Author Archive | Jon Hall

In science, there are lots of facts, but only a few theories. Fewer still, perhaps, are the “laws” of science, one of which is the Law of Conservation of Matter, which holds that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The laws of science, however, aren’t good enough for the Federal Reserve — you see, the Fed creates money.

Since the financial crisis of 2008, the Federal Reserve has created trillions of new dollars. The Fed creates money when it buys assets, which is called “quantitative easing,” or QE. The assets the Fed buys can be “whatever assets it likes: government bonds, equities, houses, corporate bonds or other assets from banks.” For instance, when it launched QE2 in Nov. 2010, the Fed bought $600B in U.S. Treasury bonds.

Just as the Fed creates money, it also destroys money. The Fed destroys money when it sells assets. When the Fed sells its assets, it takes money out of the system; that money is then no longer out in the economy where folks can use it. (I’m not sure if the Fed hits the delete button when the checks for its sales clear, or if that even matters.)

One would think with so many trillions of new dollars pumped out into the world that “price inflation” would erupt. That hasn’t happened because the Fed’s new money isn’t circulating; it’s “sitting on the sidelines.” That the Fed’s new dollars are idle may be a boon, respecting price inflation. For if commercial banks were indeed loaning their new money out, the number of dollars in the system would be even greater than what the Fed has created. That’s because of the money multiplier of our “fractional reserve” banking system. But, if the Fed’s new money started to be used in the economy, price inflation should return. In which case the Fed would need to end QE and begin what analysts call the “exit strategy.”  Continue Reading →

The silver lining in the Supreme Court’s decision on ObamaCare is that it ratcheted back Congress’s power and authority under the Commerce Clause. That’s a victory for Freedom, for on page 43 of the Court’s opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts writes (italics added):

“Once we recognize that Congress may regulate a particular decision under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear. Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs. An individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. Those sanctions can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the attendant consequences of being branded a criminal: deprivation of otherwise protected civil rights, such as the right to bear arms or vote in elections; loss of employment opportunities; social stigma; and severe disabilities in other controversies, such as custody or immigration disputes.”

To repeat, under the Commerce Clause, “Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs.” So the Chief Justice has done us a favor, as few Americans relish the thought of being bossed around by the likes of the Pelosi-Reid Congress, the worst Congress in history.

What was on trial in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius was the expansion of federal power. The big question in NFIB v. Sebelius was: Does the Commerce Clause grant Congress the power to command individuals to buy a product?

In oral arguments, justices repeatedly asked the Solicitor General for some “limiting principle” so that Congress couldn’t just command Americans to do anything. No such principle was presented, so the Court struck down the individual mandate to buy health insurance.

America is a nation of dual sovereignty, where the States (and the People) retain power except for those powers the Constitution vests in the federal government, which the States created. The federal government is therefore a limited government of enumerated powers. America’s dual sovereignty is unequivocally confirmed by the Tenth Amendment.  Continue Reading →

One question legal minds might entertain when pondering whether ObamaCare ought to be overturned is this: Should any law be constitutional that is so damned ugly? Whether one looks at process, product, implementation, or its legal defense, ObamaCare is unrelievedly repulsive. Better to strangle such monstrosities in their cribs than let them propagate.

Of course, aesthetics was not on trial in Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. But as America waits for the Supreme Court to render its decision later this month on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), let’s go down memory lane and consider the process that got us here.

In his 2008 campaign, candidate Obama was against the mandate that individuals buy health insurance. But Obama had also campaigned on “change,” and so upon attaining the presidency he did just that and accepted a bill where the mandate was the funding linchpin. As a candidate, Obama made pledges that the process of writing the bill would be transparent, with real-time updates on C-Span and the Internet. Pledges of transparency were tossed aside when it came to dealing with the pharmaceutical industry and its drive to block re-importation of drugs from Canada. Other aspects of process to consider include: Continue Reading →

In the movie Casino (1995), Ace Rothstein is dining in the restaurant of the casino he manages and discovers that his blueberry muffin doesn’t have as many blueberries as his dinner companion’s blueberry muffin. Being the boss of the joint, he marches back to the kitchen for a chat with his baker (video):

ROTHSTEIN: From now on, I want you to put an equal amount of blueberries in each muffin — an equal amount of blueberries in each muffin.

BAKER: Do you know how long that’s going to take?

ROTHSTEIN: I don’t care how long it takes. Put an equal amount in each muffin.

If Rothstein were a leftist, this scene would epitomize the Left’s obsession with equality. My diagnosis is that Ace suffers from OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder. In any event, a lefty is like a child at a birthday party complaining that another kid got a bigger piece of cake than he did.

In a conversation about equal treatment of the sexes — I forget whether we were talking about the military draft, unisex bathrooms, or what — a young woman actually told me that “equal” doesn’t mean “the same.” Uh, yes it does. Equal means: the same in all respects; identical; no differences whatsoever. Indeed, “equal” equals equal. Continue Reading →

Democracy is on the march. Afghans and Iraqis have proudly raised their purple fingers. Elections are scheduled for Egypt. Recall elections are afoot in Wisconsin. The will of the people will not be ignored.

Yet, between the ideal of democracy and its realization falls the shadow — democracy is thwarted when elections are stolen.

But how can an election be stolen? After all, elections involve the simplest math: the adding of ones over and over again until one has gone through all the ballots. Assuming that these ones are added to their correct, intended targets (and that election officials are honest), the theft of elections happens when illegal ballots are cast. Such ballots are cast by ineligible voters and/or by repeat voters.

The way to detect illegal voters is by identifying legal voters using their unique data. Courts already use the unique data of DNA to establish guilt and innocence. But voters aren’t going to relish having their mouths swabbed for DNA just so they can proceed to the voting booth; elections would be too much like flying commercial.

OK, then what about using fingerprints or iris scans to establish identity?

The reason fingerprints and iris scans are a quick way to verify for admittance into secure areas is because there are so few people allowed into such areas, and therefore only a few scans are on-file to match against. But if there were hundreds of millions to match against, such as in the American electorate, fingerprints and iris scans would be less feasible methods for quick verifications.

Not only that, voters would need to have their unique data on-file residing in some database before an election so that computers could make matches — if you’re not on-file, you don’t get to vote. Which means everyone would need to have his iris scanned and/or fingerprints taken beforehand.

Using the unique biometric data above seems like a lot of trouble, and some folks would object to it as a violation of privacy. But there is one unique datum that every citizen can have that is practical, and that is a number.

For instance, banks don’t use unique biometric data to keep their customers’ accounts separate; they use unique numbers. If a bank customer wants to do something with his account, he uses his account number to gain direct access to his account, there’s no need for a computer to analyze complex data, like iris patterns or fingerprint swirls.  Continue Reading →

Equality is the highest value of the American political Left. So the Left is always on the lookout for any trace of inequality. And of course they find it — everywhere. That’s because equality doesn’t exist in this world, except when we get down on the micro level. On the micro level of quarks, electrons, photons, and such, equality reigns supreme. Indeed, if any subatomic particle were suddenly to become unequal, the world would end. But on the macro level, the world we live in, inequality is inescapable.

We do find exquisite equality, however, in the realm of abstractions. In mathematics we have equations: Two plus two equals four. (That’s how I’m betting, anyway.) And in political philosophy we have “All men are created equal.” Immortal words, but we know they aren’t true. Even identical twins aren’t really equal, despite having the same DNA. What Jefferson was getting at is that government should treat everyone equally, not favor a few. There are only two uses of “equal” in Jefferson’s magnificent Declaration, in the first paragraph and in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

In the original Constitution, there are exactly six iterations of the word “equal” and its variations. There are two iterations in Article I, three iterations in Article II, and a single iteration in Article V. In all these instances, the Framers use the word “equal” to refer to number. In the first ten amendments to the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, there is no instance of “equal.” In all the rest of the Constitution, Amendments 11 through 27, there are only two iterations of “equal.” One is in the 23rd Amendment, and it, too, has to do with number.

The remaining iteration of the word “equal” is found in the 14th Amendment, Section 1. I’ve saved it for last because unlike all the other iterations it doesn’t concern number. It’s called the Equal Protection Clause: “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Continue Reading →

Even though it dealt with the rather non-controversial issue of congressional pay, the last amendment to the Constitution (#27) took almost 203 years to be ratified. By contrast, our next to last amendment was passed and ratified in less than four months in 1971 but dealt with an issue that is controversial — extending the vote to kids.

But one must appreciate the times in which Amendment 26 came about: It was the Vietnam War era, when 18-year-old kids were getting drafted and thrown into battle. Anyone serving his country like that deserves the vote, whatever his age.

However, in our culture of extended childhood, 18-year-olds are usually still children. Also, 18-year-olds are ignorant; that’s why they’re still in school. Some of them, the goths, haven’t even shed their fascination with vampires. So rather than enfranchising them all, a better solution would have been to extend the vote only to those kids serving in the military, and let the rest wait until they’re 21.

At the other end of the age spectrum are seniors. And, like 18-year-olds, many seniors aren’t too swift either, having a much higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, senile dementia, etc. than the rest of us. But none of that keeps them from voting, which they do in droves. Which is why so much of the federal budget goes to them.

To be eligible to vote, seniors should take a test to prove they’re still competent, just as they do to prove they can still drive safely. Indeed, those past the average age of death shouldn’t even be allowed to vote. Allowing folks who are soon to check out of this world to vote on how this world is going to be run after they’re gone is daffy. It’s akin to having a thoroughly repudiated Congress legislate in a  “lame duck” session. Continue Reading →

Paul Krugman, columnist for The New York Times, is a piece of work. You see, Krugman is always right. And if you don’t agree with him, you’re “crazy.”  Krugman begins his July 14 column, “Getting to Crazy”, with this:

“There aren’t many positive aspects to the looming possibility of a U.S. debt default. But there has been, I have to admit, an element of comic relief — of the black-humor variety — in the spectacle of so many people who have been in denial suddenly waking up and smelling the crazy.”

All craziness aside, the only way the United States could default is if President Obama were to deliberately refuse to pay off our bonds. The 14th Amendment, Section 4 forbids Obama from doing this. Obama isn’t going to risk impeachment, is he?

And surely Krugman, our Nobel Prizing-winning celebrity economist, knows that the United States can “print” money. What’s the use of a fiat currency if you can’t print off a few trillion every now and then?

So all this talk of “default” is, uh, crazy. The real worry concerns being backed into the corner and having to “print” more money to make good on our debt. QE2 then becomes QE3 and there’ll be no end to the QE’s. Also, there’s the looming possibility of a credit downgrade. (Kevin Williamson recently wrote a very sobering article for NRO on the repercussions of a credit downgrade.) Anyway, after Krugman gets through his usual invective, he trots out this:

“President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions.”

OK, when do these cuts happen? If they don’t happen immediately or in FY2012, they aren’t real, as neither Obama nor Congress have control over anything beyond the next fiscal year. Even if they agree to a budget for FY2013, the next government can override it. The acid test of Obamian seriousness on spending cuts is whether the feds will still be funding NPR, NEA, NEH, cowboy poetry festivals, etc. — in 2012. If cuts are off-loaded to the “out years,” then Obama’s cuts are unenforceable, and won’t correct America’s fiscal death spiral, which is happening now. Continue Reading →

With the establishment of judicial review in 1803 by Marberry vs. Madison, the Supreme Court became the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Constitutional matters, such as whether the Second Amendment affirms the right to possess firearms to the individual or to some militia, ultimately wind their way to the Supreme Court where the meaning of the Constitution’s provisions is voted on and decided. This can take years.

The Court, however, is not infallible. Sometimes the Court reverses itself. The recent Kelo decision, for instance, begs for reversal. And some Court decisions are stains on American history, such as Plessy vs. Ferguson and the Dred Scot decision. So the Supremes are quite capable of error. Also, the Court can be intimidated, as happened under FDR with his attempts to pack the Court.

Despite their human frailties, justices are appointed for life. Only one Supreme Court justice has been impeached, Samuel Chase in 1804. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805. Federal judges also rule on questions of constitutionality, and they, too, are appointed for life. Since 1789, the Senate has tried 14 impeached federal judges and removed six. This includes former federal judge Alcee Hastings, who was found guilty of corruption and perjury, and removed from office in 1989. (Since 1993, Mr. Hastings has served as the U.S. Representative from Florida’s 23rd district.)  Continue Reading →