Greetings.
Let's talk about Operation Choke Point. First of all, what is it? Essentially, it is a Department of Justice (DOJ) program that is aimed at putting pressure on banks and other lending and financial institutions to dissuade them from doing business with so-called "high-risk" or "reputation risk" industries. These industries include, but are not limited to:
-ammunition sales
-gun sales
-fireworks sales
-prostitution and escort services
-dating sites
It should be pointed out from the get-go that most, if not all, of these services are legal, if not morally wholesome or socially desirable. Banks thus have a protected right to do business with them.
It should also be pointed out that, as of today, the United States House of Representatives, in an increasingly rare moment of actually representing the people who elected them, has voted to defund Operation Choke Point as a whole. While the likelihood of this measure clearing the Senate and getting President Obama's signature once it reaches his desk is pathetically low, the U.S. House should be applauded for its fortitude and honorability in doing the right thing.
http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2014/05/house-defunds-doj-choke-point-bullying-operation/
Predictably, conservatives and other right-leaning citizens will look at this and immediately be outraged over the fact that the firearms industry is being targeted; and rightfully so. Any infringement on the Second Amendment, to include targeting gun sellers and their banks, should be met with no small measure of righteous indignation.
However, there is also another aspect of this that every American, regardless of their position on guns or any other single issue, should be equally outraged over. I speak of the power, usurped by government, to target any industry with any set of arbitrary regulations for the purpose of "choking" that industry out of existence by over-regulating its financiers.
From top to bottom, "Operation Choke Point" is about as tyrannical as it gets. First of all, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution nor in any founding document nor in any written piece of parchment by a Founding Father, is government given ANY authority to use arbitrary regulation and targeting to effectively stifle any legal industry. But yet that is exactly what is happening here.
Second of all, and perhaps even more importantly, who decides which industries are "high-risk" and which aren't? What is the criteria for such a determination? Can the term "high-risk" be applied to any industry that the government deems fitting? What if the right (or wrong) government officials wake up one morning and suddenly determine that industries like organic food producers, religious service providers, book publishers, dairy farmers, and other contributors to society are suddenly "high risk" for one reason or another? Who makes these determinations? Do we, as supposedly "free" citizens, REALLY want one person or even a group of people to have the kind of power to dictate to us what is good for us by crushing industries that they might not find desirable or wholesome?
If the answer to that last question is "no," then here's another question: at what point do we, the people, draw the line and tell government to stop dictating to us, explicitly or implicitly via activities such as Operation Choke Point, what is good for us? Because that is what this is ultimately about. We are ceding more and more of our liberties every day all in the name of safety and security when all it takes is a cursory look at history to point us back to the path of liberty. Benjamin Franklin said it best: "They that would sacrifice essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
And yet we ignore his words.
It's time to take a stand and, in this particular instance, stand with Congress. Write your Senators and encourage them to pass the resolution when it hits the Senate floor. Let's do all we can to preserve economic liberty while a modicum of it still exists.
Let your voice be heard!
Praesent Libero!
-Warren Brisbane
Friday, May 30, 2014
Saturday, May 24, 2014
The USA Freedom Act, Justin Amash, and Principled Leadership
Greetings, patriots.
Regrettably, I was unable to write or post anything last week due to a hectic schedule. However, it is good to be back this week, as there is plenty to be covered.
Most notable, I think, is the recent passage of HR 3361, also known as the "USA Freedom Act" (or "Freedom Act" for short). It passed in the U.S. House of Representatives two days ago and will now be headed to the Senate for a vote and, if adopted, will then head to President Obama's desk for signature. Here is a copy of the bill's text.
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361
Many are already applauding this measure as a step in the right direction for NSA reform, reining in of the 2005 Patriot Act, and a return to constitutional fidelity pertaining to the Fourth Amendment. And in some ways, this is accurate. However, in no way should this be looked at as a final step toward righting the wrongs perpetrated on the American people and their liberties since 9/11.
For one, the bill does not go far enough. Governments can still gain access to phone records as long as they do not do it in bulk and only, for example, limit data collection to a specific geographical area. This is a classic example of an "end run" strategy around the law. "We may not be able to get ALL the data from across the country," a government official may reason, "but we can certainly get all of it from a particular area code in the Pacific Northwest." Additionally, the bill extends the life of the Patriot Act through 2017, as opposed to 2015, as the original bill stipulated.
I suppose it would be easy, at this point, to adopt a "gloom and doom" mentality in the wake of these developments. And indeed anytime a curtailment of liberty takes place, it is a cause for some consternation. However, in my estimation, there is reason to be optimistic here; most notably because of the principled leadership and conviction being demonstrated by Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), who co-sponsored the original bill. Amash has made no bones about his opposition to the version that the House just passed, calling it "shameful" and drawing a clear distinction between it and the original text. His remarks can be seen in their entirety here, as well as on Amash's personal Facebook page:
http://personalliberty.com/co-sponsor-justin-amash-slams-house-approval-watered-nsa-reform-bill/
In short, while lovers of individual liberty should be unhappy about passage of the USA Freedom Act, we should also simultaneously draw our attention to the words and actions of leaders like Justin Amash. At 34 years of age, Amash is certainly one of the younger members of Congress and, thus, someone who, in years to come, is likely to be a prominent figure within the Republican Party, if not Congress as a whole. His devotion to policies that favor limited government and individual liberty is matched only by a level of transparency only rarely seen from any political figure. Amash regularly posts his votes to his Facebook page and, at this point, seems thoroughly committed to actually REPRESENTING and serving the people who sent him to Washington, D.C.
To be clear, this is not a wholesale endorsement of Justin Amash. Granted, he has only been in Congress a short time and, let's face it, Washington, D.C. has a way of corrupting people. Thus, one can only hope that Amash stays on the path that he's been on so far and will go the way of Ron Paul, rather than that of John Boehner. However, his personal stand taken against NSA, the Freedom Act, and government curtailment of individual liberty should be applauded and watched closely. If he continues to do what he has been doing, he could very well be the face of the liberty movement going forward; which could be a tremendous shot in the arm for those of us who value freedom.
These are dark days for liberty, but the future may be brighter than we think, thanks to men like Justin Amash.
Praesant Libero.
-Warren Brisbane.
Regrettably, I was unable to write or post anything last week due to a hectic schedule. However, it is good to be back this week, as there is plenty to be covered.
Most notable, I think, is the recent passage of HR 3361, also known as the "USA Freedom Act" (or "Freedom Act" for short). It passed in the U.S. House of Representatives two days ago and will now be headed to the Senate for a vote and, if adopted, will then head to President Obama's desk for signature. Here is a copy of the bill's text.
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361
Many are already applauding this measure as a step in the right direction for NSA reform, reining in of the 2005 Patriot Act, and a return to constitutional fidelity pertaining to the Fourth Amendment. And in some ways, this is accurate. However, in no way should this be looked at as a final step toward righting the wrongs perpetrated on the American people and their liberties since 9/11.
For one, the bill does not go far enough. Governments can still gain access to phone records as long as they do not do it in bulk and only, for example, limit data collection to a specific geographical area. This is a classic example of an "end run" strategy around the law. "We may not be able to get ALL the data from across the country," a government official may reason, "but we can certainly get all of it from a particular area code in the Pacific Northwest." Additionally, the bill extends the life of the Patriot Act through 2017, as opposed to 2015, as the original bill stipulated.
I suppose it would be easy, at this point, to adopt a "gloom and doom" mentality in the wake of these developments. And indeed anytime a curtailment of liberty takes place, it is a cause for some consternation. However, in my estimation, there is reason to be optimistic here; most notably because of the principled leadership and conviction being demonstrated by Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), who co-sponsored the original bill. Amash has made no bones about his opposition to the version that the House just passed, calling it "shameful" and drawing a clear distinction between it and the original text. His remarks can be seen in their entirety here, as well as on Amash's personal Facebook page:
http://personalliberty.com/co-sponsor-justin-amash-slams-house-approval-watered-nsa-reform-bill/
In short, while lovers of individual liberty should be unhappy about passage of the USA Freedom Act, we should also simultaneously draw our attention to the words and actions of leaders like Justin Amash. At 34 years of age, Amash is certainly one of the younger members of Congress and, thus, someone who, in years to come, is likely to be a prominent figure within the Republican Party, if not Congress as a whole. His devotion to policies that favor limited government and individual liberty is matched only by a level of transparency only rarely seen from any political figure. Amash regularly posts his votes to his Facebook page and, at this point, seems thoroughly committed to actually REPRESENTING and serving the people who sent him to Washington, D.C.
To be clear, this is not a wholesale endorsement of Justin Amash. Granted, he has only been in Congress a short time and, let's face it, Washington, D.C. has a way of corrupting people. Thus, one can only hope that Amash stays on the path that he's been on so far and will go the way of Ron Paul, rather than that of John Boehner. However, his personal stand taken against NSA, the Freedom Act, and government curtailment of individual liberty should be applauded and watched closely. If he continues to do what he has been doing, he could very well be the face of the liberty movement going forward; which could be a tremendous shot in the arm for those of us who value freedom.
These are dark days for liberty, but the future may be brighter than we think, thanks to men like Justin Amash.
Praesant Libero.
-Warren Brisbane.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Benghazi: Why It Matters And Why It Will Likely Happen Again.
Good Afternoon.
As I type this, Republicans in Congress, along with a few Democrats, are forming a bi-partisan panel to investigate the events following the tragic attack on the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. For those not aware, the attacks perpetrated by Islamic militants claimed the life of five men, one of whom was Ambassador Chris Stevens, our chief diplomat in the region. It was, and is, a tragedy that will not soon be forgotten by the American people.
Much has been said, written about, and argued over in the nearly two years since Benghazi happened; most of it aimed at assigning blame to one side of the American political aisle or another. Indeed, "Benghazi" has conspired to divide Republicans and Democrats quite evenly along party lines, as is the case with most issues nowadays.
On one side of this divide, Republicans, conservatives, Tea Partiers, and others closely associated with them are quick to assign blame to President Obama, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other prominent figures within the Obama administration for their alleged lack of awareness and commitment to secure and protect the consulate and its personnel. Other arguments go even further in accusing the President and his cabinet of actually KNOWING IN ADVANCE about the attacks and refusing to do anything about it.
Not to be outdone, Democrats, liberals, and the like have been quick to redirect this criticism at the right-wingers by arguing that it's actually THEY who are to blame, given the alleged funding cuts authorized by Republicans in Congress. They argue that "draconian" spending cuts have affected base security in places like Benghazi and have made our embassies more vulnerable to attack.
I will not dedicate this space to lobbying for one camp's argument or for the other's. And my reasoning behind this is simple: per usual, both sides' respective arguments have completely missed the big picture and do not take into account the underlying cause of this tragedy and others like it.
What is the underlying cause of the tragedy surrounding Benghazi? My argument is simply that the chief responsibility for tragic events like Benghazi lie directly at the feet of our nation's foreign policy.
Documented sources abound of our involvement in the 2011 Libyan Civil War that saw the ouster of Col. Muammar Gaddafi, the nation's brutal dictator. Additionally, our efforts to gather intelligence and target al-Qaeda affiliated militant groups throughout the region during that time are also well-recorded. Some sources even point to our efforts to actively FUNNEL WEAPONS to other rebel groups of our own choosing during major hostilities taking place at the time.
Some questions: is it any surprise then that we would be attacked by those rebel groups who DIDN'T get weapons from us or otherwise benefit from our presence there? Is it any surprise that those groups who were in fact on the OPPOSITE SIDE of the one we picked in this conflict would seek to do harm to our personnel? Can any of this come as a surprise to anyone who considers that, on a larger scale, our military presence in the Middle East, consisting of over forty (40) installations, is an affront to those who consider the land we occupy to be "Muslim land"? Most reasonable people would say no.
Put simply, our involvement in conflicts that have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on our own national security interests should be opposed for these very reasons. Also, I personally cannot help but wonder what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot and it was the UNITED STATES that was embroiled in a Civil War that a foreign government was trying to influence. What if, on top of that, a foreign entity had placed its own intelligence operatives and warfighters on our soil to help pick and choose winners? Would there not then be a Benghazi-style attack on those entities as well?
I should point out here that it is not my intention to demean or trample upon the memories of Ambassador Chris Smith, Tyrone Woods, or any of the other honorable men who lost their lives that day. I question neither the purity of their motivations for action nor their patriotism. Rather, it is the political and corporate entities who profit from the very foreign policy that got men like Smith and Woods killed that I find fault with. It is the idea that the United States of America has an international obligation to serve as World Police that I oppose. And it is the notion that Benghazi is the mere result of either failed leadership at the top ONLY or lack of taxpayer dollars ONLY that I find most absurd.
Make no mistake: our continued presence in the Middle East and our involvement in conflicts that do not concern us is ultimately why Benghazi happened. And it's why we can expect it to happen again (somewhere) until real foreign policy reform takes place on the part of our elected officials.
And that starts with us. Let's continue to demand answers about what happened in Benghazi on that fateful September day, let's continue to seek justice and punishment for those who deserve it, and let's get to the bottom of it.
But let's also remember the root cause of the problem and seek to put real reformers into office during the next election; honorable men and women who will focus our national security resources where they belong; namely, on defending our borders here at home and not overseas.
Praesant Libero.
-Warren Brisbane.
As I type this, Republicans in Congress, along with a few Democrats, are forming a bi-partisan panel to investigate the events following the tragic attack on the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. For those not aware, the attacks perpetrated by Islamic militants claimed the life of five men, one of whom was Ambassador Chris Stevens, our chief diplomat in the region. It was, and is, a tragedy that will not soon be forgotten by the American people.
Much has been said, written about, and argued over in the nearly two years since Benghazi happened; most of it aimed at assigning blame to one side of the American political aisle or another. Indeed, "Benghazi" has conspired to divide Republicans and Democrats quite evenly along party lines, as is the case with most issues nowadays.
On one side of this divide, Republicans, conservatives, Tea Partiers, and others closely associated with them are quick to assign blame to President Obama, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other prominent figures within the Obama administration for their alleged lack of awareness and commitment to secure and protect the consulate and its personnel. Other arguments go even further in accusing the President and his cabinet of actually KNOWING IN ADVANCE about the attacks and refusing to do anything about it.
Not to be outdone, Democrats, liberals, and the like have been quick to redirect this criticism at the right-wingers by arguing that it's actually THEY who are to blame, given the alleged funding cuts authorized by Republicans in Congress. They argue that "draconian" spending cuts have affected base security in places like Benghazi and have made our embassies more vulnerable to attack.
I will not dedicate this space to lobbying for one camp's argument or for the other's. And my reasoning behind this is simple: per usual, both sides' respective arguments have completely missed the big picture and do not take into account the underlying cause of this tragedy and others like it.
What is the underlying cause of the tragedy surrounding Benghazi? My argument is simply that the chief responsibility for tragic events like Benghazi lie directly at the feet of our nation's foreign policy.
Documented sources abound of our involvement in the 2011 Libyan Civil War that saw the ouster of Col. Muammar Gaddafi, the nation's brutal dictator. Additionally, our efforts to gather intelligence and target al-Qaeda affiliated militant groups throughout the region during that time are also well-recorded. Some sources even point to our efforts to actively FUNNEL WEAPONS to other rebel groups of our own choosing during major hostilities taking place at the time.
Some questions: is it any surprise then that we would be attacked by those rebel groups who DIDN'T get weapons from us or otherwise benefit from our presence there? Is it any surprise that those groups who were in fact on the OPPOSITE SIDE of the one we picked in this conflict would seek to do harm to our personnel? Can any of this come as a surprise to anyone who considers that, on a larger scale, our military presence in the Middle East, consisting of over forty (40) installations, is an affront to those who consider the land we occupy to be "Muslim land"? Most reasonable people would say no.
Put simply, our involvement in conflicts that have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on our own national security interests should be opposed for these very reasons. Also, I personally cannot help but wonder what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot and it was the UNITED STATES that was embroiled in a Civil War that a foreign government was trying to influence. What if, on top of that, a foreign entity had placed its own intelligence operatives and warfighters on our soil to help pick and choose winners? Would there not then be a Benghazi-style attack on those entities as well?
I should point out here that it is not my intention to demean or trample upon the memories of Ambassador Chris Smith, Tyrone Woods, or any of the other honorable men who lost their lives that day. I question neither the purity of their motivations for action nor their patriotism. Rather, it is the political and corporate entities who profit from the very foreign policy that got men like Smith and Woods killed that I find fault with. It is the idea that the United States of America has an international obligation to serve as World Police that I oppose. And it is the notion that Benghazi is the mere result of either failed leadership at the top ONLY or lack of taxpayer dollars ONLY that I find most absurd.
Make no mistake: our continued presence in the Middle East and our involvement in conflicts that do not concern us is ultimately why Benghazi happened. And it's why we can expect it to happen again (somewhere) until real foreign policy reform takes place on the part of our elected officials.
And that starts with us. Let's continue to demand answers about what happened in Benghazi on that fateful September day, let's continue to seek justice and punishment for those who deserve it, and let's get to the bottom of it.
But let's also remember the root cause of the problem and seek to put real reformers into office during the next election; honorable men and women who will focus our national security resources where they belong; namely, on defending our borders here at home and not overseas.
Praesant Libero.
-Warren Brisbane.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Minimum Wage: What All Politicians (And Most People) Are Missing.
Good afternoon, folks.
Hope everyone's ready for the weekend and the week ahead.
This week's Brisbane File is going to focus briefly on the topic of increasing the minimum wage in America. It's been brought to the forefront of American politics once again this week and many people have weighed in on whether or not low-wage workers should get a government-mandated raise. While one side of the debate focuses on the supposed "crippling effect" that such a move would have on private businesses, the other side makes the case for so-called "workers' rights." Naturally, this topic has inflamed passions in both of its respective camps, just as it has on the previous occasions where efforts to raise the minimum wage have (often successfully) been made.
As for me, I certainly agree that this particular topic is important and thus bears examination and discussion, though I would also be quick to point out that the entire topic itself goes much deeper than simply how much a minimum wage worker should receive for his or her efforts. Instead, I would argue that the issue of wages is connected to a broader topic that is getting very little to no mention by much of anyone involved in the discussion right now, least of all our elected officials.
The topic I speak of is inflation.
First of all, what is inflation? Simply put, it is the rate at which prices for goods and services rise, and, subsequently, purchasing power falls. This can happen at various times for a number of reasons, but for the U.S. dollar, it has happened a LOT over the past century and much of it can be traced to one particular event that took place in 1913; namely, the establishment of the Federal Reserve.
What is the Federal Reserve? Simply put, it is the central banking system of the United States responsible for controlling and regulating our nation's monetary supply and policy. Specifically, the chief duties of "the Fed" involve ensuring that enough cash remains circulating throughout the economy at all times and also ensuring that inflation remains moderate at all times. While the Federal Reserve is privately-owned, it is responsible for the currency of an entire nation.
Milton Friedman once said that "the first rule of economics is that there is never enough of anything to satisfy everyone; and the first rule of politics is: ignore the first rule of economics." This is never more true than when we take a cursory look at our nation's monetary policy. At one time, our currency, the U.S. dollar, was backed by real wealth as measured in gold. Obviously gold is scarce and so our currency, as a result, enjoyed purchasing power that was quite strong as a result of having been anchored to the gold standard. Consequently, prices were kept relatively low and relatively stable.
Over time, however, as elected leaders sought to divest our currency from the gold standard in the name of "increasing the monetary supply," the dollar's purchasing power plummeted as prices on goods and services rose. In other words, inflation happened. It happened because the gold standard was removed and the Federal Reserve then had the authority to print more and more money out of thin air that had no real value or purchasing power at all.
According to Michael Smith ( http://www.comparegoldandsilverprices.com/dollar-devaluation-since-1913/ ), the dollar has lost over 96% of its value since 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was established. While, once again, we cannot affix all of the blame for this on the Fed, it would be foolish of anyone to not give it the lion's share. When anything, the dollar included, becomes more numerous, it loses its value. When something loses its value, it cannot be as easily exchanged for another good or service. This is why goods and services cost more today than they did in 1913 and it is why clamoring for a higher minimum wage is essentially a band-aid solution to an amputation-level problem such as inflation.
Sadly, however, none of us are likely to hear this explanation from anyone with a say in raising the minimum wage (or not) anytime soon. While I won't delve into conspiracy theories here, I will say that it is telling that no one on Capitol Hill is talking about it. Furthermore, it should not surprise anyone to learn that politicians on both sides of the two-party aisle having a vested interest in keeping our monetary policy in a privately-owned, unelected banking structure with no accountability to the American people. Instead, it is likely much more expedient (and personally profitable) for these individuals to keep haggling over whether or not to apply a band-aid solution to an amputation-level problem.
Thus, it is highly unlikely that inflation, which is the root cause of issues like minimum wage levels, will be resolved anytime soon. And this is unfortunate.
In the meantime, those of us who wish to see a long-term permanent solution to this problem ought to take seriously the topic of inflation and our flawed monetary policy and continue lobbying for change. This can happen if the right people are elected. Thus, it behooves us to pay attention and, when possible, do all that is in your power to draft, support, and cast your vote for candidates who will fix the flawed system as it currently stands.
Until next week, live free.
-Warren Brisbane
Hope everyone's ready for the weekend and the week ahead.
This week's Brisbane File is going to focus briefly on the topic of increasing the minimum wage in America. It's been brought to the forefront of American politics once again this week and many people have weighed in on whether or not low-wage workers should get a government-mandated raise. While one side of the debate focuses on the supposed "crippling effect" that such a move would have on private businesses, the other side makes the case for so-called "workers' rights." Naturally, this topic has inflamed passions in both of its respective camps, just as it has on the previous occasions where efforts to raise the minimum wage have (often successfully) been made.
As for me, I certainly agree that this particular topic is important and thus bears examination and discussion, though I would also be quick to point out that the entire topic itself goes much deeper than simply how much a minimum wage worker should receive for his or her efforts. Instead, I would argue that the issue of wages is connected to a broader topic that is getting very little to no mention by much of anyone involved in the discussion right now, least of all our elected officials.
The topic I speak of is inflation.
First of all, what is inflation? Simply put, it is the rate at which prices for goods and services rise, and, subsequently, purchasing power falls. This can happen at various times for a number of reasons, but for the U.S. dollar, it has happened a LOT over the past century and much of it can be traced to one particular event that took place in 1913; namely, the establishment of the Federal Reserve.
What is the Federal Reserve? Simply put, it is the central banking system of the United States responsible for controlling and regulating our nation's monetary supply and policy. Specifically, the chief duties of "the Fed" involve ensuring that enough cash remains circulating throughout the economy at all times and also ensuring that inflation remains moderate at all times. While the Federal Reserve is privately-owned, it is responsible for the currency of an entire nation.
Milton Friedman once said that "the first rule of economics is that there is never enough of anything to satisfy everyone; and the first rule of politics is: ignore the first rule of economics." This is never more true than when we take a cursory look at our nation's monetary policy. At one time, our currency, the U.S. dollar, was backed by real wealth as measured in gold. Obviously gold is scarce and so our currency, as a result, enjoyed purchasing power that was quite strong as a result of having been anchored to the gold standard. Consequently, prices were kept relatively low and relatively stable.
Over time, however, as elected leaders sought to divest our currency from the gold standard in the name of "increasing the monetary supply," the dollar's purchasing power plummeted as prices on goods and services rose. In other words, inflation happened. It happened because the gold standard was removed and the Federal Reserve then had the authority to print more and more money out of thin air that had no real value or purchasing power at all.
According to Michael Smith ( http://www.comparegoldandsilverprices.com/dollar-devaluation-since-1913/ ), the dollar has lost over 96% of its value since 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was established. While, once again, we cannot affix all of the blame for this on the Fed, it would be foolish of anyone to not give it the lion's share. When anything, the dollar included, becomes more numerous, it loses its value. When something loses its value, it cannot be as easily exchanged for another good or service. This is why goods and services cost more today than they did in 1913 and it is why clamoring for a higher minimum wage is essentially a band-aid solution to an amputation-level problem such as inflation.
Sadly, however, none of us are likely to hear this explanation from anyone with a say in raising the minimum wage (or not) anytime soon. While I won't delve into conspiracy theories here, I will say that it is telling that no one on Capitol Hill is talking about it. Furthermore, it should not surprise anyone to learn that politicians on both sides of the two-party aisle having a vested interest in keeping our monetary policy in a privately-owned, unelected banking structure with no accountability to the American people. Instead, it is likely much more expedient (and personally profitable) for these individuals to keep haggling over whether or not to apply a band-aid solution to an amputation-level problem.
Thus, it is highly unlikely that inflation, which is the root cause of issues like minimum wage levels, will be resolved anytime soon. And this is unfortunate.
In the meantime, those of us who wish to see a long-term permanent solution to this problem ought to take seriously the topic of inflation and our flawed monetary policy and continue lobbying for change. This can happen if the right people are elected. Thus, it behooves us to pay attention and, when possible, do all that is in your power to draft, support, and cast your vote for candidates who will fix the flawed system as it currently stands.
Until next week, live free.
-Warren Brisbane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)