country clearly our schools, our hospitals are being overrun by illegal immigrants. A lot of them came here just so their children could become U.S. citizens.

They should do it the legal way," House Minority Leader John Boehner told NBC's "Meet the Press."

I have no issues with this proposed change. Although in favor lawful immigration in general, it seems that allowing illegal immigrants to "bootstrap" their way to citizenship by illegally entering the country and delivering a baby is a loophole that should be shut down. However, since many illegal immigrants come to the country mainly for free (to them, at least) taxpayer-financed social services, tightening up the requirements of who is actually eligible for government services should actually fix that problem without the need for a Constitutional amendment.

However, if Congress is going to go to the trouble of amending the Constitution (which is an exceedingly difficult process, set out in Article V of the Constitution, and generally requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, and passage by 3/4 of state legislatures) then let's amend some other provisions as well.

For example, amending the 16th Amendment to prevent the federal government from claiming higher than a determined amount of income (20%?) in the form of taxes should also be considered.

The federal government currently claims upwards of 35% of earned income. In prior years, the maximum tax rate has been as high as 90% of income.

There's simply no reason that the federal government is vested with this much power and is able to seize such a high percentage of citizens' private property. The amount of money the government can forcibly extract from its citizens should be strictly limited by the Constitution, and shouldn't be able to be arbitrarily changed from year-to-year depending on the whims of the electorate, most of whom likely aren't subject to these rates anyway.

National Parks For Sale?

The state of Wyoming is threatening to sell off some of its park land as a result of what they say is the federal government's refusal to provide more education funding.

"Some might call it blackmail. The governor of Wyoming calls it desperation.

Governor Dave Freudenthal is threatening to sell off a chunk of one of America's most beautiful national parks unless the Obama administration comes up with more money to pay for education in the financially beleaguered state.

He says he will auction land valued at $125m (£80m) in the Grand Teton national park, one of the country's most stunning wildernesses. Part of the park was donated by John Rockefeller Jr."

Seems to me that the Governor of Wyoming is simply trying to get an edge in negotiations with the federal government, rather than actually committing to selling the park land.

Selling off a state treasure should be considered in some cases, but only as a last resort.

Has Wyoming reviewed its contracts with public employees to ensure the salaries and post-retirement benefits are reasonable? If not, fixing that should be the first step before any irreplaceable assets are sold.

Has Wyoming reviewed whether the number of state employees exceeds the amount that they actually need? Are there any state services currently being performed that are obsolete and could be shut down, thereby eliminating some costs?

Has the state considered nullification, in which intrusive and unconstitutional federal laws are ignored (such as in this case, where the governor likely is objecting to federally-mandated standards for education, which come with no funding).

Until all other avenues have been exhausted, asset sales should not be considered. But ultimately if the people of Wyoming demonstrate (through their actions at the ballot box) that they want all of the current state-funded services and aren't willing to pony up the tax revenues to finance them, then asset sales will have to be on the table.

It would be an extremely short-sighted and foolish trade-off from my standpoint, but then again that's the type of thinking that has states like Wyoming in this bind to begin with.

Mrs. Obama Living It Up At Taxpayer Expense

Michelle Obama has become a serial vacationer since her husband took office last year. Her latest taxpayer-funded sojourn is southern Spain, which is at least her 6th official vacation requiring travel with two others coming in short order.

"As her husband celebrated his 49th birthday in Chicago with Oprah, first lady Michelle Obama was halfway around the world, on vacation with her 9-year-old daughter, Sasha, in Spain. The two are traveling on what the White House has described as a four-day "private trip" with several Obama family friends along the country's ritzy southern coast.

Of course, no first lady's life is truly ever private, and already plenty of drama is swirling around Michelle Obama's foreign jaunt. Some critics have laid into the trip's price, while others are highlighting an apparent diplomatic gaffe between the United States and Spain."

Now the work of a First Lady is largely ceremonial, so her presence cannot be said to be required back in DC at all times. And it is generally good for politicians of all sorts to be engaged in any other pursuits (such as taking vacations) rather than remaining back in session and thinking of even more stupid laws and policies to impose on their fellow Americans.

It's curious that the media was much quicker to denounce former President Bush for taking cheap, folksy stay-cations at his ranch in Crawford, Texas than they are on the Obama's and their propensity for expensive foreign travel.

Irregardless of the media's opinion on the matter, when the country her husband nominally leads is engulfed in a major recession with high unemployment and is running a massive budget deficit, it would be wise to not exacerbate those issues by traveling to and fro with no apparent regard to the cost to the very same taxpayers that find themselves facing tough economic times largely due to government excess.

More Mortgage Bailouts

The federal government continues to throw good money after bad, with a fresh $600m commitment to unemployed people in five states that are behind on their mortgages.

"The Obama administration plans to send $600 million to help unemployed homeowners avoid foreclosure in five states.

The Treasury Department says mortgage-assistance proposals submitted by North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island and South Carolina received approval. The states estimate their efforts could help up to 50,000 homeowners.

The administration is directing $2.1 billion from its existing $75 billion mortgage assistance program to a total of 10 states. Each state designed its own plan.

Treasury approved money in June for Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan and Nevada."

It's unclear why the federal money is only designated for 10 states. Surely the housing market has also fallen in states other than those identified above. It can't simply be that the remaining 40 states never applied for assistance; if there's free money out there, people will find it. It's actually more likely that the government is playing politics, and using federal money to win over voters in key states.

The key question though is whether this bailout is a proper use of taxpayer money. The housing market is falling because of oversupply and because prices got out of control. Letting the market fix the excesses that were created in years past is the healthy and normal way to fix the problem, without any unnecessary government intervention.

Unemployed workers are already given generous benefits for being idle, in many cases encouraging them to remain idle far beyond when they would otherwise be able to return to the work force.

Let's not give them free money for the purpose of keeping them in a house that in many cases they should be looking to sell in order to get out of a burdensome mortgage liability.