Texas to TSA: “Come and Take It.”

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org. 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is a prime example of trading liberty for so-called security. The latest viral TSA outrage occurred on June 18 when officers forced a wheelchair bound, 95-year-old leukemia sufferer to remove her adult diaper. The innocent elderly woman was detained by the TSA for a whopping 45 minutes. Her daughter who filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security stated that “it’s something I couldn’t imagine happening on American soil.”

Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed at the overreaching federal government violating our inalienable right to privacy. These stories of TSA abuse are far too common. The Humble Libertarian lists ten of the TSA’s worst actions, which include a 6-year-old girl being groped and a bladder-cancer survivor who was covered in urine after officers roughly patted his urostomy bag.

In an ABC News interview, TSA administrator John Pistole said that “I see flying as a privilege.” The scanners and pat-downs, however, are clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. Getting on an airplane does not justify probable cause—the reasonable belief that someone has committed a crime. Innocent travelers should never be subjected to virtual strip searches or invasive full contact pat downs from armed government bureaucrats.

A growing number of states are putting their foot down. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, there are at least five states considering bills to ban unconstitutional and immoral TSA practices. In response to pending legislation in the Texas legislature that would outlaw any searches by the TSA without probable cause, the federal government threatened the state with a no fly zone. U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy sent a letter to high-ranking Texas officials statingthat if such a law is enacted, the “TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”

Texas hasn’t fully backed down. On Monday, the Texas House gave preliminary approval for HB 41 which prohibits TSA invasive pat-downs without probable cause. The penalty would be $4,000 fine and up to one-year in jail. The Texas Senate later passed SB 29, a watered-down version of the anti-groping bill, which allows hand searches if there is reasonable suspicion. The Senate version includes a caveat that says no TSA patdowns “without reasonable suspicion of the presence of an unknown, unlawful, or prohibited object.”

The terms “probable cause” and “reasonable suspicion” are often interchanged. But probable cause is a much stronger term than reasonable suspicion. Probable cause means that there is strong evidence of guilt while reasonable suspicion is generally the lowest level of proof. An officer can claim “reasonable suspicion” with little more than a hunch that you could or have committed a crime.

The Texas legislature should make the right decision by passing the stronger bill outlawing TSA pat-downs without probable cause. It’s a shame that the final bill might be watered-down, but it would still be a step in the right direction. Whether the original or watered-down bill is signed into law, TSA agents would still be potentially charged with a Class A misdemeanor for inappropriately touching airline customers. It’s time that the states tell the federal government to back off. As Texas Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview), the sponsor of the stronger House passed bill said, “come and take it.”

The TSA bullies have stepped up their threats against Texas. An entry on the TSA blog says “what’s our take on the Texas House of Representatives voting to ban the current TSA pat-down? Well, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prevents states from regulating the federal government.” This is simply not the case. As Corie Whalen of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas says “no federal statue is being contravened and Texas does have the right to do this.”

The TSA has not stopped one attempted terrorist attack since its implementation after 9/11. We would be better off if we abolished the TSA and allowed airlines to provide their own private security. The private sector has far more incentives to provide better security that protects customers while treating them with respect and dignity.

No Debt Ceiling Hike without Cut, Cap and Balance

I think this is a good plan given the political circumstances. No raising the debt ceiling unless some miraculous great deal is reached. Unlikely but worth striving to get some cuts, caps and a balanced budget. Ron Paul is the first presidential candidate to sign the “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge.

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org. 

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warns that America is just 40 days away from Armageddon. Don’t let the scare tactics fool you. Even if the debt ceiling is not raised, the U.S. will not necessarily default on its debt on August 2. It’s difficult to understand how anyone would still see Geithner as an authority on the economy due to his previous gaffes on everything from the “stimulus” to the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law.

Most credible economists will tell you that keeping the debt ceiling at its current level will not be the end of the world. St. Lawrence University economics Professor Steve Horwitz says that “people imagine a doomsday scenario where we’ve maxed out the credit card and have nothing in the bank account, when in reality we have plenty of tax revenue to pay off interest on our debt.” Even if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling, the federal government still has enough money to ensure that bond holders are paid in full.

Despite our official national debt approaching $14.4 trillion, many in Washington want to simply raise the debt ceiling limit without any spending cuts or reforms. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is urging to keep the debt ceiling vote separate from spending cuts debates while claiming that not raising the debt limit would “create fundamental doubts about the creditworthiness of the United States and damage the special role of the dollar.” The truth is that the Federal Reserve running the printing presses on overtime does far more to destroy the value of the dollar. Any economic credibility that Ben Bernanke may have once had has long gone out the window.

We should not be in this position in the first place. A recent FreedomWorks poll conducted by Frank Luntz concluded that 7 in 10 Americans in key swing states strongly oppose any increase in the debt limit. It’s absurd that our national debt has reached $14.3 trillion let alone that we’re discussing raising the debt ceiling for the 74th time since 1962. The debt limit has gone from less than $1 trillion in the 1980’s to nearly $14.3 trillion. Just seven years ago, Congress raised the debt ceiling to $6.4 trillion, which means the U.S. debt has doubled in less than a decade.

The goal is to get us to a point where spending never exceeds the established debt ceiling. It would be inexcusable for Washington to raise the debt ceiling without changing its spending habits. When will we say: enough is enough? In the Wall Street Journal, the presidents of various limited government groups Colin Hanna, Chris Chocola and Ken Blackwell write that “Republicans in the Bush years and Democrats in the Obama years have proven that we cannot trust them when it comes to spending.“ It’s past time to break the debt ceiling cycle. The continuous cycle of lawmakers increasing the debt limit as needed to finance their everlasting spending spree must end.

We need a responsible approach to the debt ceiling. The “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge, which is championed by fiscally conservative groups and members of Congress, states that the signer will oppose any “clean” debt ceiling limit increase. These signers pledge to not raise the debt limit without substantial cuts in spending, enforceable spending caps and a congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that includes a spending limitation and a super-majority to raise taxes.

Now is not the time to raise the debt ceiling unless all three of these minimum necessary preconditions are met. Vice President Joe Biden has a series of meetings with congressional leaders in efforts to reach a deal on raising the debt ceiling. If the compromise includes only phony cuts—which is very plausible—lawmakers must reject it on principle. The pledge will help to ensure that representatives stand their ground in the debate ceiling fight. No debt limit hike without cuts, caps and balancing the budget. I urge you to sign the “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge and encourage your representatives to do the same.

Five Questions for Ron Paul

I just posted another video on my YouTube channel, TokenLibertarianGirl, where I answer questions about Ron Paul from my Twitter. I’m doing these videos on my own so please have patience me with me as I learn how to make better YouTube videos. Technology and me don’t mix. Thanks! 

Opt Out of Entitlement Programs

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

Entitlement programs are on the fast track to bankruptcy. Social Security and Medicare—the nation’s two largest entitlement programs—will run out of funds sooner than previously expected. Social Security faces a $45 billion deficit this year and Medicare’s trust fund for hospital insurance will completely run out of funds by 2024. We must face the reality that the federal government simply won’t be able to keep its grand promises to future generations without drastic changes to our entitlement system.

Some claim that our entitlement programs suffer from a demographic problem. It’s true that people are living for a much longer period of time. When the Social Security Act of 1935 passed, the average life expectancy was only 60 years. Despite the fact that the average life expectancy has soared to 77.5 years, the Social Security retirement age of 65 has never been adjusted to meet demographic changes. This means that the number of retirees is growing faster than the number of new workers. The ratio of workers to retirees has grown from 42 to 1 in 1940 to just 3.3 to 1 today. The current demographic trends are unsustainable.

Everyone paying attention knows that entitlement programs are in trouble. The numbers prove this fact but it is more than just an accounting problem. The underlying problem is a philosophical one. The role of government is not to “take care” of Americans from cradle to grave. Our Founding Fathers warned us against an “all-knowing” nanny state that would erode our personal liberties. As the late Barry Goldwater said “remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything that you have.” The proper role of the government as outlined in the Constitution is solely to protect life, liberty and property.

Young people have the largest stake in our broke entitlement system. These workers are forced to pay Social Security payroll taxes knowing full well that they will likely never collect Social Security benefits in their lifetime. By the time college aged students retire, there will be only two workers for each beneficiary. Even former President Clinton said that “there are polls that say that young people in their twenties think it’s more likely that they will see UFOs than that they will ever collect Social Security.” This is the reason that the 18 to 29 year old age group is the most receptive to making changes to Social Security.

Most in Washington have chosen to kick the can down the road. Time and time again lawmakers have denied that our entitlements programs are in trouble. Cutting benefits or raising taxes is politically unpopular. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) deserves credit for introducing bold proposals to reform Social Security and Medicare in his “Roadmap for America” plan. His Medicare plan also in his most recent “Path to Prosperity” plan, which has been endorsed by a majority of his fellow House Members, would transform Medicare form a misguided “one-size-fits-all” program into a patient-centered system that allows seniors to choose from a list of competing health plans. It may not be ideal, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Let’s take it a step further. Why aren’t we allowed to opt-out of these compulsory entitlement programs? If they are so “great”, why are they mandatory? Individuals should have the freedom to buy their own health insurance after the age of 65 or save for their own retirement without government assistance if they wish. It’s their hard earned money; it does not belong to the federal government. No one should have to fear that the government will ultimately ration their retirement savings. It would be morally inexcusable to force generations to pay into our broke entitlement system and ultimately get nothing in return.

Many Americans still believe in the ideas of personal liberty and self-sufficiency that our forefathers fought for. Let’s give them the freedom to opt of our nanny state entitlement system altogether. Would anyone actually stay in a terribly mismanaged government monopoly? It’s pretty clear: freedom works, government doesn’t.

Obama’s Policies (Not ATMs) to Blame for High Unemployment

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

President Obama may have proven that he is even more clueless about economics than previously thought. On NBC News, he claimed that his misguided Keynesian policies had nothing to do with companies’ unwillingness to hire new employees. He instead placed the blame for high unemployment on machines. He said that:

There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.

Let’s put this economic fallacy to rest. Machines are not taking away jobs from us. Automation is the source of growth. President Obama is only focusing on the consequences that are seen and ignoring those that are not seen. As Henry Hazlitt wrote in Economics in One Lesson, “the art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.” In the long run, machines like ATMs create more jobs and revenue while making life easier for all of us.

Businesses should not be blamed for being innovative. As George Mason University Economics Professor Donald Bourdreaux asks “do you, Pres. Obama, really wish to suggest that the innovations you blame for thwarting your fiscal policies are ‘structural issues’ that ought to be corrected?” It’s difficult to justify that we were better off without ATMs or kiosks at airports. These groundbreaking inventions have increased output per worker while increasing consumer convenience.

President Obama is not seeing the whole picture. Someone has to make ATM machines and kiosks. He is failing to see the new computer programmers and IT professionals hired to manage the machines. CEO of the ATM Industry Association Mike Lee says that “President Obama should never use ATMs as an example of how technology replaces human labor because ATMs today play a critical role in providing extensive employment in the ATM and cash-in-transit industries.” Machines do not reduce employment but rearranges it to more efficient applications. We must look at all the secondary consequences that may be less visible to the eye. Machines often replace any lost jobs with a greater number of new jobs.

ATMs have not entirely destroyed the demand for bank tellers. Many people still prefer to deal with a human rather than a machine. President Obama believes that ATMs have significantly reduced the number of bank tellers in the United States. That’s difficult to argue since the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that the number of bank tellers actually grew by 31 percent between 1997 and 2006. (h/t St. Lawrence University Economics Professor Steve Horwitz). The BLS projects that the number of bank tellers will grow from 600,500 in 2008 to 638,000 in 2018.

Cato Institute scholar Andrew J. Coulson writes that increased automation does not necessarily decrease employment even in the industry being automated. To prove his point, he tells the story of a social movement in the 19th century British textile industry. A group called the ‘Luddites’ destroyed mechanized looms fearing that these machines would replace their human labor.

The Luddities were guilty of destroying private property and committing a major economic fallacy. The assertion that machines reduce employment has become known as the Luddities fallacy. The new mechanized looms left everyone better off. As Andrew J. Coulson states that “the new technology proliferated, textile industry employment rose. Among other reasons, increased efficiency drastically lowered the prices of textile goods, that shot demand through the roof, and to meet the new demand new workers were required to operate and maintain the new machinery.”

Innovation does not kill jobs. IowaHawkBlog wrote a clever tweet that says “ATMs don’t destroy jobs. Politicians who treat the country like an ATM destroy jobs.” President Obama would be better directed to look in a mirror than blame machines for destroying private sector jobs.

My Thoughts on the NH GOP Presidential Debate.

I started my own personal YouTube channel: TokenLibertarianGirl. Here’s my first video:

Young Americans Protest the Federal Reserve

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

Over the past few years, we have seen a renewed interest in the role of the Federal Reserve. Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) presidential runs, along with the financial meltdown have directed much needed attention to the central bank. The American people are finally waking up to the giant elephant in the room—the Fed—which bears significant responsibility for many of the financial crises over the past century. 

Something big is happening. The Atlantic recently reported that “on college campuses, Obama’s not cool anymore.” Young people are instead flocking to the message of limited government, personal liberty and sound money. Ron Paul has been the loudest critic of the Fed in Washington for over thirty years. His multiple campus tours have been a resounding success. Many universities do not have auditoriums large enough to seat all the students wanting to hear Dr. Paul speak. Anyone who attended the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll, can attest to his enthusiastic support, especially from young people.
 
Nearly everyone knows that the typical college campus is biased in favor of leftists. From personal experience, it is difficult being a liberty-minded student in a political science college course. That’s why it’s incredible that so many college students are rejecting the Keynesian policies espoused by their professors. Young Americans for Liberty (the continuation of Students for Ron Paul) now has a total of 222 chapters nationwide. These young people are educating themselves on ideas generally not taught in a college classroom. They’re instead picking up books by Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard and other Austrian economists.
 
These young Americans for liberty overwhelmingly support abolishing the Federal Reserve System. You can hear them chanting “end the Fed!” at rallies. Ron Paul dedicated his book End the Fed “to the young people… who are the heart of the anti-Fed movement.” Young people bring energy and enthusiasm to the message of sound money. It has suddenly become mainstream not just to criticize the Federal Reserve but to question its reason for existence.

The track record of the Federal Reserve has been a dismal failure. Defenders of the status quo might tell you that the Federal Reserve is necessary to maintain the stability of the financial system. The stated purpose of the Federal Reserve, taken by its own definition on its website, is to “conduct the nation’s monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices.” Not only did the Federal Reserve fail to prevent the Great Depression, the 1970s stagflation and the recent financial crisis, but it was the primary culprit behind these financial disasters. We would not experience such dramatic economic swings were it not for monetary policies that distort real prices and encourage improper investment decisions.

Fed supporters claim that our economy would be chaotic without the central bank manipulating our money supply. Think again. The United States has a long history without the Federal Reserve. From 1776 to 1912, the value of the dollar increased by 11 percent. During this time, we experienced a few financial panics, but they were far less severe and rare back then. Many Austrian economists place the blame for these crises on the policies of the First and Second Bank of the United States. It is hard to blame the free market because we’ve never had free market capitalism.

The U.S. economy has experienced far more ups and downs after the Federal Reserve came into existence in 1913. The value of the dollar has declined by roughly 95 percent in less than 100 years. The dollar buys 95 percent fewer goods in 2011 than it did in 1913. Inflation, the loss of value in the dollar, is created by the Federal Reserve manipulating the money supply behind closed doors.

It is inspiring that the youth in America are involved in exposing the truth about the Federal Reserve. We certainly face an uphill battle against powerful special interests. Yet, these dedicated young Americans show no signs of giving up. As Victor Hugo said, “no army can stop an idea whose time has come.”

Recent Tornadoes and the Broken Window Fallacy

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

In the wake of the deadly tornadoes throughout the Midwest and Massachusetts, our hearts and thoughts are with those harmed by these terrible tragedies, which have cost hundreds of deaths and destroyed infrastructure, homes and businesses.

The mainstream media would have you believe that there is a silver lining to these natural disasters. In a New York Times’ article titled Reconstruction Lifts Economy after Disasters, the author Michael Cooper alleges that these tornadoes are actually a “boost” to the local economy. Cooper states that “no one would suggest that disasters are a desirable form of economic stimulus.” The truth is that these disasters are neither desirable nor a form of economic stimulus.

Similar assertions are far too common after natural or man-made disasters. It has become almost inevitable. We cannot prevent natural disasters but we can put an end to economic fallacies once and for all. All New York Times writers should pick up a copy of Henry Hazlitt’s—who used to write editorials for the Times—classic book Economics in One Lesson. As Henry Hazlitt wrote in his myth-busting book, “economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other science known to man.” One of the most dangerous and common economic fallacies is the broken window fallacy.

Frédéric Bastiat first developed the broken window fallacy in a famous piece called That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen. Nearly one hundred years later, in 1946, Henry Hazlitt famously retold the story of the broken window in his best-selling book. Imagine that you witness a small child breaking a window by throwing a rock through the local bakery’s storefront. The correct response would be to scold the child for causing harm. Bastiat notes, however, that spectators will usually comment that the broken window will provide employment for the glazier, thus boosting the economy.

That is simply not the case. If the window had not been broken, the baker could have used the money he paid to repair the window on something else. Let’s say that he would have chosen to buy a suit instead, which would have created work for a tailor. The baker could have had his window and a new suit. As Frédéric Bastiat said:

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way which this accident has prevented.

Many us look at what is seen and ignore what is unseen. The art of economics, as Henry Hazlitt said, is looking at the consequences of a policy on all groups instead of just a select few. The broken window does not create any wealth. We see unfortunate renditions of the broken window fallacy far too often. Government officials and the media tout the fallacy to support “stimulus” programs, high taxes, war spending or tariffs.

We are all poorer as a result of natural or man-made disasters. Following the flawed logic of the New York Times, the economy will be better if we have even more destruction. Let’s take it to the extreme. Why not break down all the windows in an entire city? Why not bull doze down an entire housing community? Could bombing a city make them richer? Of course not. This is no way to grow an economy. Money spent on rebuilding after the destruction is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing and other items.

Productive destruction is an oxymoron. As Bastiat said “society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed.” The broken window fallacy never seems to die. Hazlitt’s tale of caution bears re-reading after every single natural disaster.