|
Politicians
throughout history have tried to solve every problem conceivable to man,
always failing to recognize that many of the problems we face result from
previous so-called political solutions. Government cannot be the answer to
every human ill. Continuing to view more government as the solution to
problems will only make matters worse.
Not
too long ago, I spoke on this floor about why I believe Americans are so
angry in spite of rosy government economic reports. The majority of Americans
are angry, disgusted, and frustrated that so little is being done in Congress
to solve their problems. The fact is a majority of American citizens expect
the federal government to provide for every need, without considering whether
government causes many economic problems in the first place. This certainly
is an incentive for politicians to embrace the role of omnipotent problem
solvers, since nobody asks first whether they, the politicians themselves,
are at fault.
At
home I’m frequently asked about my frustration with Congress, since so
many reform proposals go unheeded. I jokingly reply, “No, I’m
never frustrated, because I have such low expectations.” But the
American people have higher expectations, and without forthcoming solutions,
are beyond frustrated with their government.
If
solutions to America’s problems won’t be found in the frequent
clamor for more government, it’s still up to Congress to explain how
our problems develop – and how solutions can be found in an atmosphere
of liberty, private property, and a free market order. It’s up to us to
demand radical change from our failed policy of foreign military
interventionism. Robotic responses to the clichés of big government
intervention in our lives are unbecoming to members who were elected to offer
ideas and solutions. We must challenge the status quo of our economic and political
system.
Many
things have contributed to the mess we’re in. Bureaucratic management
can never compete with the free market in solving problems. Central economic
planning doesn’t work. Just look at the failed systems of the 20th
century. Welfarism is an example of central economic planning. Paper money,
money created out of thin air to accommodate welfarism and government
deficits, is not only silly, it’s unconstitutional. No matter how hard
the big spenders try to convince us otherwise, deficits do matter. But
lowering the deficit through higher taxes won’t solve anything.
Nothing
will change in Washington until it’s recognized that the ultimate
driving force behind most politicians is obtaining and holding power. And
money from special interests drives the political process. Money and power
are important only because the government wields power not granted by the
Constitution. A limited, constitutional government would not tempt special
interests to buy the politicians who wield power. The whole process feeds on
itself. Everyone is rewarded by ignoring constitutional restraints, while
expanding and complicating the entire bureaucratic state.
Even
when it’s recognized that we’re traveling down the wrong path,
the lack of political courage and the desire for reelection results in
ongoing support for the pork-barrel system that serves special interests. A
safe middle ground, a don’t-rock-the-boat attitude, too often is
rewarded in Washington, while meaningful solutions tend to offend those who
are in charge of the gigantic PAC/lobbyist empire that calls the shots in
Washington. Most members are rewarded by reelection for accommodating and
knowing how to work the system.
Though
there’s little difference between the two parties, the partisan fights
are real. Instead of debates about philosophy, the partisan battles are about
who will wield the gavels. True policy debates are rare; power struggles are
real and ruthless. And yet we all know that power corrupts.
Both
parties agree on monetary, fiscal, foreign and entitlement policies.
Unfortunately, neither party has much concern for civil liberties. Both
parties are split over trade, with mixed debates between outright
protectionists and those who endorse government-managed trade agreements that
masquerade as “free trade.” It’s virtually impossible to
find anyone who supports hands-off free trade, defended by the moral right of
all citizens to spend their money as they see fit, without being subject any
special interest.
The
big government nanny-state is based on the assumption that free markets
can’t provide the maximum good for the largest number of people. It
assumes people are not smart or responsible enough to take care of
themselves, and thus their needs must be filled through the
government’s forcible redistribution of wealth. Our system of
intervention assumes that politicians and bureaucrats have superior
knowledge, and are endowed with certain talents that produce efficiency.
These assumptions don’t seem to hold much water, of course, when we
look at agencies like FEMA. Still, we expect the government to manage
monetary and economic policy, the medical system, and the educational system,
and then wonder why we have problems with the cost and efficiency of all
these programs.
On top
of this, the daily operation of Congress reflects the power of special
interests, not the will of the people – regardless of which party is in
power.
Critically
important legislation comes up for votes late in the evening, leaving members
little chance to read or study the bills. Key changes are buried in
conference reports, often containing new legislation not even mentioned in
either the House or Senate versions.
Conferences
were meant to compromise two different positions in the House and Senate
bills – not to slip in new material that had not been mentioned in
either bill.
Congress
spends hundreds of billions of dollars in “emergency”
supplemental bills to avoid the budgetary rules meant to hold down the
deficit. Wartime spending money is appropriated and attached to emergency
relief funds, making it difficult for politicians to resist.
The
principle of the pork barrel is alive and well, and it shows how huge
appropriations are passed easily with supporters of the system getting their
share for their district.
Huge
omnibus spending bills, introduced at the end of the legislative year, are
passed without scrutiny. No one individual knows exactly what is in the bill.
In the
process, legitimate needs and constitutional responsibilities are frequently ignored.
Respect for private property rights is ignored. Confidence in the free market
is lost or misunderstood. Our tradition of self-reliance is mocked as
archaic.
Lack
of real choice in economic and personal decisions is commonplace. It seems
that too often the only choice we’re given is between prohibitions or
subsidies. Never is it said, “Let the people decide on things like stem
cell research or alternative medical treatments.”
Nearly
everyone endorses exorbitant taxation; the only debate is about who should
pay—either tax the producers and the rich or tax the workers and the
poor through inflation and outsourcing jobs.
Both
politicians and the media place blame on everything except bad policy
authored by Congress. Scapegoats are needed, since there’s so much
blame to go around and so little understanding as to why we’re in such
a mess.
In
1920s and 1930s Europe, as the financial system collapsed and inflation
raged, it was commonplace to blame the Jews. Today in America the blame is
spread out: Illegal immigrants, Muslims, big business (whether they get
special deals from the government or not), price-gouging oil companies
(regardless of the circumstances), and labor unions. Ignorance of economics
and denial of the political power system that prevails in D.C. make it
possible for Congress to shift blame.
Since
we’re not on the verge of mending our ways, the problems will worsen
and the blame games will get much more vicious. Shortchanging a large segment
of our society surely will breed conflict that could get out of control. This
is a good reason for us to cast aside politics as usual and start finding
some reliable answers to our problems.
Politics
as usual is aided by the complicity of the media. Economic ignorance,
bleeding heart emotionalism, and populist passion pervade our major networks
and cable channels. This is especially noticeable when the establishment
seeks to unify the people behind an illegal, unwise war. The propaganda is
well-coordinated by the media/government/military/industrial complex. This
collusion is worse than when state – owned media do the same thing. In
countries where everyone knows the media produces government propaganda,
people remain wary of what they hear. In the United States the media are
considered free and independent, thus the propaganda is accepted with less
questioning.
One of
the major reasons we’ve drifted from the Founders' vision of liberty in
the Constitution was the division of the concept of freedom into two parts.
Instead of freedom being applied equally to social and economic transactions,
it has come to be thought of as two different concepts. Some in Congress now
protect economic liberty and market choices, but ignore personal liberty and
private choices. Others defend personal liberty, but concede the realm of
property and economic transactions to government control.
There
should be no distinction between commercial speech and political speech. With
no consistent moral defense of true liberty, the continued erosion of
personal and property rights is inevitable. This careless disregard for
liberty, our traditions, and the Constitution have brought us disaster, with
a foreign policy of military interventionism supported by the leadership of
both parties. Hopefully, some day this will be radically changed.
The
Law of Opposites
Everyone
is aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Most members of Congress
understand that government actions can have unintended consequences, yet few
quit voting for government “solutions” – always hoping
there won’t be any particular unintended consequences this time. They
keep hoping there will be less harmful complications from the
“solution” that they currently support. Free market economics
teaches that for every government action to solve an economic problem, two
new ones are created. The same unwanted results occur with foreign policy
meddling.
The
Law of Opposites is just a variation of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
When we attempt to achieve a certain goal – like, “make the world
safe for democracy,” a grandiose scheme of World War I – one can
be sure the world will become less safe and less democratic regardless of the
motivation.
The
1st World War was sold to the American people as the war to end all wars.
Instead, history shows it was the war that caused the 20th century to be the
most war-torn century in history. Our entry into World War I helped lead us
into World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Even
our current crisis in the Middle East can be traced to the great wars of the
20th century. Though tens of millions of deaths are associated with these
wars, we haven’t learned a thing.
We
went into Korea by direction of the United Nations, not a congressional
declaration of war, to unify Korea. And yet that war ensured that Korea
remains divided to this day; our troops are still there. South Korea today is
much more willing to reconcile differences with North Korea, and yet we
obstruct such efforts. It doesn’t make much sense.
We
went into Vietnam and involved ourselves unnecessarily in a civil war to
bring peace and harmony to that country. We lost 60,000 troops and spent
hundreds of billions of dollars, yet failed to achieve victory. Ironically,
since losing in Vietnam we now have a better relationship with them than
ever. We now trade, invest, travel, and communicate with a unified,
western-leaning country that is catching on rather quickly to capitalist
ways. This policy, not military confrontation, is exactly what the
Constitution permits and the Founders encouraged in our relationship with
others.
This
policy should apply to both friends and perceived enemies. Diplomacy and
trade can accomplish goals that military intervention cannot – and they
certainly are less costly.
In
both instances – Korea and Vietnam – neither country attacked us,
and neither country posed a threat to our security. In neither case did we
declare war. All of the fighting and killing was based on lies,
miscalculations, and the failure to abide by constitutional restraint with
regards to war.
When
goals are couched in terms of humanitarianism, sincere or not, the results
are inevitably bad. Foreign interventionism requires the use of force. First,
the funds needed to pursue a particular policy require that taxes be forcibly
imposed on the American people, either directly or indirectly through
inflation. Picking sides in foreign countries only increases the chances of
antagonism toward us. Too often foreign economic and military support means
impoverishing the poor in America and enhancing the rich ruling classes in poor
countries. When sanctions are used against one undesirable regime, it
squelches resistance to the very regimes we’re trying to undermine.
Forty years of sanctions against Castro have left him in power, and fomented
continued hatred and blame from the Cuban people directed at us. Trade with
Cuba likely would have accomplished the opposite, as it has in Vietnam,
China, and even in the Eastern Block nations of the old Soviet empire.
We
spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Colombia to curtail drug production.
No evidence exists that it helps. In fact, drug production and corruption
have increased. We close our eyes to it because the reasons we’re in
Colombia and Afghanistan are denied.
Obviously,
we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden.
Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals
that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a
Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al
Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We
learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he
applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion
and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al
Qaeda’s recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of
American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with
no end in sight.
Bankruptcy
seems to be the only way we will reconsider the foolishness of this type of
occupation. It’s time for us to wake up.
Our
policy toward Iran for the past 50 years is every bit as disconcerting. It
makes no sense unless one concedes that our government is manipulated by
those who seek physical control over the vast oil riches of the Middle East
and egged on by Israel’s desires.
We
have attacked the sovereignty of Iran on two occasions, and are in the
process of threatening her for the third time. In 1953, the U.S. and British
overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the
Shah. His brutal regime lasted over 25 years, and ended with the Ayatollah
taking power in 1979. Our support for the Shah incited the radicalization of
the Shiite Clerics in Iran, resulting in the hostage takeover.
In the
1980s we provided weapons – including poisonous gas – to Saddam
Hussein as we supported his invasion of Iran. These events are not forgotten
by the Iranians, who see us once again looking for another confrontation with
them. We insist that the UN ignore the guarantees under the NPT that grant
countries like Iran the right to enrich uranium. The pressure on the UN and
the threats we cast toward Iran are quite harmful to the cause of peace. They
are entirely unnecessary and serve no useful purpose. Our policy toward Iran
is much more likely to result in her getting a nuclear weapon than prevent
it.
Our
own effort at democratizing Iran has resulted instead in radicalizing a
population whose instincts are to like Americans and our economic system. Our
meddling these past 50 years has only served to alienate and unify the entire
country against us.
Though
our officials only see Iran as an enemy, as does Israel, our policies in the
Middle East these past 5 years have done wonders to strengthen Iran’s
political and military position in the region. We have totally ignored
serious overtures by the Iranians to negotiate with us before hostilities
broke out in Iraq in 2003. Both immediately after 9/11, and especially at the
time of our invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran, partially out of fear and
realism, honestly sought reconciliation and offered to help the U.S. in its
battle against al Qaeda. They were rebuked outright. Now Iran is negotiating
from a much stronger position, principally as a result of our overall Middle
East policy.
We
accommodated Iran by severely weakening the Taliban in Afghanistan on
Iran’s eastern borders. On Iran’s western borders we helped the
Iranians by eliminating their arch enemy, Saddam Hussein. Our invasion in
Iraq and the resulting chaos have inadvertently delivered up a large portion
of Iraq to the Iranians, as the majority Shiites in Iraq ally themselves with
Iranians.
The
U.S./Israeli plan to hit Hezbollah in Lebanon before taking on Iran
militarily has totally backfired. Now Hezbollah, an ally of Iran, has been
made stronger than ever with the military failure to rout Hezbollah from
southern Lebanon. Before the U.S./Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hezbollah was
supported by 20% of the population, now it’s revered by 80%. A democratic
election in Lebanon cannot now serve the interest of the U.S. or Israel. It
would only support the cause of radical clerics in Iran.
Demanding
an election in Palestinian Gaza resulted in enhancing the power of Hamas. The
U.S. and Israel promptly rejected the results. So much for our support for
democratically elected government.
Our
support for dictatorial Arab leaders is a thorn in the side of the large
Muslim population in the Middle East, and one of the main reasons Osama bin
Laden declared war against us. We talk of democracy and self-determination,
but the masses of people in the Middle East see through our hypocrisy when we
support the Sunni secular dictators in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan and at
one time, Saddam Hussein.
In the
late 1970s and the 1980s the CIA spent over $4 billion on a program called
“Operation Cyclone.” This was our contribution to setting up
training schools in Pakistan and elsewhere, including the U.S. itself, to
teach “sabotage skills.” The purpose was to use these individuals
in fighting our enemies in the Middle East, including the Soviets. But as one
could predict, this effort has come back to haunt us, as our radical ally
Osama bin Laden turned his fury against us after routing the Soviets. It is
estimated that over 12,000 fighters were trained in the camps we set up in
Afghanistan. They were taught how to make bombs, carry out sabotage, and use
guerilla war tactics. And now we’re on the receiving end of this U.S.
financed program – hardly a good investment.
It’s
difficult to understand why our policy makers aren’t more cautious in
their efforts to police the world, once it’s realized how unsuccessful
we have been. It seems they always hope that next time our efforts
won’t come flying back in our face.
Our
failed efforts in Iraq continue to drain our resources, costing us dearly
both in lives lost and dollars spent. And there’s no end in sight. No
consideration is given for rejecting our obsession with a worldwide military
presence, which rarely if ever directly enhances our security. A much
stronger case can be made that our policy of protecting our worldwide
interests actually does the opposite by making us weaker, alienating our
allies, inciting more hatred, and provoking our enemies. The more we have
interfered in the Middle East in the last 50 years, the greater the danger
has become for an attack on us. The notion that Arab/Muslim radicals are
motivated to attack us because of our freedoms and prosperity, and not our
unwelcome presence in their countries, is dangerous and silly.
We
were told we needed to go into Iraq because our old ally, Saddam Hussein, had
weapons of mass destruction – yet no weapons of mass destruction were
found.
We
were told we needed to occupy Iraq to remove al Qaeda, yet al Qaeda was
nowhere to be found and now it’s admitted it had nothing to do with
9/11. Yet today, Iraq is infested with al Qaeda – achieving exactly the
opposite of what we sought to do.
We
were told that we needed to secure “our oil” to protect our
economy and to pay for our invasion and occupation. Instead, the opposite has
resulted: Oil production is down, oil prices are up, and no oil profits have
been used to pay the bills.
We
were told that a regime change in Iraq would help us in our long-time fight
with Iran, yet everything we have done in Iraq has served the interests of
Iran.
We’re
being told in a threatening and intimidating fashion that, “If America
were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be
absolutely predictable and absolutely disastrous.” I’m convinced
that the Law of Opposites could well apply here. Going into Iraq we know
produced exactly the opposite results of what was predicted: Leaving also
likely will have results opposite of those we’re being frightened with.
Certainly leaving Vietnam at the height of the Cold War did not result in the
disaster predicted by the advocates of the Domino Theory – an
inevitable Communist takeover of the entire Far East.
We’re
constantly being told that we cannot abandon Iraq and we are obligated to
stay forever if necessary. This admonition is similar to a rallying cry from
a determined religious missionary bent on proselytizing to the world with a
particular religious message. Conceding that leaving may not be a panacea for
Iraqi tranquility, this assumption ignores two things. One, our preemptive
war ignited the Iraqi civil war, and two, abandoning the Iraqi people is not
the question. The real question is whether or not we should abandon the
American people by forcing them to pay for an undeclared war with huge
economic and human costs, while placing our national security in greater
jeopardy by ignoring our borders and serious problems here at home.
In our
attempt to make Iraq a better place, we did great harm to Iraqi Christians.
Before our invasion in 2003 there were approximately 1.2 million living in
Iraq. Since then over half have been forced to leave due to persecution and
violence. Many escaped to Syria. With the neo-cons wanting to attack Syria,
how long will they be safe there? The answer to the question,
“Aren’t we better off without Saddam Hussein,” is not an
automatic yes for Iraqi Christians.
We’ve
been told for decades that our policy of militarism and preemption in the
Middle East is designed to provide security for Israel. Yet a very strong
case can be made that Israel is more vulnerable than ever, with moderate
Muslims being challenged by a growing majority of Islamic radicals. As the
vincibility of the American and Israeli military becomes common knowledge,
Israel’s security is diminished and world opinion turns against her,
especially after the failed efforts to remove the Hezbollah threat.
We
were told that attacking and eliminating Hezbollah was required to diminish
the Iranian threat against Israel. The results again were the opposite. This
failed effort has only emboldened Iran.
The
lack of success of conventional warfare – the U.S. in Vietnam, the
Soviets in Afghanistan, the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel in Lebanon
– should awaken our policy makers to our failure in war and diplomacy.
Yet all we propose are bigger bombs and more military force for occupation,
rather than working to understand an entirely new generation of modern
warfare.
Many
reasons are given for our preemptive wars and military approach for spreading
the American message of freedom and prosperity, which is an obvious
impossibility. Our vital interests are always cited for justification, and
it’s inferred that those who do not support our militancy are
unpatriotic. Yet the opposite is actually the case: Wise resistance to
one’s own government doing bad things requires a love of country,
devotion to idealism, and respect for the Rule of Law.
In
attempting to build an artificial and unwelcome Iraqi military, the harder we
try, the more money we spend, and the more lives we lose, the stronger the
real armies of Iraq become: the Sunni insurgency, the Bardr Brigade, the
Sardr Mahdi Army, and the Kurdish militia.
The
Kurds have already taken a bold step in this direction by hoisting a Kurdish
flag and removing the Iraqi flag – a virtual declaration of
independence. Natural local forces are winning out over outside political
forces.
We’re
looking in all the wrong places for an Iraqi army to bring stability to that
country. The people have spoken and these troops that represent large
segments of the population need no training. It’s not a lack of
training, weapons, or money that hinders our efforts to create a new superior
Iraqi military. It’s the lack of inspiration and support for such an
endeavor that is missing. Developing borders and separating the various
factions, which our policy explicitly prohibits, is the basic flaw in our
plan for a forced, unified, western-style democracy for Iraq. Allowing
self-determination for different regions is the only way to erase the
artificial nature of Iraq – an Iraq designed by western outsiders
nearly 80 years ago. It’s our obsession with control of the oil in the
region, and imposing our will on the Middle East, and accommodating the
demands of Israel that is the problem. And the American people are finally
getting sick and tired of their sacrifices. It’s time to stop the
bleeding.
Instead
we continue to hear the constant agitation for us to confront the Iranians
with military action. Reasons to attack Iran make no more sense than our
foolish preemptive war against Iraq. Fictitious charges and imaginary dangers
are used to frighten the American people into accepting an attack on Iran.
First it may only be sanctions, but later it will be bombs and possible
ground troops if the neo-cons have their way. Many of the chicken-hawk
neo-conservative advisors to the administration are highly critical of our
current policy because it’s not aggressive enough. They want more
troops in Iraq, they want to attack Syria and Iran, and escalate the conflict
in Lebanon.
We
have a troop shortage, morale is low, and our military equipment is in bad
shape, yet the neo-cons would not hesitate to spend, borrow, inflate, and
reinstate the draft to continue their grandiose schemes in remaking the
entire Middle East. Obviously a victory of this sort is not available, no
matter what effort is made or how much money is spent.
Logic
would tell us there’s no way we will contemplate taking on Iran at this
time. But logic did not prevail with our Iraq policy, and look at the mess we
have there. Besides, both sides, the neo-con extremists and the radical
Islamists, are driven by religious fervor. Both are convinced that God is on
their side – a strange assumption since theologically it’s the
same God.
Both
sides of the war in the Middle East are driven by religious beliefs of
omnipotence. Both sides endorse an eschatological theory regarding the
forthcoming end of time. Both anticipate the return of God personified and as
promised to each. Both sides are driven by a conviction of perfect knowledge
regarding the Creator, and though we supposedly worship the same God, each
sees the other side as completely wrong and blasphemous. The religiously
driven Middle East war condemns tolerance of the other’s view.
Advocates of restraint and the use of diplomacy are ridiculed as appeasers,
and equivalent to supporting Nazism and considered un-American and
un-Christian.
I find
it amazing that we in this country seem determined to completely separate religious
expression and the state, even to the detriment of the 1st Amendment. Yet we
can say little about how Christian and Jewish religious beliefs greatly
influences our policies in the Middle East. It should be the other way
around. Religious expression, according to the 1st Amendment, cannot be
regulated anywhere by Congress or the federal courts. But deeply held
theological beliefs should never dictate our foreign policy. Being falsely
accused of anti-Semitism and being a supporter of radical fascism is not an
enviable position for any politician. Most realize it’s best to be
quiet and support our Middle East involvement.
Believing
we have perfect knowledge of God’s will, and believing government can
manage our lives and world affairs, have caused a great deal of problems for
man over the ages. When these two elements are combined they become
especially dangerous. Liberty, by contrast, removes power from government and
allows total freedom of choice in pursuing one’s religious beliefs. The
only solution to controlling political violence is to prohibit the use of
force to pursue religious goals and reject government authority to mold the
behavior of individuals.
Both
are enamored with the so-called benefit that chaos offers to those promoting
revolutionary changes. Both sides in situations like this always
underestimate the determination of the opposition, and ignore the law of
unintended consequences. They never consider that these policies might
backfire.
Declaring
war against Islamic fascism or terrorism is vague and meaningless. This enemy
we’re fighting at the expense of our own liberties is purposely
indefinable. Therefore the government will exercise wartime powers
indefinitely. We’ve been fully warned to expect a long, long war.
The
Islamic fascists are almost impossible to identify and cannot be targeted by
our conventional weapons. Those who threaten us essentially are unarmed and
stateless. Comparing them to Nazi Germany, a huge military power, is
ridiculous. Labeling them as a unified force is a mistake. It’s
critical that we figure out why a growing number of Muslims are radicalized
to the point of committing suicide terrorism against us. Our presence in
their countries represents a failed policy that makes us less safe, not more.
These
guerilla warriors do not threaten us with tanks, gunboats, fighter planes,
missiles, or nuclear weapons, nor do they have a history of aggression
against the United States. Our enemy’s credibility depends instead on
the popular goal of ending our occupation of their country.
We
must not forget that the 9/11 terrorists came principally from Saudi Arabia,
not Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, or Syria. Iran has never in modern times invaded her
neighbors, yet we worry obsessively that she may develop a nuclear weapon
someday. Never mind that a radicalized Pakistan has nuclear weapons; our
friend Musharraf won’t lift a finger against Bin Laden, who most likely
is hiding there. Our only defense against this emerging nuclear threat has
been to use, and threaten to use, weapons that do not meet the needs of this
new and different enemy.
Since
resistance against the Iraq war is building here at home, hopefully it
won’t be too long before we abandon our grandiose scheme to rule the
entire Middle East through intimidation and military confrontation.
Economic
law eventually will prevail. Runaway military and entitlement spending cannot
be sustained. We can tax the private economy only so much, and borrowing from
foreigners is limited by the total foreign debt and our current account
deficit. It will be difficult to continue this spending spree without
significantly higher interest rates and further devaluation of the dollar.
This all spells more trouble for our economy and certainly higher inflation.
Our industrial base is shattered and our borders remain open to those who
exploit our reeling entitlement system.
Economic
realities will prevail, regardless of the enthusiasm by most members of
Congress for a continued expansion of the welfare state and support for our
dangerously aggressive foreign policy. The welfare/warfare state will come to
an end when the dollar fails and the money simply runs out.
The
overriding goal should then be to rescue our constitutional liberties, which
have been steadily eroded by those who claim that sacrificing civil liberties
is required and legitimate in times of war – even the undeclared and
vague war we’re currently fighting.
A real
solution to our problems will require a better understanding of, and greater
dedication to, free markets and private property rights. It can’t be
done without restoring a sound, asset-backed currency. If we hope to restore
any measure of constitutional government, we must abandon the policy of
policing the world and keeping troops in every corner of the earth. Our liberties and
our prosperity depend on it.
Ron Paul
www.house.gov/paul
All
other articles by Ron Paul
Congressman
Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for
liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington
for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return
to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. For more
information click on the Project Freedom website.
Published
with the authorization of Dr. Paul.
Copyright
Dr. Ron Paul
|
