UPDATED: More Stimulus By Stealth (Bachmann The Brave)

Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation

As we warned you over these pixelated pages, QE2 was set to sail again, although this was no maiden voyage.

Quantitative Easing; a nicety for the Fed’s ballooning of the money supply, causing inflation, a devaluation of the dollar, and a diminution of its purchasing powers. In the offing I see hyperinflation. A stimulus sans the pomp and circumstance. Via Bloomberg.com:

The Federal Reserve will buy an additional $600 billion of Treasuries through June, expanding record stimulus and risking its credibility in a bid to reduce unemployment and avert deflation.

Policy makers, who said new purchases will be about $75 billion a month, “will adjust the program as needed to best foster maximum employment and price stability,” the Fed’s Open Market Committee said in a statement in Washington. The central bank retained its pledge to keep interest rates low for an “extended period.”

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is trying to boost growth after near-zero interest rates and $1.7 trillion in securities purchases helped pull the economy out of recession without bringing down joblessness close to a 26-year high. He’s risking a strategy that may either fail or fuel inflation and asset bubbles, said Scott Pardee, a former New York Fed official who now teaches at Middlebury College in Vermont. …

MORE.

UPDATE (Nov. 4): BACHMANN The Brave. Via WND.COM:

“Fresh from her victory in last night’s election, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann says she begged the Federal Reserve not to go ahead with controversial plans to monetize the national debt, and is calling its purchase of hundreds of billions of dollars in Treasury bonds ‘a disaster’ for America. .. In her Oct. 14 letter, the Minnesota Republican told Bernanke the policy move was ‘clearly less preferable than improving our nation’s economy through responsible fiscal policy that consists of decreased government spending and lower rates of taxation and a constrained regulatory regime that operates within the boundaries of prudence and reasoned self-restraint.”

This woman has all the brain power poor Sarah is without.

UPDATED: Repeal The 17th Amendment

Conservatism, Constitution, Democrats, Elections, Federalism, Republicans, States' Rights

I have a secret hope that due to self-interest, the Republicans may just tackle the 17th amendment, a 1913 abomination that sundered the republican scheme of governance put in place by the Founding Fathers. Why the renewed hope? If senators were elected by the respective state legislatures, as was the original intent, I somehow doubt the Democrats would have retained control of the upper chamber.

Fox News: “Republican candidates in more than a half-dozen states have called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which was ratified in 1913 and which provides for the direct election of U.S. senators. Prior to the amendment, senators were designated by state legislatures.”

“‘People would be better off if senators, when they deliver their messages to Washington, remember the sovereignty of the states,’ Mike Lee, who supports repeal, told reporters recently. Mr. Lee is a Republican running for the U.S. Senate from Utah.”

“Proponents of repeal say the amendment wrecked the founding fathers’ balance between national and state governments, removing one of the last checks to unbridled power in Washington. Opponents counter that direct election of senators, long a goal of the Progressive movement of that era, expanded democracy.”

On the other hand, I think it’s plain that the newly elected Republican majority in the House will go ahead and raise the debt ceiling, even though they could take a stand and refuse to so do.

UPDATE: What else won’t the Republikeynsians do? “Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., likely the next chair of the House Education Committee, has already said that he’s not going to abolish the Department of Education.” John Stossel adds that the same people’s public “Pledge for America” “is modest. It promises no cuts in Medicare, Social Security or the military. That’s where most of the money is. Those programs account for 60 percent of the budget.”

“Divided government historically spends less than governments under one-party control,” observes Stossel, but in the absence of any “clear message on the biggest sources of government spending” from the Republicans, we’re going down.

UPDATED: McCain's Idea Of A Spending Cut

Britain, Conservatism, Debt, Foreign Policy, Government, John McCain

How serious are Republicans about revolutionary cuts in state spending? John McCain serious.

McCain’s idea of “spending cuts,” just articulated to Fox News’ Shepard Smith, is cutting National Public Radio loose, and doing away with earmarks. I doubt these will cover a day’s interest payment on the national debt.

McCain’s notion of heeding the voter: securing the borders and reforming, not repealing, ObamaCare. Remind me again why movement conservatives betrayed J. D. Hayworth, who ought to have beaten Senator John McCain in the Arizona GOP primary.

Contrast McCain’s worse-than-futile slashes to the state with the reductions the British have begun to make.

BBC News: “Chancellor George Osborne has unveiled the biggest UK spending cuts for decades, with welfare, councils and police budgets all hit.”

A “19% average cuts to departmental budgets,” as well cutting “higher education spending by 40%, flood defences by 15% and sport England and UK Sport by 30%”—this is better than increasing spending as we are. Of course, price controls, such as on rail fares, are being tinkered with, namely “allowed to increase by 3% above RPI inflation from 2012.”

No doubt, certain cuts in the UK are an illusion, to be replaced by other, slightly modified programs. But again: better to fire 500,000 state workers than to hire 1.4 million census stalkers.

Prick up your ears when you hear promises to dismantle the IRS, the Department of Education, and to recall ALL troops, and the installations erected to satisfy their needs, from the over 100 countries in which they are stationed. That’ll be a modest beginning.

UPDATED: As to “Fair Tax,” campaigned for by the likes of Mike Huckabee and liberventionist Neal Boortz. When these two are right, it is only by accident. So you’re safe opposing most of their pet issues. I don’t like the “Fair Tax.” Granted, a tax on consumption is only an indirect tax on income.

Here’s Ron Paul:

A: We have to cut spending. You can’t get rid of the income tax if you don’t get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you’d have about as much revenue as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn’t all that bad 10 years ago. There are sources of revenues other than the income tax. You have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees. So, so there’s still a lot of money. But the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn’t have it.

Q: But if you eliminate the income tax, do you know how much lost revenue that would be?

A: A lot.

Q: Over a trillion dollars.

A: That’s good.

But since I have been called a Pollyanna, let me say this: the 16th is “The Number of The Beast”; it needs to be abolished. Taxation is immoral and naturally illicit. But given that, realistically, the state will not so do, a a flat, low tax is a pragmatic solution. Let the poor set the rate. The Russians have a low flat tax. As Dan Mitchell reports, “The former communists running Russia apparently understand tax policy better than the buffoons in charge of U.S. tax policy. Not only does Russia have a 13 percent flat tax, but the government has just announced it will eliminate the capital gains taxA pure flat tax would preclude any capital gains tax.

The Fair Tax our local buffoons propose is prohibitive.

UPDATED: McCain’s Idea Of A Spending Cut

Britain, Conservatism, Debt, Foreign Policy, Government, John McCain

How serious are Republicans about revolutionary cuts in state spending? John McCain serious.

McCain’s idea of “spending cuts,” just articulated to Fox News’ Shepard Smith, is cutting National Public Radio loose, and doing away with earmarks. I doubt these will cover a day’s interest payment on the national debt.

McCain’s notion of heeding the voter: securing the borders and reforming, not repealing, ObamaCare. Remind me again why movement conservatives betrayed J. D. Hayworth, who ought to have beaten Senator John McCain in the Arizona GOP primary.

Contrast McCain’s worse-than-futile slashes to the state with the reductions the British have begun to make.

BBC News: “Chancellor George Osborne has unveiled the biggest UK spending cuts for decades, with welfare, councils and police budgets all hit.”

A “19% average cuts to departmental budgets,” as well cutting “higher education spending by 40%, flood defences by 15% and sport England and UK Sport by 30%”—this is better than increasing spending as we are. Of course, price controls, such as on rail fares, are being tinkered with, namely “allowed to increase by 3% above RPI inflation from 2012.”

No doubt, certain cuts in the UK are an illusion, to be replaced by other, slightly modified programs. But again: better to fire 500,000 state workers than to hire 1.4 million census stalkers.

Prick up your ears when you hear promises to dismantle the IRS, the Department of Education, and to recall ALL troops, and the installations erected to satisfy their needs, from the over 100 countries in which they are stationed. That’ll be a modest beginning.

UPDATED: As to “Fair Tax,” campaigned for by the likes of Mike Huckabee and liberventionist Neal Boortz. When these two are right, it is only by accident. So you’re safe opposing most of their pet issues. I don’t like the “Fair Tax.” Granted, a tax on consumption is only an indirect tax on income.

Here’s Ron Paul:

A: We have to cut spending. You can’t get rid of the income tax if you don’t get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you’d have about as much revenue as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn’t all that bad 10 years ago. There are sources of revenues other than the income tax. You have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees. So, so there’s still a lot of money. But the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn’t have it.

Q: But if you eliminate the income tax, do you know how much lost revenue that would be?

A: A lot.

Q: Over a trillion dollars.

A: That’s good.

But since I have been called a Pollyanna, let me say this: the 16th is “The Number of The Beast”; it needs to be abolished. Taxation is immoral and naturally illicit. But given that, realistically, the state will not so do, a a flat, low tax is a pragmatic solution. Let the poor set the rate. The Russians have a low flat tax. As Dan Mitchell reports, “The former communists running Russia apparently understand tax policy better than the buffoons in charge of U.S. tax policy. Not only does Russia have a 13 percent flat tax, but the government has just announced it will eliminate the capital gains taxA pure flat tax would preclude any capital gains tax.

The Fair Tax our local buffoons propose is prohibitive.