Ron Paul calling for hearings on falling dollar’s impact on oil prices

Posted on July 3rd, 2008 by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://www.fortbendnow.com/…

In the face of $4 per gallon gasoline and predictions the price will rise to $7 by the end of summer, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson) is calling on Congress to explore how the weakened value of the dollar may be contributing to the rise in oil prices.

Paul, whose 14th Congressional District of Texas includes part of the Katy area and much of Cinco Ranch, said he wants Congress to hold hearings on the relationship between the falling value of the dollar and the recent rise of oil prices.

As ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Paul sent a letter earlier this week to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services committee, asking for the hearings.

“The price of oil is currently among the most pressing issues to American workers,” Paul said. “Congress should be examining all factors contributing to the high cost of oil, and monetary policy is one of the key factors in the run-up in price.”

Paul’s letter pointed out that the price of oil in dollars has risen 39 percent this year. Oil in Euros has only risen 30 percent, resulting in degraded purchasing power of the dollar of at least 80 cents of the increased price of a gallon of gas.

“Neither the Federal Reserve nor the Treasury Department have been willing to take responsibility for the dollar’s slide over the past several years, while American consumers have been forced to pay continually higher prices for gasoline, heating oil and numerous other imported products upon which Americans depend,” Paul noted in his letter. “American consumers cannot afford to allow continued lax Congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department’s duties as stewards of the dollar, especially since the dollar is a major factor in the skyrocketing price of oil.”

Besides himself, 16 other Members of Congress signed on to the letter, including ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services Spencer Bachus, and Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Rep. Jeb Hensarling.

Hopefully DownsizeDC will get something going on this. If anything this could be an educational tool for those who would be participating. The more congress critters who understand economics, even a little bit, the better.

SCOTUS not done yet: Part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law struck down

Posted on June 26th, 2008 by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law unconstitutional. Davis v Federal Election Commission, 07-320. The vote was 5-4. Here is the opinion.

This case concerned the “Millionaire’s Amendment”, which relaxes contribution limits for any congressional candidate who has a wealthy opponent. Specifically, if any congressional candidate spends at least $350,000 of his or her own funds on the campaign, then the opponents of that candidate are released from the $2,300 limit on contributions to their campaign. The majority opinion, by Justice Samuel Alito, says that the Constitution does not permit the government to set unequal contribution limits. The opinion’s key sentence, on page 16 of the majority opinion, says, “It is a dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters’ choices.” Also, on page 18, “The unprecedented step of imposing different contribution and coordinated party expenditure limits on candidates vying for the same seat is antithetical to the First Amendment.”

This language should make it easier to win lawsuits against state public funding laws which set unequal rewards for some candidates, relative to other candidates. Public funding laws in Maine, Arizona, and New Mexico, treat all candidates exactly the same. The public funding that formerly existed in Massachusetts also treated all candidates equally. But public funding laws in Connecticut and New Jersey, and a pending bill in California, do not treat all candidates the same; qualifications to get public funding are easier for Republicans and Democrats than for other candidates.

Justice Stevens dissented, and said that the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision Buckley v Valeo was mistaken when it struck down limits on campaign expenditures. He expressed the view that too much campaign advertising “obscures the issues.” He also said that “the Constitution does not require Congress to treat all declared candidates the same.” This contradicts his opinion in Cook v Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001). In that opinion, he said states may not “favor or disfavor a class of candidates.” That decision struck down a Missouri state law that provided that candidates for Congress should have labels on the ballot that said what their position is, on amending the U.S. Constitution to provide for term limits for Congress.

Justices David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer voted that the Millionaires’ Amendment is constitutional, but they didn’t join the portion of Justice Stevens’ dissent that said Buckley v Valeo should be overturned.

As I see it the entire McCain-Feingold law is antithetical to the 1st.

Mathematician puts US electoral process under microscope

Posted on June 17th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: electoral college, , , , , , , , , , , , 5 Comments »

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/…

Speaking ahead of the lecture, Dr Alex Belenky, a visiting scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center of Engineering Systems Fundamentals and author of the book ‘How America Chooses Its Presidents’, said: “Under a certain composition of Congress to be sworn in January 2009, a tie in the 2008 Electoral College may result in a constitutional crisis in the form of an election stalemate, making the US Supreme Court intervention in the 2008 presidential election inevitable.

“Contrary to widely publicised beliefs of the Electoral College opponents, making the nationwide popular vote a decisive factor in determining the election outcome doesn’t require the elimination of the Electoral College.

“Slightly modified election rules would let the country elect a US President with a mandate from both the nation and the individual states and would make all the states ‘battleground’ in election campaigns while keeping the Electoral College as a backup.

Dr Belenky, who holds a PhD in systems analysis and applied mathematics, will tell an audience in The School of Mathematics that in Presidential elections held from 1948 to 2004, only 16.072% to 21.103% of all voting voters could have elected a President under the Electoral College system, and the modified election rules eliminate such election outcomes.

“Numerous publications in the national and international media bear evidence that reporters often offer incomplete and sometimes incorrect information about the system of electing a President in the US.

Moreover, lack of understanding of both the origins and the quantitative features of Electoral College, especially the way it works in close elections, causes some reporters abroad even to question whether the existing rules of US presidential elections are democratic.”

No, they aren’t democratic nor are they supposed to be. The fact we use the Electoral College shows you that it’s a republican form of election and not democratic. A constitutional republic. If they can’t figure out the difference between a republic and a democracy they should go back to school. If they are substituting the work “democracy” for “republic” they should quit misleading people. I agree there are issues with the election of the POTUS but then again I see issues with the entire federal government. If we roll it back to its original function the Electoral College will make a lot more sense.

Depends on what your definition of “is” is

Posted on June 4th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, healthcare, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Defining Success Down, Massachusetts Style

Health Affairs has just published a new study of the Massachusetts health care plan by Urban Institute scholar Sharon Long. Media coverage has generally been positive, hailing the Massachusetts experiment as a success. But a closer look leads to a far less sanguine conclusion. Among other things, the study shows that:

  • Slightly less than half of Massachusetts’ uninsured population actually complied with the mandate. True, the number of people without health insurance was reduced from 13% of the state’s population to 7%, but when the bill was passed, advocates promised that “all Massachusetts citizens will have health insurance.” Perhaps it depends on your definition of “all.”
  • Most of those who are signing up are low-income individuals, whose coverage is fully or partially subsidized, proving once again that if you give something away for free people will take it. It certainly appears that it is the expensive and generous Massachusetts subsidies (up to 300% of the poverty level), not the unprecedented individual mandate that is responsible for much of the increased coverage.
  • Adverse selection remains a big problem, with the young and healthy failing to comply with the mandate. The state refused to change its community rating laws which drive up the cost of insurance for young, healthy individuals. Not surprisingly, they don’t find this a good deal.
  • The program is far exceeding its projected costs, with at least a 33% budget overrun in its first year.
  • The program has increased demand for health care services without increasing the supply of providers. As a result, patients are having trouble finding providers and waiting lists (Canada here we come) are beginning to develop.

If this is success, I would hate to see failure.

I agree. I wonder if Romney would be bragging about this if he was still in the lime light?

Bringing back the fear to Massachusetts

Posted on April 27th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Massachusetts, police, police state, , , , , , , , ,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352471,00.html

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. - Springfield’s men in black are returning.

The city’s new police commissioner, William Fitchet, says members of the department’s Street Crime Unit will again don black, military-style uniforms as part of his strategy to deal with youth violence.

Fitchet’s predecessor, Edward Flynn, had ditched the black attire as part of an effort to soften the image of the unit. Flynn left Springfield in January to become the police chief in Milwaukee.

Sgt. John Delaney told a city council hearing Wednesday that the stark uniforms send a message to criminals that officers are serious about making arrests.

Delaney said a sense of “fear” has been missing for the past few years.

If they want to bring about a sense of fear I recommend one of these for their regular attire:

Though I prefer:

 



hold washington accountable moneybomb

© 2008 blog of bile is powered by Wordpress