Issues
From Nola Wiki
[edit] Foreign Policy and the Iraq War
[edit] Record on the War
Dr. Paul has been against this war since 1998, when he voted against the Iraq Liberation Act which called for toppling Saddam's regime. He voted against the 2003 authorization of war. He currently sponsors legislation in the House that would effectively end the war by the end of 2007 by revoking the President's authorization, which called for
- maintaining the security of the United States against Hussein, specifically terrorist threats
- enforcing UN resolutions restricting Hussein's creation or ownership of WMD's
The first part of this authorization shows why the global war on terror has failed. Saddam Hussein disliked Al Qeada and successfully kept them out of Iraq. He had no terrorist network and was never linked to supporting any such network. Iraq has become a hotbed for Al Qeada since we invaded. Indeed, Islamic anti-American sentiment has only increased from our invasion, resulting in Al Qeada being as strong as they were before 9/11.
The UN resolutions were effectively enforced when no WMD's were found.
The reasons for the war were effectively smoke and mirrors, as neither proved credible. Dr. Paul believes it is time for this war to end, the sooner the better. This fight has been going on since 1991, yet it still has no end in sight.
[edit] If We Leave, it'll be a Bloodbath...
...According to the same people who predicted an easy victory; the same people who said we need to fight this war for our national security.
There are local militias in some areas that are establishing order without the central Iraqi government, who has proven itself inept. It is clear that large numbers of Iraqis don't want to support the US created Democracy. Al Qeada is in the region simply because we are. There are large amounts of evidence, and many experts that support a complete US withdrawal.
[edit] History Repeats Itself
Korea and Vietnam were two similar wars, in which there was no declaration of war, there were no clear goals, and there were no definitive victories. Our troops are still in Korea, and the border remains one of the most militarized borders in the world. We left Vietnam without victory after losing 60,000 men and bankrupting our gold standard, yet today we are trading partners with a unified Vietnam. The "Domino Theory" of the spread of Communism never proved to be true, yet today we refuse to accept our follies of war. If history is to be taken into account, we must realize that we cannot effectively act as the world's policeman, telling other nations how they should govern themselves, and protecting nations that cannot defend themselves.
[edit] Blowback, Occupation, and Hatred of Freedom
Dr. Paul is the only Presidential candidate to acknowledge the concept of 'blowback' which refers to the unintended consequences of foreign policy actions. The CIA also acknowledges it. The American people and our next President must acknowledge it, if we ever expect to protect Americans against terrorism and other violent attacks.
According to experts such as Robert Pape, author of 'Dying to Win', radical Islamic terrorism, like other forms of suicide terrorism, is primarily a reaction to occupation. By increasing our occupation of the Middle East, we put ourselves at greater risk of terrorist attack. Osama bin Laden specifically mentioned stationing our troops on holy ground during the Persian Gulf War. Even Paul Wolfowitz acknowledges this, as he said that invading Iraq would allow us to relocate our troops. Bin Laden also mentioned support for Israel and other regimes oppressive to common Muslims, as well as US bombings and sanctions on Iraq, which killed many people. However, nearly all of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, which supports the view that suicide terrorism is a result of occupation.
The view that "they hate us because we're free" is juvenile and inaccurate. While Islam calls for jihad against those who don't believe, few Muslims are prepared to abandon their way of life, resorting to intense training, violence, and suicide, without a more extreme motive than spreading religion. We can replace one simple phrase with another, more accurate one: "They hate us because we're over there."
[edit] A Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy
Dr. Paul calls for a non-interventionist foreign policy, which simply means stay out of other nations' internal political affairs and remain clear of entangling alliances. This was the advice of our founders and is the path to global peace and prosperity.
Dr. Paul is not an "isolationist". He believes we should allow free trade, communication, and travel with foreign nations. Isolationism means cutting America off from the outside world. Dr. Paul simply believes that we shouldn't rule the world, offering foreign aid and military protection to those who bide our will and bombing or invading those who don't.
Would you find it acceptable if our government officials, policies, and elections were influenced/directed by a foreign government? Neither does anyone else. Trying to dominate world politics carries a cost larger than Americans can afford.
[edit] State Terrorism, Nukes, and Hypocrisy
Proponents of an interventionist foreign policy rely on arguments such as
- Rogue dictators can develop and use WMD's against us
- Radical Clerics will sponsor state terrorism
- Israel will be wiped out without our support
- The wold must be made safe for democracy
- We must fight the proliferation of nuclear materials
- a combination of the above
But let's look at what's actually going on.
[edit] Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia and its ruling family has been an ally of the United States since the 60's/70's. We send them aid and internationally back their military actions. Many Saudis feel they are an oppressive regime. Indeed, they are not Democratic. Despite most members of Al Qeada (especially the 9/11 attackers) being Saudis, we have not questioned our support of this regime, or encouraged them to pursue policies that would curb anti-American terrorism.
[edit] Israel
Israel has long been an enemy of the mostly Muslim population of the Middle East. They view the creation of Israel as a continuation of the Crusades and feel they have no rightful claim to the land or for their own political power. Israel has frequently had trouble with Muslim residents in the Gaza Strip and West Bank areas, where they have been viewed as oppressive. The majority of suicide terrorism is against Israel, which follows the paradigm that suicide terrorism is a reaction to occupation. Israel has the most advanced military in the region, with 200 to 300 nuclear missiles. It refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, yet we subsidize Israel's defense with our tax dollars. They receive about 3 billion dollars per year in aid.
[edit] Pakistan
Pakistan is ruled by a military dictator who overthrew a democratically elected government. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty, is accused of giving nuclear technology to N. Korea, and is de facto harboring terrorists. Yet Pakistan receives aid from the US government, and nothing is done by the US or Pakistan to attempt to capture Osama bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding in their mountains.
[edit] India
India has nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty. We send them aid and are actually encouraging the global community to support their attempts to develop their own nuclear fuel, a violation of international agreement.
[edit] Iraq
Iraq sought nuclear weapons (Israel destroyed their facilities in 1981) and obtained chemical weapons and used them against Iran during the 80's. It is not clear whether we sold them such weapons, but it is confirmed that the CIA trained them on how to use them. Saddam also used them against his own people. During this entire time period we supported him. After the Persian Gulf War, Saddam was forbade from developing or owning WMD's. There was no credible evidence to suggest that Saddam still had or could create WMD's. Simultaneously, Saddam had no terrorist network and actually fought to keep them out of Iraq. Yet in this scenario, we invaded and overthrew him.
[edit] Iran
Iran is seeking nuclear power. It signed the non-proliferation treaty but was caught violating it. It is unclear whether it did so purposefully or not; however, it has taken the attitude that it has the right to develop nuclear technology if it so chooses. In 1953, we overthrew their democratic government through the CIA and installed the Shah, a dictator. He was overthrown in 1979, and modern day Iran is a Democracy. While there are lingering anti-American sentiments, many Iranians dissent with their leader's stand against the globe in regards to nuclear proliferation. There is pressure to expose their specific plans. Most experts say they can't develop a weapon for at least 5-10 years. We appear to be gearing towards an immediate war with Iran, unifying them against us.
[edit] Conclusion
In all of the above situations, our foreign policy is flawed and hypocritical. We are shown to be more often a friend of dictators than democracy. We are supportive of nations who have nuclear weapons but have not signed the non-proliferation treaty (in the case of Israel, several hundred weapons). We oppose regimes that have never attacked or had the capability to attack the United States. We attack secular leaders who have not had any involvement with Al Qeada (often repelling them), the only terrorist network who has repeatedly attacked us. We do not challenge the governments where Al Qeada and bin Laden dwell. Instead we support them. And our policies as a whole create a delicate balance, which makes us a target and offers us little protection. It is hard to create a case that supports Democracy, secular government, political stability, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, or American security in general, when looking at our Middle Eastern policies.
[edit] The Military-Industrial Complex and the Cost of War
Building war machines does not help most ordinary Americans. Bombs, fighter planes, and military bases cannot be traded in the market, nor do they produce anything that can be traded. The results of war do not produce any economic benefits, especially on the people who are bombed and have their buildings and infrastructure destroyed. While war is usually viewed as a terrible thing, morally and economically, there are many who directly benefit from war. They promote the opposite view: that war helps the economy and promotes righteousness. Dr. Paul has wisely said, "War is only beneficial to those who profit from war expenditures."
After WWII, the military-industrial complex was born. This is a permanent armament industry, creating jobs throughout the United States. As such, congress supports it, as they can get re-elected by employing 'military-keynesianism' in the economy - the attempt to make the economy boom by borrowing and spending heavily in the military industry, which trickles down throughout society. Without threats of war (and sometimes actual war), the industry may lose support. Thus, think tanks are created to sell wars, most for "humanitarian" military actions in remote parts of the world. Formerly, the threat of communism was used to invoke fear. Now, terrorism is used, even though being involved in a terrorist attack is slim to none. Businesses like Halliburton and KBR profit heavily from war, building oil pipelines, military bases, and embassies, awarded in no-bid contracts before a single bullet is ever fired. It is no coincidence that our Vice President Dick Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton, sought to fight the Iraq War. It is no doubt that many men heavily involved in the political process favor perpetual war and will advise that we should target Iran next, simply to increase their paychecks.
The Iraq War alone costs many hundreds of billions of dollars. Our entire foreign policy, stationing troops and operating military bases all over the world, engaging in covert warfare through the CIA, and producing weapons of all shapes and kinds, is costing us nearly a TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
[edit] Limited Government and Protecting Liberty
Dr. Paul is firmly against big government and protecting individual liberty. He never votes 'Yay' on a bill unless he believes it is expressly authorized by the Constitution, which was designed to limit the government's power.
[edit] The USA Patriot Act
Dr. Paul was one of the very few Congressmen to vote against the USA Patriot Act. This bill was a clear affront to freedom and privacy and a testament to why our governmental officials need a change of attitude. In the emergency panic of the 9/11 attack's aftermath, congress sought swift action. Most members voted 'Yay' for a bill they had never even read, much less debated. Many parts of this bill were grossly unconstitutional, calling for warrantless wiretapping and sneak-and-peak searches, where property could be confiscated from your home without your knowledge or consent. While the bill was supposedly limited to cases of terrorism, the bill clearly reads "and for other purposes" and has been used accordingly.
[edit] The Military Commissions Act
This bill eliminates Habeas Corpus, the name of a legal action through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. It has been used to detain "enemy combatants" indefinitely in a military prison (possibly overseas) without access to a lawyer. Dr. Paul voted against it.
[edit] National ID Card and Big Brother
The response to terrorism has been overwhelmingly supportive of a police state. Many believe we should have a national id card, as well as posting cameras in public areas.
A national ID card does little to protect against terrorism, but it gives the government much greater power. Your personal information would be stored in a widely transmitted database (Mexican and Canadians would have access), subject to leaks and identity theft. The cards themselves are required to contain RFID chips or another technology that allows you to be tracked without your knowledge. This is something that would have made Hitler and Stalin set aside their differences to exploit. Those who wish to speak against the state are much more effectively harassed and silenced, while those terrorists who actually wish our families harm are but a needle in a haystack...if they choose to carry such an ID at all.
Similarly, surveillance cameras didn't deter the terrorist attacks in London. They didn't stop the courthouse killing spree in Atlanta. They're prone to abuse. And at the end of they day they don't reduce crime.
Dr. Paul voted against the National ID Act and challenges any attempt of the federal government to limit our freedom.
[edit] Net Neutrality
Proponents of 'net neutrality' are simply proponents of big government. They would like you to believe the internet is one thing, which can come under the control of one business, who can and will manipulate it to serve their own selfish interests. 'Net neutrality' is an attempt at establishing governmental regulatory control of the internet, telling businesses and individuals what they can and cannot do, taking away the very essence of the internet, rather than guaranteeing it. Most people will always buy internet service that offers freedom and transparency (rather than rules and censorship), making the regulations of 'net neutrality' a solution without a problem. 'Net neutrality' only serves to benefit special interests, increase costs for legitimate business, and limit consumer choice, which is why Dr. Paul voted against it.
[edit] Free Speech Zones
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the exercise of free speech..." Why, then, are you arrested for peaceful, non-violent protest in public places, if you are not in a free speech zone? The law must have somehow abridged the exercise of free speech...It is time to put an end to such nonsense. Freedom comes from the rights of individuals, not the permission of government.
[edit] States Rights
The federal government was never given authority over the states, only the powers authorized by the Constitution. The federal government should not be overriding state laws regarding the medical use of a substance. The federal government should not be allowed to withhold highway funding based upon the choices of a state. Dr. Paul would end such policing and black mail of state governments by the federal government.
[edit] Taxes and Fiscal Responsibility
[edit] Abolish the IRS and replace it with...
Nothing! While the flat tax and fair tax proposals avoid the insane complexity of the tax code and the IRS's grim ability to enforce it, they really only shift who pays the tax burden. Dr. Paul is the only Presidential candidate who wants to restore the most fundamental human liberty of being able to exchange labor without being taxed.
[edit] How do we pay for government?
Income taxes bring in about 40% of government's income. Appropriately, Dr. Paul wants to cut spending by similar amounts. We can do this by changing foreign policy. Currently, we spend nearly a trillion dollars a year on defense, much of which involves foreign aid, defense contracts, and running foreign military bases and prisons, not to mention the current Iraq War. Additionally, Dr. Paul wants to get rid of unconstitutional government agencies, such as the Department of Education and the Department of Energy (whose biggest field is nuclear weapons), which would save up to $100 billion.
Dr. Paul didn't earn the nickname Dr. No for nothing. As President, he will veto everything that stinks of special interest favoritism, such as pork-barrel legislation and corporate subsidies. Finally, Dr. Paul would seek to transition from state welfarism, slowly replacing government hand-outs with charity, ultimately replacing much of it with economic productivity. While he firmly disagrees with the mentality that wealth should be redistributed, he acknowledges that many people have been raised to depend on government-assistance. He would not slash such care but would begin to transition away from it. Dr. Paul has never voted once to cut social security or veterans benefits by even one penny, which defies the ideologies of both the Republican and Democratic Parties.
[edit] A Record of Fiscal Responsibility
Neither the Democratic or Republican parties have shown any attempt to curb spending in recent years. Voting along party lines, trading votes for pork-stuffed bills, and increasing the size of the federal government have become a staple in the congress. Dr. Paul defies the establishment.
- He realizes that the tax-and-spend policies of Democrats are inept and serve to vanquish the productivity of the free market.
- He realizes that the borrow-and-spend policies of Republicans simply guarantee that taxes will have to be raised on future generations.
- He realizes that the print-and-spend policies of both parties are paid for by devaluing our currency, which hurts the poor and middle class, while benefiting government and special interests.
He has always voted against bigger government, constraining his 'Yay' votes to constitutional legislation. He never votes according to party lines or to trade pork. Even on the bills where he earmarks funds for his district, he still votes against them. Dr. Paul has never voted for a tax increase or to approve an unbalanced budget, yet he always returns money from his congressional office to the treasury and votes for the least amount of spending. He has never voted for a congressional pay raise and refuses to participate in the lucrative pension program.
[edit] Immigration and Border Security
Dr. Paul has a 6 point plan for restoring our border security and eliminating illegal immigration.
[edit] 1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines
"We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals."
Dr. Paul would help facilitate this by bringing troops home from war and policing foreign nations, having many patrol the border, physically stopping would be illegal immigrants.
[edit] 2. Enforce visa rules
"Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas."
[edit] 3. No Amnesty
"Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws." To even put amnesty on the table encourages future illegal immigration. If illegals are risking life and limb to relocate here without any expectation of quick citizenship, how much more motivated will they be once they learn it is easier to become a US citizen by illegally crossing the border rather than following the legal process?
[edit] 4. No welfare for illegal aliens
"Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services."
This is especially heinous considering that the federal government, charged with protecting our borders, are the same ones mandating that local taxpayers provide illegals with services.
[edit] 5.End birthright citizenship
"As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong."
[edit] 6. Pass true immigration reform
"The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods."
[edit] The "Inflation Tax" and Sound Money
"Governments can spend money and not be responsible. They can tax to a degree, they can borrow to a degree; but then they can print the money when they need it. And common sense tells almost anybody that looks at this, you just can't get away with that. This causes problems. Because if we double the money supply, which we do in not too many years, why wouldn't that money have half the value? So it's the money that goes down in value, which causes the inflation, the higher prices to rise, which is so harmful to the middle class and the poor, because they suffer rising prices more so than if you're on Wall Street, where you get to use the newly created money to promote deals...you know, leverage buy-outs and these things. They make billions of dollars. If you get to use the money first like the government or the military-industrial complex or the health industry now, which is a government industry, then all of a sudden, they have their advantages; but the middle class and the poor literally can get wiped out through a monetary process. Monetary policy is very, very important, and other people don't want to talk about it either because they like the way it works, and they can finance their pet project, or they just don't understand it, but the American people I find are understanding this better than a lot of people here in Washington...It is an inflation tax, and even though it's not a tax in the conventional sense, it's a tax because that's how you can get money out of people's wallets without taking it from them through the IRS. So if you double the money supply, and your dollar goes down 50%, the government has literally stolen 50% of the value of your money. So it is an inflation tax, and it's very, very unfair, and it is the most regressive tax we have."
Ron Paul became involved in politics to correct the disintegration of the link between the Federal Reserve Bank's paper currency and gold. Nixon implemented this change when we couldn't exchange anymore foreign dollars for gold during the Vietnam War, as the Federal Reserve was bankrupt. This essentially gave the United States government a credit card. The only thing making Federal Reserve Notes worth anything was the American government's foreign policy and legal tender laws. Similarly, the only thing keeping the American government able to afford its massive "guns and butter" welfare/warfare state was the credit created by the Federal Reserve. These two entities have shared a mutual alliance ever since, with the money supply growing exponentially, mirroring the government's growth in deficit spending. This simply gives the government too much power, as they have little limit on spending, while taking from the poor and middle class's savings.
[edit] The War on Drugs
The war on drugs has failed by all objective measurement. Today, there are more drug users on the streets than when prohibition of drugs started, despite costs of over $400 billion. Additionally, impoverished neighborhoods and disproportionate numbers of blacks are suffering through this policy. Why is this?
[edit] Logistically Impossible
There are more drug users than jail cells. It is impossible to effectively punish all users. A policy of going after dealers seems obtainable; however, without removing the users demanding the drugs, it simply drives up prices, which offer greater incentives to would-be dealers. Furthermore, the majority of drug users are impoverished, suggesting that street price is not the limiting factor in drug use. Prohibition cannot become any more effective. Many candidates who support the war on drugs are admitting this, claiming we need to rely on programs such as "Just Say No," which advocate voluntarism, not legal threats. It is nearly impossible to offer any rationale explanation or historical evidence to suggest drug prohibition has worked or could work.
[edit] The price of enforcing victim-less crime
Most crime has an aggressor and a victim, who reports the crime. Comparatively, drug crime, which is nothing more than personal habit, is obviously not reported to police, rarely having credible witnesses. Crime-fighters have a very difficult time enforcing drug laws, because they must use large amounts of assumption and profiling in their investigation. They must target users they know they can convict, threatening unjust punishments (such as mandatory minimum sentences) to force them to bargain and disclose their seller or other accomplices. This results in racial and wealth profiling, with little concern of jailing powerless non-violent members of society, who don't have the information they want. Additionally, the drug war has eroded civil liberties, allowing one's house to be searched based upon anonymous tips and other non-credible information. Despite turning some sects of society into police states, where anyone can be stopped and searched for no reason, the drug war fails to stop drug use, simply because of the nature of enforcing victim-less crime. To guarantee full enforcement would require full surveillance of every person in America, which is completely impractical, unconstitutional, and immoral.
[edit] Ill effects of prohibition
Drug prohibition has the same ill effects that alcohol prohibition did. The increased profitability of drug distribution motivates criminals into turf wars, where gangs battle to control drug trade over geographic areas. It corrupts police, who allow and aid such violent crime in return for a cut of the spoils. Innocent lives are lost in the crossfire, sometimes being turned into a suspect based upon bad information. Enforcing prohibition requires an enormous amount of extra police man-power, with tax-paying society bearing the burden. Due to prohibition, black market drugs cannot carry any guarantee on their purity or toxicity. This results in the accidental death of non-violent drug users. Additionally, such people are subjected to the dangers of robbery and murder in illegally obtaining their drugs from dealers who care little about the law. Due to the harsh punishments used as strategy in the drug war, many tax-paying, otherwise non-criminal members of society are jailed for several years, at the tax-payers expense.
[edit] Defies the role of government in a free society
A free society's government should exist to resolve disputes without anarchic violence, not regulate personal behavior (resulting in a far more violent drug war). Drug prohibition is an affront to freedom and denies the existence of personal responsibility. If the realm of government is force people to do good and avoid bad, society is always subject to a shrinking definition of "good," as the state tends to increase its own power.
[edit] Illogical Arguments
- Drug markets supposedly support terrorism, yet the best (and only) way to fix this problem is to end prohibition, destroying the narcotics black market. This simply attempts to extend the hateful view of terrorism onto drug use, so the drug war receives propaganda style support. For example, most of the funding for 9/11 was obtained through Osama bin Laden's Saudi oil connections; yet we can see how unjust it is to blame oil sales, rather than the actual attackers, for 9/11.
- Mandatory minimum sentences put drug criminals off the street; however, any attempt to put the majority of drug users in jail results in prison over-crowding which forces other violent criminals back on the streets. Non-violent crime carrying mandated jail time while rape does not shows why the drug war is a travesty of justice.
- Putting drug criminals in jail is justified by the rationale that they need to steal or resort to other crime to support their habit, but that is a separate issue. By targeting drug users in general, many tax-paying citizens who support American business are put in jail, costing society far more to feed and shelter them in a prison than their drug habit would have costed, independent of whether it was funded by productivity or crime.
- The idea that the drug war reduces the crime drug addicts will resort to to obtain drugs makes little sense. The drug war creates higher drug prices, which force many additional addicts to resort to crime, while doing little to curb general demand.
- Many believe that using drugs is immoral and should be punished, yet such beliefs are often based upon religious or personal sentiment, not any rational victimization of other members of society. Additionally, drug abuse carries its own punishment, the most serious being death from overdose. If those who believe it is immoral which to impose further penalties, they should do it through their own free will, participating in boycotts or ostracism, rather than using the force of the state to impose criminal penalties.
- Many believe society would be more productive without drugs, justifying the drug war. First, the drug war has done very little to stop drug use. Secondly, drug use is normally a recreational activity, paid for through productive labor. This argument implies that if most Americans didn't have television, they would work 10 and 12 hour work days. While drugs are a dangerous and discouraged source of recreation, they do not blindly curb productivity (and can actually serve as a motivation to work a job).
[edit] The government's role in economy
Dr. Paul believes the free market thrives upon voluntary trade and productivity, which provide the best means of prosperity. A free market guarantees the distribution of goods and services at the lowest cost possible (approaching universal affordability) with the highest quality available; therefore, it is the most humane form of economics. He denies that any benefits can come from corporatism (state privilege to special interests), socialism (state ownership and control), and protectionism (state privilege to national business). He believes true laissez-faire capitalism regulates economics to adjust to market "problems," while the other systems guarantee long-term problems.
[edit] End Corporate Welfare
Often, big businesses are given tax-payer money in the form of subsidies, with the hope that they will create jobs or guarantee other benefits to our nation; yet are the results are rarely encouraging. In many cases, they are nothing more than a reverse income tax for the rich, who use the subsidies to drive out or buy out small businesses and increase their profit margin, increasing their own income. When there are attempts to make the subsidies regressive, limiting the amount big businesses can receive, lawyers are hired to find loopholes, which are consistently exploited. The end result is nearly always the same, which is reward for government favored big business, not productivity. This guarantees corporatism, not free trade.
This is never more true than in agricultural subsidies, where the average farmer receives about $900 a year, while Ted Turner and other millionaires receive over $100,000 a year to simply not farm their land. Tyson farms created over 60 subsidiaries to guarantee access to the full pie of subsidies. Nearly 3/4 of the $25 billion annually spent by the federal government on agricultural subsidies goes to the top 10% of the recipients. The bottom 80% are left to split $3 billion.
The oil industry is subsidized, despite its already lucrative profit margins.
[edit] End the Fed's bubble-creation cycle
The Federal Reserve Bank's job is to predict the market, setting interest rates and managing the money supply; yet a large part of the market's work is in predicting the Fed. The result, with or without the Fed, is chaos. No one has ever been successful at predicting or controlling an entire economy, except in authoritarian states where prosperity vanishes, such as the USSR (not taking into account the extremely large black market...). Similarly, the Fed is most likely doing more harm than good, offering capital below its natural price at some times, while restricting access to it during others. The result is the boom-bust cycle, or the business cycle. This cycle encourages over-speculation and mal-investment during some periods, while threatening economic collapse similar to the great depression during others. The chaos of the market cannot be predicted, and there should be no device to try to calm it. Rather, a market without the Fed's intervention relies more upon productivity, not prediction. Americans have always been good at producing, and without the bubbles the Fed creates, there is little chance for large or long-lasting economic downturn.
