OUR BLOG HAS MOVED:

HTTP://WEEKLYFILIBUSTER.COM

CHECK OUT HTTP://WWW.WEEKLYFILIBUSTER.COM

OUR BLOG HAS MOVED:

HTTP://WEEKLYFILIBUSTER.COM

(Originally published by UWIRE at uwireforum.wordpress.com)

This month, I attended Acton University 2009 in Grand Rapids, MI. This summer, I will be working for the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, and attending Acton U. was my first assignment. For four days, nearly 400 participants from almost 50 countries came to this city to learn about natural law, economics, religious morality, and other essential elements of a free and virtuous society. The article below is based on a conversation I had with a Ghanaian student of international development during Acton U, and is the first of a three-part series of columns this week related to Acton U.

An addiction is denying an entire continent the ability to escape the worst conditions of poverty on Earth. Governments use it as an excuse to maintain their corrupted regimes. It has torn the attention of voters and politicians in that continent away from developing their economies, even in times of such dire need. The worst thing about this addiction is that no amount of medicine or rehab can cure it.

Western foreign aid is killing Africans.

Click “Read More” to continue reading this article.

More than $340 billion was given to Africa by Western governments through state-to-state aid and non-profit organizations between 2004 and 2008 alone. More than a third of the continent’s population still lives on less than a dollar every day, despite the world’s governments spending three times as much on Africa last year as the American government did on all of its State Department programs.

While President Obama thinks that the biggest problem is that we are not spending enough, as evidenced by his proposal to double American foreign aid worldwide to $50 billion annually by 2012, one African leader and historical examples from elsewhere in the world suggest that focusing on market development is a better way forward.

In an op-ed in The Financial Times earlier this year, Rwandan President Paul Kagame called for the West to open up trade and investment opportunities in Africa, instead of continuing to give handouts to governments. Asserting that foreign aid leaves recipient populations “unstable, distracted and more dependent,” Kagame went on to tell Western readers that “Nobody owes Rwandans anything… We are attempting to increase our gross domestic product by seven times over a generation, which increases per capita incomes fourfold. This will create the basis for further innovation and foster trust, civic-mindedness and tolerance, strengthening our society.”

Kagame is right to note that the real way to improve life for Africans is through entrepreneurship and competition. Creating wealth is a difficult task, and poverty is the normal state of humanity wherever governments don’t focus on it. Efforts that look down and try to pick people up from the depths of need will not be successful because they fundamentally misunderstand what ends scarcity. Only efforts to get up from below by harnessing their talents and making valuable things let people escape the cycle of poverty.

The notion that African destitution can be ended by eradicating poverty, lowering infant mortality rates and curing disease has the process of development backwards. People don’t get rich by ending poverty. They end poverty by getting rich. Businesses will not wait until wells are dug before setting up shop in the sub-Saharan, but wells that are dug today by the Peace Corps will not be there in twenty years without someone hiring Africans.

Securing foreign aid has to stop being the primary goal of African leaders if the lives of their people are going to be improved. Only by making real economic development the highest priority will things get better. Leaders need to reform their political systems to acknowledge property rights, lower trade barriers, and remove excessive regulations on businesses and investment so that wealth can be created.

Africa may face special challenges due to its current state of weakness, but they are not a legitimate reason to prioritize foreign aid over rational economic policies. The African continent is blessed with more natural resources than Japan and more potential laborers than Europe. The problems that it faces from disease and hunger are daunting, without a doubt, but the idea that hospitals will be built and crops grown as long as the only capital in Africa comes from the charity of the West is fatally wrong. Cholera and influenza epidemics did not need to be suppressed before Europe developed; indeed, these diseases are no longer able to kill tens of millions of people in the West today precisely because we are economically developed. The only way that we can break the destructive power of malaria, AIDS, and typhoid in Africa is by letting it get rich by moving to free and open markets, not the other way around.

Foreign aid policies are based on good intentions, but they let rulers get rich and stay in power without pursuing enlightened economic policies and they do not create wealth, which is the only real way to end poverty and improve conditions in Africa. Hopefully, President Obama can realize this and shift over his efforts towards Africa to helping governments create better economic atmospheres, breaking political corruption, and calling on the West to end unfair trade practices and agricultural subsidization that don’t let African farmers compete freely in global markets.

If Obama continues to emphasize foreign aid as the way to prosperity, then Africa’s addiction to foreign aid will continue to kill its people and, albeit unintentionally, prolong the world’s worst human suffering.

(Originally published at the Acton PowerBlog: http://blog.acton.org)

“Only if there are new human beings will there be a new world, a renewed and better world.”

When the Pope said these words at Vespers on Sunday, perhaps he had Bernie Madoff in mind.

Today, Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for defrauding his investors of nearly $65 billion over the course of 20 years. His corruption and crimes ruined the livelihoods of thousands of businesspeople, charity workers, and families that trusted his sterling reputation to protect everything that they had worked to earn.

Unfortunately, Madoff is not the only man to have betrayed his financial responsibilities to others. The last few years saw financial scandals at Enron and WorldCom shake the public’s trust in corporations. Just two weeks ago, Texas billionaire R. Allen Stanford was arrested by the FBI on charges that he used a bank in Antigua to mask his $8 billion fraud, stealing from his investors.

Click “Read More” to continue this article.

When Pope Leo XIII published his encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891, he wrote that “A small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than slavery itself.” The global economy has come a long way since then, with the rise of laws designed to fight white-collar crime, the expansion of opportunities for Third World entrepreneurship with the removal of tariffs, and the creation of enough wealth to eliminate most of the horrific working conditions of the Victorian Era.

One thing that we cannot progress out of is sin. The same sins that led some businesspeople to exploit the human person for their own economic gain, the same sins that led industrialists to lobby the government to protect their privilege against competition, still exist today. Greed is real in every age and under every political system.

So too is guilt. Madoff himself seems to realize the terrible impact that his crimes have had. At his sentencing, he asked the jury: “How do you excuse betraying thousands of investors who entrusted me with their life savings? How do you excuse deceiving 200 employees who spent most of their working life with me? How do you excuse lying to a brother and two sons who spent their entire lives helping to build a successful business? How do you excuse lying to a wife who stood by you for 50 years?”

There is no way to excuse these crimes. As the Pope noted on Sunday, the only way to truly bring about a better world is through interior conversion and taking full responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions. No system of laws and no amount of external regulation can fully force people to live up to their responsibilities.

As Judge Danny Chin put it, “Mr. Madoff’s crimes were extraordinarily evil.” Evil obeys no laws. It is a corruption of the heart. Falsehood will lie its way out of every law. No matter how strong we make our regulations on the activities of financial managers and corporate executives, there is only one way to guarantee that the truth will hold sway.

As Pope Benedict put it, “Love is the test of truth. Ever more we must be measured by this criterion, that truth becomes love and that love makes us truthful.” Only through a commitment to the morality of love can we break the power of sin in our human hearts.

In July, The Weekly Filibuster is heating things up with: big names, big shows, big topics, and the greatest panel in political talk radio! Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse “The Body” Ventura and former Congressman (R-GA) and 2008 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Bob Barr will join us. And as always, we’ll tackle the big stories of the week and take your calls!

Stay tuned for more details! We’ve got a few other surprises up our sleeve.

(Originally published as a letter to the editor in the Boston Globe on June 28, 2009)

BRAZIL, RUSSIA, India, and China might have been on to something when they considered dropping the American dollar as the basis for international currencies (“The world’s new power brokers,’’ Editorial, June 21). It was the inflation of the dollar during the Bush administration that lowered interest rates far beyond what the market would have allowed, meaning that far more mortgages and other loans were issued to people who wouldn’t normally be expected to be able to pay them back.

Click “Read More” below to continue reading!

As we have learned so painfully in the last year, the effects of this overabundance of credit were felt by the same people that more credit was supposed to help. If future Federal Reserve chiefs continue to recklessly inflate the currency at their own pleasure, the world will continue to face the peril that comes afterward.

By considering gold or numerical ways to calculate the value of money instead of waiting on Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to exercise good foresight, the new players on the global economic scene are looking for creative ways to avoid the next meltdown caused by loose-and-fast monetary policies. We would do well to encourage them and to take the same approach.

Matt Cavedon
Cambridge, MA

(Originally published in the Wall Street Journal June 25, 2009)

Sen. Ron Wyden’s plan to make every uninsured American buy health insurance makes about as much sense as would forcing every poverty-stricken and starving Haitian to buy food (“Wyden’s Third Way,” The Weekend Interview, June 20). Sure, having every American insure himself would save us all money from unneeded emergency room visits, but there are bigger things in the way of universal coverage than just imposing a legal mandate.

Requiring every American to buy health insurance would make millions of families change their economic priorities in ways that would lead to unfortunate consequences. Almost everyone believes that getting health insurance for themselves and their families is a high priority, but virtually no one thinks that insurance comes before food and housing. Even if the government passes the Healthy Americans Act or some other sort of mandate, and succeeds in making everyone buy insurance, the victory will be Pyrrhic. The needs that come before insurance for the 15% of Americans will still exist, but the money they use to meet these needs won’t.

Click “Read More” below to continue.

According to research done by the Kaiser Family Foundation, National Public Radio, and the Harvard School of Health, health insurance costs individuals an average of $4,800 annually. The cost for families to get insurance is even higher, at around $12,000 annually. These kinds of costs would push many people over the edge financially. How does Sen. Wyden propose that we pay for more people who will be unable to afford food, housing and education if they have to pay for health insurance? Effective health-care reform would be better accomplished by other means. Sen. Wyden’s own proposals to switch America from employer-based to individual health-insurance markets, for example, would do a great amount of good by encouraging competition and innovation without making life harder for the people having the most difficult time getting insurance.

Matt Cavedon
Cambridge, Mass.

LISTEN TO WHAT YOU MISSED

What does Gov. Sanford’s affair mean for the 2012 GOP field? Does Charlie Crist stand a chance in the Florida Senate race? Is Michael Jackson’s death “dooming” the people of Iran? What does the newest climate change legislation include? Why did a GOP Rep. call it a “pile of s**t”? Is Tony Danza really the boss?

Did you miss our roundtable with Ari Ne’eman, President of The Autistic Self Advocacy Network, about the politics of whether disability groups should be focusing on a cure or adaptability?

CLICK HERE TO CATCH THE SHOW!

This will be Ari’s second appearance on The Weekly Filibuster. He joined us on May 31st, 2009 to discuss his work and a recent profile in Newsweek magazine.

CLICK TO LISTEN ON DEMAND

Listen as we talk with Former U.S. Senator (D-Alaska; 1969-1981) and 2008 Democratic and Libertarian Presidential Candidate Mike Gravel, only days after returning from promoting his National Initiative (or direct democracy) proposal in South Korea.  We spoke with Gravel about his travels,Iranian elections,  the state of the nation and the Obama presidency thus far.

This was Senator Gravel’s third appearance on The Weekly Filibuster.  We last spoke with the Senator and The Huffington Post’s Joe Lauria about their book A Political Odyssey on July 13, 2008.  The Senator first appeared on April 13, 2008 to talk about his decision to leave the Democratic Party to seek the Libertarian Party nomination for President.

Right wing opportunists have been going crazy this week over a few jokes by the newly re-crowned king of late night, David Letterman.  For his nightly “Top Ten list” on Tuesday, Letterman focused on the Alaska Governor’s recent trip to New York City.

Letterman controversially joked that Palin went to Bloomingdales to perfect her “slutty pilot look,” and joked that “one awkward moment [came] for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by [New York Yankees adulterer] Alex Rodriguez.”

Governor Palin and her husband Todd attacked Letterman, accusing him of making “perverted jokes” about their 14-year-old daughter Willow, who was traveling with Alaska’s first couple during their time in the Empire City.

Give me a break.

Click “Read More” below to continue reading this post.

Were Letterman’s in poor taste?  Yes.
Was Letterman making off-color jokes about a minor?  No.

Let’s be clear–anyone with a brain knows that Letterman wasn’t joking about Palin’s teenage daughter, Willow.  Letterman was very clearly joking about A-Rod knocking up Palin’s eighteen-year-old daughter, Bristol–the one that actually got knocked up.

Let’s face it–no one can make the case that Bristol is exactly “hands-off” when it comes to the media.  Like it or not, Bristol, is a public figure, by her own doing.  Not because Bristol showed the failure and ineffectiveness of the “abstinence-only” sexual education policies supported by her own mother, but because the Palin family allowed (perhaps provoked?) Bristol to embrace the media coverage–primely, gracing the cover of People magazine with baby Tripp less than a month ago.

As for Letterman’s suggestion that Palin looked to improve her “slutty pilot look,” probably a poor choice of words.  As Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele suggests a boycott of The Late Show,  let’s look at the big picture here–if Rush Limbaugh can get away with away with calling a Parkinsons’ sufferer an “actor,” we can let a poor slew of words slide from Mr. Letterman.

It’s hard to defend Letterman’s use of (a variation of ) the word “slut,” no doubt a sign of societal stereotypes that help support that proverbial glass ceiling, but, it’s so blatantly obvious to see through the spin of the “knocked up” joke.  The spin is a clear effort by Palin’s camp to spin her as a “victim” once again–when your bad ideas can’t get press, you need all the press you can get.

Sarah Palin is no “slut”–no matter what your politics, she’s still an elected official, a somewhat accomplished Governor, and a pretty big crack in that infamous glass ceiling.

But the right-wing sure has become a media hustler (“aggressively enterprising”).  The party of Dick Cheney, Richard Nixon, and Karl Rove will do anything for a headline.

Californians, facing a $21 billion budget shortfall, are now clamoring for a bailout of their own. I have very little sympathy for them. For years, with a growing economy, they irresponsibly demanded a massive expansion of government services along with a decline in the taxes that would pay for them. Citizens must, in one way or another, be brought to understand that those are competing desires. For too long, our politicians have told an all-too-ready-to-believe populace that they could have tax cuts and benefit increases. That is the conservative myth of supply-side economics. It is nothing but a license to abuse the government coffers.

In 1978, at the height of California’s conservative renaissance, the voters passed Proposition 13, an amendment to the California constitution to require any tax increases to pass with a 2/3rds vote and capped property taxes. The cap slashed property taxes by an average of over 50% according to government records. California might have been able to sustain such a blow, but the 64.8% of Californians who voted for Proposition 13 also elected a series of State Governments that cut all manner of taxes.

By the time Democrats had regained control of California government in 1999, taxes were a fragment of what they had once been. That seemed to work during times of unprecedented economic prosperity for the state, however, when the economy began to decline two years ago, there were a series of budget shortfalls. With low taxes, there was no money saved up for a period of falling revenues and with more people unemployed and without benefits, public services were more in demand. Unable to take out a loan, they were left with only the option of begging the rest of the country for help.

This was shortsighted. During economic prosperity, they should have had higher taxes so that they could maintain infrastructure and save money. That way, when the economy hit a slump, as is the natural order of capitalism, they could cut taxes and ramp up public services to get through the recession.

If California wants more government services, then they have to pay for it. I cannot see a reason why someone from Massachusetts who paid their taxes responsibly year after year should have to now pay federal taxes to make up for California’s irresponsibility. We need a system that rewards good political decision-making; a system that rewards responsible choices. Under no circumstances is there a good explanation for why our country’s largest economy, in the top 10 world-wide, should be in a budget crisis this terrible.

The federal government should give California the money that they request, because, ultimately, damage to the economy of California would be greatly detrimental nationally. However, their constitution forbids a loan. So, in return, there should be an agreement that California will reform their tax code. With an economic recovery in the next few years, Californians should be forced to reckon with the same tough decision that every other state has dealt with: a benefit increase and a tax increase, or a tax cut with a benefits cut. It’s entirely up to them.

Creigh Deeds won the Democratic Party’s Gubernatorial Primary on Tuesday night with nearly 50% of the vote. Two weeks ago it appeared that Terry McAuliffe would win the nomination in close competition with Brian Moran. At that point, the polling looked like McAuliffe would get a huge lift from northern Virginia but relatively little support anywhere else, especially in the most rural areas. Not only that, but McAuliffe was able to raise over $7 million for his primary challenge alone.

However, that was just not how it turned out. About a week ago, McAuliffe, by some polls, fell nearly ten percent: firmly into second place. Creigh Deeds, who was a long shot behind McAuliffe and Moran just a week and a half ago, was able to make a strong showing in northern Virginia. His more moderate positions and rhetoric helped him gain way in the south and west. The result was a massive swing of undecideds to his candidacy in the final week.

Sunday, The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza joined us to preview the race.  Click here to listen.

Opponents of closing Guantanamo ask questions like: where will you put them? In the United States? In American Prisons?

Yes!!! Every year we trust those maximum security prisons to keep us safe from serial killers, the plethora of murderers, and convicted rapists. We don’t worry that they might get out. Neither do the residents of Florence, Colorado which has a maximum-security facility with a capacity for 490 prisoners. Among the hardened criminals housed there are 33 terrorists. Among those is Zacarias Moussaoui, a 9/11 conspirator, Ramzi Yousef, leader of the first WTC bombing, and the shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Fox News doesn’t have a conniption fit over their threat to the United States. Hint: it’s because there isn’t one.

The 90 – 6 vote in the Senate against allocating funds to transfer prisoners is unacceptable. It represents an abdication of moral and constitutional responsibilities by the same Senate Democrats that were elected spicifically to restore the supremacy of the rule of law.

In Guantanamo Bay, the prisoners have (or had) in many cases been denied access to legal counsel, have been held for years on end without charges or evidence presented against them, and, in several situations have been abused. While the abuse has not been on the scale of Abu Ghraib, the interrogations have included the use of rabid-like dogs, waterboarding, prolonged sleep deprivation, and other ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques. Meanwhile, the cruelty of some prison guards outside of the interrogation room has led to such famous incidents as the defamation and flushing of a prisoners Koran.

Legally speaking, we have violated their 6th amendment rights to a speedy and public trial, and presentation of the charges and evidence against them, their 8th amendment protections against cruel & unusual punishment, their 5th amendment guarantee of due-process under the common-laws of the United States, and their 1st amendment protection of freedom of religious practice.

Anyone who supports the maintenance of Guantanamo as a prison in any form is supporting a system in which criminals will not be tried by criminal courts (as they have a right to), a system where standard evidentiary gathering practices mean nothing, and a system not governed by the laws of the United States. That is unacceptable in a democracy. Democracy requires the establishment of laws which no one, not even the government or its top officials, is above and no one, no matter how despised, is unprotected by. A country that ignores laws in times of emergency is no democracy.

Given that a transfer of prisoners would really be quite safe, I can only see two reasons for Senate Republican’s exploitation of this issue. First, they saw a political opportunity in this divisive issue and decided to exploit it to restore the narrative that Democrats are weak on national security. Or, they actually do not believe that our government owes everyone a fair trial. That they actually believe that it’s O.K. for the government to hold detainees without charges for years on end, and when they do, to try them before a military tribunal where they cannot even hear the evidence against them. In that case, those Republicans do not believe in the most basic of all constitutional protections: the foundation of American law. If this is the case, then they should resign. They took a hallowed oath to “protect and defend the constitution of the United States” and if they won’t do it, then ought not be public servants.