Ed Martin for U.S. Senate - Missouri

This morning Ed Martin of Missouri announced he will be running for the United States Senate. This is great news for Missourians, and America. Ed Martin would be a great addition to the U.S. Senate in 2013. Ed ran one of the smartest campaigns I've ever seen in 2010, but he came up a little short. The district in which Ed ran for congress was not designed for a Republican. It leans heavy democrat, yet Ed almost pulled off the victory.

There is a lot of time between now and November 2012. Ed Martin is worth watching now. Get involved, donate money and spread the word, let's start taking back the Senate by starting with Missouri.

Newt Gingrich Responds To Obama SOTU

By Newt Gingrich

When I first heard that President Obama was using "winning the future" as the theme of his state of the union I thought it was ironically funny.

I wrote a book, "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America" in 2005. I used the title "Winning the Future" to make the case that the future was not automatically ours, that we Americans were not winning the future with our current policies and that we would have to make real changes to win.

My book was also a warning to Republicans. It was a serious critique of the Republican failure to thoroughly rethink and replace failing government policies and institutions. I was suggesting the Republican Congress, after a decade of power, and the Republican administration were not being bold enough, creative enough or conservative enough.

They didn't listen and suffered the consequences in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

I looked forward to the State of the Union address to see how President Obama would build on this theme of winning. Winning implies a real contest. Winning implies losing is possible.

As you can imagine my conservative vision of winning the future by replacing failing, left wing bureaucracies with conservative, free market alternatives was radically different than President Obama's.

After telling us government is failing (with a cute story about three different departments dealing with salmon) he then proposed more power and more money for the very institutions he has just suggested were ineffective and inefficient.

However, what was most depressing about President Obama's State of the Union address was not its big government liberalism, its clever maneuvering to keep all the big government of the last two years, or its failure to admit how much liberalism had failed to create jobs.

What really saddened me about the President's State of the Union address was its shallowness and lack of serious dialogue.

For three years we have been in the worst economy since the great depression. Millions of Americans are suffering from unemployment. We just learned that first time applications for unemployment benefits jumped by 51,000 last week. Housing prices are continuing to struggle.

What has the president learned from these three years of failure? What should we change to get back to job creation? Why should we expect more spending by failing bureaucracies (President Obama's version of investment) to work?

The world is becoming more dangerous. The Bush strategies did not stop the dangerous North Korean and Iranian regimes from pursuing nuclear weapons. Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda are still killing innocents in brutal terrorist attacks. The Obama strategies have been no more successful than the Bush strategies. What has the president learned from the failure of "engagement"?

The United States continues to send $400 billion plus overseas even though we have huge energy reserves here at home. Instead of proposing immediate steps to use American energy to create American jobs, the president repeated his fantasy of jobs in the future created through bureaucratic spending on technologies that are currently unavailable.

What serious plans does the president have to control spending and balance the budget? Freezing spending at its current unprecedented high levels will barely make a dent in the projected deficit. The deficit is now almost twice as large as the entire government was in 1983 when I proposed a freeze on spending to President Ronald Reagan.

Sadly, there is no Obama plan for winning the future.

There is an Obama plan for protecting big government, for pouring more money into broken bureaucracies, for borrowing several trillion more from the Chinese dictatorship.

President Obama is on a path to lose the future while pretending to change things.

The Republican House of Representatives should aggressively move forward and propose a scale of change to genuinely win the future.

Let the American people see the contrast and let the American people decide if they want big government, high taxes, economic decay and dangerous cuts in defense.

I believe the American people want to genuinely win the future and will prefer a future of smaller government, more entrepreneurship, more genuine investment within a free market, more replacement of failing policies and institutions and a lot more honesty about the real change we need.

Let the debate begin.

Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995-1999 and is a potential Republican presidential candidate.

Paul Ryan Dominates

The title here says it all. Congressman Paul Ryan dominated with his speech Tuesday night. The whole speech could be viewed as a highlight. But, two sections particularly struck me:

"We believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper. Under this approach, the spirit of initiative – not political clout – determines who succeeds."

And this:

"We need to reclaim our American system of limited government, low taxes, reasonable regulations and sound money, which has blessed us with unprecedented prosperity. And it has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed. That's the real secret to job creation – not borrowing and spending more money in Washington.

Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth.

These are not easy times, but America is an exceptional nation. In all the chapters of human history, there has never been anything quite like America. The American story has been cherished, advanced and defended over the centuries."

Arizona And Discourse In America

Because of the political nature (by this I mean that a politician was apparently targeted) of the shootings that took place in Tucson on Saturday, I have been thinking about politics for most of the day. As we have learned more and more about the murderer, it has become apparent that he was a very troubled person. One of the things most apparent to me in the aftermath of the shootings is the heated, rhetoric filled dialog from everyone. This has really had me thinking a lot about discourse in this country, and I have taken that a step further in looking at the 2012 Presidential election.

Since July of 2010 I have firmly been supporting Herman Cain for President in 2012. I saw Mr. Cain speak at an event in Austin hosted by American for Prosperity on July 4th weekend. His speech that day from the beginning to the end was filled with hopeful comments. But beyond the "hope" I heard, I heard unconventional rhetoric, new ways of saying sold things. I started following Mr. Cain's radio show and his writings again, as I had in 2004 when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Georgia.

Mr. Cain has said something that has made me a believer of his, and I'll paraphrase, but when he's been asked about his conservative views, he says "Conservative? You bet, I call it common sense." Touche.

Recently on his radio show, Mr. Cain released and read what he called Common Sense Solutions: The People's Platform for America. If you don't know Herman Cain, you have some catching up to do. But Herman is a thinker, it's part of what made him a business success for many years. The People's Platform for America is a well thought out, intelligent list of issues in America, but it's a list with real solutions, smart solutions.

Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about my commitment to Herman Cain during the day today. I believe now, more than ever, that Herman Cain could start a level of national discourse that we need, and a level of discourse that lifts America up, rather than one that polarizes and places blame. If you agree with me, enlist to help Herman if and when he files for Presdident at www.DraftCain.org

Newt Gingrich: Assange Is Engaged in Warfare and Terrorism

How an Economy Grows - George F. Smith

How an Economy Grows - George F. Smith - Mises Daily

Since World War II, most economists have been apologists for government growth. Now the "experts" who never see a crisis coming tell us that we must once again abandon free-market principles to save the free-market system.

But there's always the possibility that people not seated at the government's table will finally wise up. Who or what could help them understand what's going on? People need someone to draw a clear picture of what makes an economy thrive — briefly, without jargon, and, most importantly for today's readers, in an entertaining fashion.

Going Hungry for a Day to Eat Better Later

A strong candidate for this task is Peter Schiff and his illustrated book, How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes, which he coauthored with his brother, Andrew Schiff. Other elementary texts will continue to be effective in conveying economic basics, but the Schiffs have a story to tell, an extension of a tale first developed by their father, Irwin Schiff. There's nothing quite like a story to get people turning the pages. And in this case, the story is made more enjoyable by the creative work of illustrator Brendan Leach.

The authors waste no time getting to the root of economic growth. In the opening chapter, we find three men on an island — Able, Baker, and Charlie — fishing by hand, catching one fish per day each, enough to sustain them until the following day when they head into the surf again. Able gets an idea for an invention that might enable him to catch more than one fish, but when will he have time to build it? He spends all his waking hours working. Nor has he any assurance his invention will work.

One day Able decides to take a chance. He tells the others he will forego fishing for a day to fashion a device he calls a net. They tell him he's crazy, but he goes hungry and succeeds. Using his net, he's able to catch two fish a day, saving one and eating the other. This allows him to spend half as much time fishing and more time working on other ways to improve his life. (In this story, fish don't spoil.)

Schiff augments this narrative with the first of many sidebars he calls a Reality Check. In this one, he points out that Able, in progressing beyond hand-to-mouth existence, was underconsuming and taking a risk.

At the end of this and every other chapter he has a section called Takeaway. What lesson should the reader take from the opening chapter? "By using our natural faculties we can create tools to improve our lives … and to create an economy." No tools, no economy.

Not surprisingly, the other two men want nets but are unwilling to go hungry while they build them. They ask to borrow Able's net on days when he isn't using it. He turns them down. They ask him to loan them fish while they build their nets. He tells them he has no assurance they will succeed. Finally, they propose to borrow fish and pay him back at interest — for every fish he lends them they will pay him back two. If they succeed, everyone will profit. Able accepts their proposal.

The men build their nets, and their economy grows from three fish a day to six, a 100 percent increase.

In another Reality Check, Schiff points out that "the economy didn't grow because they consumed more. They consumed more because the economy grew."

From Barter to Money

As their savings grow, they have more time to undertake other projects. They pool their savings and build a trap that catches 30 fish a week. They never have to fish again. Able starts a clothing company. Baker builds a canoe and a cart, while Charlie constructs a surfboard.

Savings, ingenuity, hard work, risk taking, and prudent lending move the economy upward. The island's prosperity attracts and is able to support immigrants seeking a better life. Some of them borrow fish to clear land for farming. People start offering services, such as cooking and fish-trap maintenance. The economy becomes more diversified.

And as it does, they discover they need a better way to trade their goods or services. A spear maker may want the services of a chef, but the chef may not want any spears. What they need is something that can be traded for anything and that is acceptable to everyone. They need money.

They settle on fish. Not only do fish serve to facilitate trade, they can also be saved for old age and emergencies. Money also allows people to specialize in what they do best. Duffy, for example, can build a canoe with eight fish in savings rather than the ten fish that others require. By charging nine fish per canoe, he makes a profit and his customers save money. Over time, Duffy buys specialty tools with his savings that allow him to build a canoe with only four fish. Duffy doubles his production, and by charging six fish, doubles his profit margin and sells canoes at a more affordable price (six fish instead of nine). A luxury becomes an everyday commodity.

As productivity increased, prices fell, benefiting the producer as well as his customers. Falling prices induce people to save, which swells the amount of capital available for loans. The Keynesian fear of falling prices was yet unknown.

A Middleman between Saver and Borrower

Not everyone on the island is willing to work for a better life. Some of them turn to stealing fish. Seeing an opportunity, an entrepreneur named Max Goodbank decides to open a bank and charge a storage fee for safeguarding people's savings.

With profits scarce from such a service, Max decides to loan out the savings. To entice people to deposit their fish he pays them interest. He charges borrowers a higher rate of interest so he can pay his expenses and earn a profit. Max calls his enterprise the Goodbank Savings and Loan.
"We can either return to gold or we can pursue the fiat path and return to barter."
Murray Rothbard

Max knows that a prosperous economy would increase fish deposits. Interest on loans would then drop, but so would interest paid to depositors. As savings diminished, Max would charge borrowers a higher interest rate. He would also pay depositors a higher rate to encourage more savings, and eventually the loan rate would come down.

The safety and convenience of the bank attracts depositors, and Max is able to finance a huge waterworks project to bring water inland. New pipelines mean previously infertile land can be made into productive farmland. The steady flow of water can be used to harness machines, giving birth to new industries.

The Birth of Government

To settle disagreements and protect themselves from violence, the islanders decide to form a limited government. They elect 12 senators and a senator-in-chief with executive authority. The senate would create a court system to settle disputes and a police squad to enforce the decrees of judges. It would also create and regulate a navy of spear-packing war canoes.

The islanders agree to pay a yearly fish tax to finance the government. To keep the government confined to its assigned responsibilities, they draft a constitution to spell out what it can and cannot do. The constitution protects people from the government and protects minorities from the tyrannies of majorities.

It is widely understood that government could only function because it taxed producers. Government spending therefore was really taxpayer spending, and only taxpayers could vote. The new country is called Usonia.

As generations pass, the island's economy continues to flourish. Then one day some creative senators decide the original constitution was undemocratic in allowing only taxpayer suffrage. The restriction is removed, and on election day the polls are crowded with people who don't care much for government austerity.

The Birth of the Free Lunch

It isn't long before an ambitious senator named Franky Deep comes along with a radical idea. Franky loves power, and the way to get it in politics is to promise voters free stuff. But how could he carry it off? Government can only give by first taking.

After breezing into office as senator-in-chief, he comes up with an idea for giving away more than government has. To pay for his spending plans, Franky decides to issue government paper money — Fish Reserve Notes — that can be redeemed for actual fish stored at the Goodbank. Citizens could now use either the fish or the notes in trade.

The island's chief judge points out that the Constitution didn't authorize Franky to issue paper notes for fish. Franky solves the problem by firing the judge. In his place he puts one of his political buddies, who views the Constitution as "a living document" subject to reinterpretation at the discretion of the chief judge.

Though uncomfortable with paper money at first, the citizens begin to like it because it is more convenient to carry. Those who redeem their notes for fish suspect they are not as big as the original fish deposited, but comparing them is outlawed, so no one knows for sure.

With a more progressive judge in office, Franky's people find more spending projects for the government to undertake. All they need is enough support from potential voters. The new notes were the miracle solution.
"Once the savers on the island realize that there is really no safety in bank deposits, they'll stop saving! … Our whole economy could collapse!"
Max Goodbank VII

Taxpayers are pleased because the spending doesn't require tax hikes, progressives love it because government is showing it "cares," and politicians feel relieved because they don't have to balance their budgets. The only potential problem is economists, who might see the subtle theft taking place, but that is solved by cutting them in on the deal with research grants and jobs.

Eventually, bank president Max Goodbank VII starts making noise about government legerdemain. Franky replaces him with Ally Greenfin, and Goodbank Savings and Loan becomes the Fish Reserve Bank. The modern world is born.

The Fate of Usonia

The Schiffs are only getting started, and to see how the former laissez-faire economy of Usonia ends up you will find no better source than the book itself. Though the story illustrates critical economic fundamentals, the authors carry it off with elegant infusions of humor. Some examples: Franky Deep, Jim W. Bass, and Barry Ocuda as chief executives, the "Carp for Carts" program, Finnie Mae and Fishy Mac, Hank Plankton as the head fish accountant, and my favorite, Brent Barnacle, who becomes Ally Greenfin's replacement and promises to drop notes from palm trees if needed. Peter Schiff even pokes fun at himself, making reference to Piker Skiff, TV's comic relief man, who warns of the pending hut collapse.

The Schiffs add a touch of satire when Barnacle tells a conference that Usonia's policy of sending Fish Reserve Notes to the island of Sinopia in exchange for fish and goods is merely the latest development in economic specialization. With their voracious appetites, Usonians "had a comparative advantage in consuming," while Sinopians were tops in the areas of savings and manufacturing things.

Many otherwise-good stories founder with forgettable endings. But I suspect the final two lines of this story will stay with you forever.

Given the critical role of money in an economy, including the economy of Usonia, I would've preferred to see a more detailed development of how the island economy moved from barter to money. The authors tell us on page 52 that because "everyone on this island ate fish, it was decided that fish would serve as money." Though I'm aware of the authors' free-market convictions, the wording left me wondering if the decision was done by a committee rather than the market.

People who find anything related to economics tedious will find the Schiff book an exciting discovery. It should have special appeal to Austrians at all levels of expertise, while the Keynesian wizards who laughed at Peter Schiff when he predicted the housing collapse will likely disdain it.

It might be the only economics book ever written that could be read aloud to one's family without putting them to sleep. The narrative never once lags or becomes academic. The authors manage to convey the critical concepts without straying from their "Connecticut straight-talk" approach.

The Schiffs' tale of Usonia would make an excellent text for a "pre-economics" course, as a way of burning in the basics and of showing how they apply to the US history of the past 100 years. Precalculus is a requirement for premed, as one of my daughters has discovered. A "pre-econ" class featuring How an Economy Works and Why It Crashes would make it clear how government interventions operate in diametric opposition to the medical principle of primum non nocere ("first, do no harm"), with predictable results.

The Schiffs have hit one out of the park. I'm already introducing parts of their book to my five-year-old grandson — who enjoys fishing.

George F. Smith is the author of The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, a novel about a renegade Fed chairman, and Eyes of Fire: Thomas Paine and the American Revolution, a script about Paine's impact on the early stages of the Revolution. Visit his website. Send him mail. See George F. Smith's article archives.

Are Political Consultants Stupid?

I was intrigued by a tweet today and it led me to a couple of articles about political consultants.

I am a political consultant. Please keep reading anyway. I consider myself one of the good guys though, and I'll tell you why. It's for the very reasons that political consultants were disparaged in these articles. To elaborate further, the points that Newt Gingrich made in the Washington Post are exactly right, and our firm does the opposite of what Newt wrote about.

AmRen Consulting is made up of people who grew up in the activist side of politics, some of us are still precinct chairs at the grassroots level. We believe in building the conservative movement, through the Republican party, in every race that we are involved in. We look for candidates willing to work their communities and go door to door to deliver their message, because only when we talk with everyone will we all win. We know our history, we have conservative principles and we try to elect good, competent people to office each year. We're not marketers turned political consultants who view a man (or woman) in a suit as a product we're trying to push with a couple of soundbites. We believe in more than just direct mail and tv ads. We believe in the conservative cause.

We are and have been supportive of groups like RagingElephants.org and Latino National Republican Coalition, groups going into communities that our party will traditionally write off and engaging voters who rarely if ever hear from Republican candidates.

I feel that no race, no district anywhere, should be seen as "off the table". When we cede ground to the opposition, the voters lose by not having a real choice, and eventually we all lose by having unchecked representation that can run wild in the halls of power.

Matt Lewis did a nice summation of what Newt said, and he also went back as far as 2007 to show that Newt was saying these things about consultants back then. In some of Newt's 2008 and 2009 speeches he would also make similar comments about political consultants. Melissa Clouthier also followed up with some insights. I appreciate that Matt and Melissa both used identifiers like "most" and "many" rather than "all" or "every", so I did not take offense to what either of them said.

I posted back in April trying to warn our side not to give up ground so early in 2010, to keep fighting, to keep engaging, because we have the opportunity before us to build a long term movement based on freedom and prosperity. Just assuming we're going to win and assuming we have enough districts to have a majority is not enough. Let's make sure we're building our databases of emails and voter interests so that when 2012 comes around, we can be on better footing with the Obama machine than we were in 2008.

I would say to Matt and Melissa both; I understand your concerns and what you're saying, but rest assured that there is at least one consulting firm out here doing right by our cause. You may recall, just two weekends ago, I was with both of you at the AFP Summit in Austin, how many other consultants did you count in that crowd?