Why Not Mitt?

Many of my friends and family tell me they support Mitt Romney for president and ask me what's so wrong with him. Here's my answer: I think he's probably a great guy. I'm sure he's nice and a good LDS man. I voted for him in 2008 thinking that he'd be good with the economy because he's a business man. I still think these things, and I think we'd be slightly better off if he were in charge now instead of the current president; however, I argue that he would make a good bandaid, but he would not really change things. This is why.

Economy: I think Mitt would improve the economy somewhat based on good business principles of not spending more than you take in, cutting excessive and unnecessary agencies, etc (Ron Paul believes these things as well and has never voted for an unbalanced budget or to increase spending). However, the government really is not and should not be a business. Once you "follow the money" and understand the root of our economic problems, you understand that we are in deep trouble and need major changes in economic policy, not just tweaking the tax code and other nitpicky measures. Most people don't know about the Federal Reserve. The "Fed" as it is called, controls the US economy based on a Keynesian economic policy (vs. an Austrian economic policy). Simply put, Keynesian theory is a hands-on central planning of the economy and Austrian theory is a hands-off, let the free markets and free enterprise regulate the economy. The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE central bank that prints money (determining inflation rates) and sets interest rates. It was set up under shady pretenses in 1913 through the Federal Reserve act and it has absolutely no checks and balances on it from any government agency. It is run by private bankers who manipulate the value of the currency by printing up a bunch of paper money (not backed by anything with real value) and lending it to the government or putting it into circulation. Increasing the amount of dollars in circulation decreases the value of each dollar. This is what causes inflation, or in other words, what causes commodity prices to increase (aka gas prices, food prices, the price of education, everything increases in price while our wages stay the same). The Fed controls the money, they are the root of the problem of the economy. A runaway, rubber-stamp (meaning they don't pay attention to the bills, they just give them the ok) Congress certainly hasn't helped us, but as long as the Fed is able to print more money, the Congress has no incentive to stop the spending, thus wildly extending the reach of the federal government. (Learn more about the Fed by reading Ron Paul's book, END the FED - I have a copy if anyone wants to borrow it, or also The Creature from Jekyll Island by J. Edward Griffin.)

So...if we don't start dealing with the Federal Reserve, nothing will really change over time.

Ron Paul's thoughts about the Fed: Audit it, so we can see what they are up to (One partial audit revealed that the Fed printed up 16 trillion dollars to bail out foreign central banks - that's about as much as our entire national debt. A lot of money.) and eventually phase it out completely and get back to letting the free market really take over the economy. He predicted the housing bubble and economic collapse. He understands the economy and can help turn things around.  

Mitt Romney's thoughts about the Fed: He doesn't feel like it's necessary to focus on the Fed and that Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed is doing an ok job dealing with the economy according to this interview. He may have some good ideas about how to get the economy rolling, but until he understands that the Fed is the root of the problem, things won't change. Another major thing about Romney's economic policy, he has once supported the stimulus, then stated he didn't support stimulating the economy. This clip shows it, it's a little politicized, but has the quotes nonetheless. The stimulus is a very Keynesian way to try to prevent economic collapse, but is just a bandaid. It also greatly increases our national debt and devalues the currency if we're printing money to pump into the economy (aka quantitative easing or QE as it's referred to in the news). Mitt also supported TARP - the banker bailout of 2008. TARP took money from the taxpayers to prop up the banks that had made terrible, risky, and almost unethical business decisions that helped facilitate the collapse. They basically caused the bubble, then got refunded for what they lost doing it in the name of preventing economic disaster. The middle class took the heat for their dumb decisions and we're not better off economically. One possible reason Romney supported TARP: 2 of his top 3 campaign contributors this year were people who worked at banks that got much of this bailout money, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

Foreign Policy: This leads to foreign policy. As long as Congress is allowed to spend as much as they want because they have access to unlimited amounts of money that can be printed up by the Fed or taxed out of you or borrowed from China (at least as long as the dollar is still considered the reserve currency and other countries put up with our shenanigans), they have no incentive not to go to war and expand our influence around the world. Many Republicans talk about being fiscal conservatives yet take no thought to cut from one of the biggest budgets our govt has - "defense spending." We have been at war against "terror" for over 10 years now. When will it ever end? The military-industrial complex and the central banks are getting rich off of all of the money we are spending to fund these wars. What is the end goal of the war in Iraq? What is the end goal of the war in Afghanistan? Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are gone. Iraq has had their "democratic elections." Seriously, what is the end goal? Kill al Qaida and the Taliban? This is a powerful clip describing the nonsense of that notion. We supported the Taliban and Osama bin Laden back in the day when Russia was trying to do to them exactly what we are today. They are freedom fighters trying to defend their lands from our bombs! It is completely contradictory and insane.

So...our foreign policy needs to be scaled back and focus on defending our nation, liberties, families, and freedoms.

Ron Paul believes that we would be a stronger country if we didn't go bankrupt trying to expand our empire over the world, policing the world, and getting involved in the internal affairs of other countries. Think this is crazy? This is what Bush ran on in 2000. This is what George Washington advised us in his farewell address. Ron Paul believes in going to war only when Congress declares war. Interestingly, he authored a bill to declare war against Iraq up or down. He voted against it because he did not believe we were justified to go to war. So did the rest of Congress. The bill did not pass. Yet here we are, 8 years later, starting to pull out (but leaving contractors still in the area so not really). Ron Paul believes in defending our nation, he voted to authorize the president to go after those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He did not vote for a full blown war against Afghanistan. Ron Paul believes in diplomacy and not starting the wars, but certainly defending our country in the case of a real threat (not just because of war propaganda and hype). Ron Paul believes in trading with other nations and that sanctions are an act of war. Oh, and Ron Paul received more contributions from the military than all other Republican candidates combined, and even more than Obama.

Mitt Romney believes in a strong America as well, but would go about it an entirely different way. He has stated that he would not cut a penny from military spending. According to mittromney.com, he wants to isolate and sanction Middle Eastern countries such as Iran and Syria in an attempt to weaken and eventually overthrow their dictators. As we saw though from Egypt and possibly in Libya, their dictators get replaced with al Qaida! Mitt would also keep and ramp up our military presence in the Pacific to ensure the trade routes stay open and East Asia remains "secure and prosperous." What if the Japanese or Chinese were stationed in the Gulf of Mexico to ensure our security? Why do we have to waste our tax money (or borrow money or print money and devalue our currency) to piss off volatile countries in the Middle East or protect countries that are perfectly capable of protecting themselves? This is also a famous pre-Tea Party clip showing that Romney doesn't want to bother with following the Constitution when it comes to deploying troops for war but would rather "let the lawyers" sort it out. Mitt Romney employs the same war-mongering, fear-mongering that has been going on in Washington for years. Notice that four years ago they were still talking about Iran and there's no evidence that says they are getting any closer to building a nuke. They did the same for Iraq before that and look at the mess we're in now. His end goal for the wars are pretty far-reaching. He talks a lot about modernizing Islam and making the Middle East more like America, improving their schools, establishing democracy, etc. I don't think that it's our business to make thier religion modern. Nor should we discriminate against Muslims and try to say they are not modern. Sure, there are some radicals. I know a few Muslims and they are very nice peaceful people. We are going to be in for a lot lot longer if we are trying to reform entire countries and religions. We shouldn't spend our money doing this, we shouldn't risk precious lives doing this; we should back off and let them live how they want to live. They've been around for several hundreds of years. We probably won't change them. If we quit bombing them, maybe they'll leave us alone too.

Civil Liberties: A famous quote by Rahm Emanuel, Obama's ex-Chief of Staff explains why we need to be extra careful of our Consitution and liberties in times of war: "You don't want a serious crisis to go to waste." Jon Stewart explains well in this video how the government has used fearmongering since 9/11 to chisel away at our civil liberties. Many argue that the terrorists have won because of the imprisonment we have given ourselves trying to prevent every single possible crime through the outrageous policies of the TSA, the Patriot Act, and the new Defense Appropriations bill. Ron Paul often quotes Benjamin Franklin, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." It's okay to try to prevent terrible things from happening, but the most terrible thing that could happen is the destruction of the basic protections of our rights guaranteed to us in the Comstitution. Jon Stewart was so right in the above video when he said in response to Lindsey Graham's argument that terrorists are bent on the destruction of our way of life, "so we're gonna destroy it before they can get their hands on it." The war on terror is not the only vehicle used to chisel away at the Bill of Rights; the war on drugs has also had it's share of liberty (and actual) homocide.

Ron Paul believes that the govt's role is to protect the life, liberty, and property of Americans. He believes that America has gone far from what a free society should be. He voted against the Patriot Act and believes that times of war and distress are the times that we should pay strictest attention to the Constitution, for the founders wanted to guarantee these rights for such times as these. He is against the TSA and would like to have the airlines provide their own security. He gets a lot of flack for being against the war on drugs. He argues that the government should not protect us from ourselves. He argues that alcohol prohibition was a bad idea and didn't work; we should appeal this as well because kids now can get drugs easier than they can alcohol. He puts up some more great arguments and talks about the history of why marijuana was made illegal in his book "The Revolution" if anyone would like to borrow that from me I have it as well. He states that he is against making marijuana use a federal crime because he does not want a federal police force. He would rather that states decide what they want to do regarding the regulation of drugs. He doesn't think throwing someone in jail for using drugs is the best way to get them off of drugs, especially when the jails are filled with drugs themselves. He doesn't feel that the federal govt should intervene if states have legalized the medical use of marijuana. He argues that the 4th amendment has been violated way too often because of suspected possession of marijuana. Read this and this for proof. Ron Paul does not advocate the use of drugs. He just believes that dangerous things happen when the govt oversteps its bounds and tries to protect Americans from themselves. Ron Paul believes many social issues should be left up to the states, but that we should be free to choose what we do to our own bodies as long as it doesn't infringe upon others' rights. Ron Paul is pro-life because he feels it is the govt's job to protect life.

Mitt Romney has nothing on civil liberties or protecting the Constitution on his website. I know the economy is a big issue this time around, but hopefully this post has helped you see that economic liberty is closely related to personal liberty and that civil liberties are worth mentioning. He is for a national ID card proving you're a citizen. This arguably goes against the part of the 4th amendment stating we have the right to be secure in our persons and papers. It also is pretty contradictory for a free society. If you went to Brimhall remember how we hated to have to wear our ID to school, imagine having to show ID everywhere! He is for a federal law defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I agree with this definition of marriage, but I think that this should be left to the states according to the 10th amendment. He has been pro-choice but is now pro-life. He seems to be fairly "socially conservative," which tends to disenfranchise democrats, making him less likely to beat Obama. I am personally socially conservative, but I don't believe in forcing my views on others when it is unconstitutional to do so. That also brings up a debate of free agency. Should we let people make bad choices or make it illegal for them to do so? Interesting debate I plan on writing about later. This post is way too long as it is. 

Conclusion: Things might get slightly better if Mitt were to beat Obama, but our country really isn't going to see any real change unless we start adhering to the Constitution and fix the deep problems and assumptions about the role of govt.