Beta
Skip to main content

Author: Jose Nino

Ron Paul Believes the Federal Reserve’s Days Are Numbered

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economics. 4 Comments on Ron Paul Believes the Federal Reserve’s Days Are Numbered

Is the Federal Reserve on the ropes? In his weekly column, Former Congressman Ron Paul believes the warfare-welfare state could be on its final legs. The Fed’s recent decision to cut its benchmark interest rates from 2.25% to 2% has many worried about the Fed reverting back to its easy money ways. Even President Donald Trump was not satisfied with this cut because there was no indication that the Fed was committed to future cuts down the line. Interest rates are already low as it is, and Trump claims to have the best economy ever. So, what gives? If we look at recent Fed history, this is part of a decades-long trend of it pursing near-zero interest rates and so-called “quantitative easing,” which is a euphemism for printing money. Even with these policies in place, real economic growth has lagged and Americans continue to save very little. This recent rate cut will not likely boost economic growth and will continue to incentivize Americans to not save and engage in unsustainable consumerism. Deep down, Trump probably realizes that the American economy is built on a house of cards but still wants to maintain the illusion that the economy is in great shape. Electoral incentives play a massive role as well, and he wants to do all he can to get re-elected in 2020. Good political maneuvering does not translate into economic prosperity, however. All things considered, these moves towards easy money have the makings of a potential crisis. Ron Paul is correct in noting how the Fed’s rate cut coincided with Congress’s recent decision to pass a monster budget. By increasing the government debt, the Fed is pressured to keep interest rates artificially low in order to prevent the federal government’s interest payments from reaching unsustainable levels. To his credit, Trump’s tax and regulatory reforms were welcome aspects of his presidency. The current U.S. tax code is incredibly convoluted, and the regulatory state is simply too much of a hassle for businesses nationwide. Nevertheless, Trump’s continuation of big spending and the Fed’s easy money policies will effectively negate whatever gains that the Trump administration has made on the taxation and regulatory fronts. The good news is that more people are becoming skeptical of central banking altogether. With renewed support behind the Audit the Fed bill in Congress campaigns to have states re-legalize gold and silver as legal tender, and the emerging interest in cryptocurrencies, central banking’s legitimacy is being questioned by the day.  However, none of this would have started without Ron Paul’s efforts while he was in Congress to raise awareness on monetary policy. We don’t know when the next recession will hit, but there are more people than ever before who are aware of easy money’s pitfalls. It’s very likely these same individuals who have warned about the Fed’s policies will be in a promising position during the next economic crisis as people search for answers. This time around, we have more advocates and a parallel structure in cryptocurrencies that can put us on the path to free-market currencies. Dr. Paul might be on to something when he argues that central banking’s days are numbered and the warfare/welfare state may also be on its way out.
NSA surveillance privacy

Mass Surveillance Is Coming to Public Venues in America

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Personal Liberty. 1 Comment on Mass Surveillance Is Coming to Public Venues in America

With how much outrage politics consumes the media cycle, issues like the growing surveillance state tend to be overlooked. Now, the TSA-style body scanners that everyone loves (sarcasm intended) could be coming to public venues. The Salt Lake Tribune notes that the Utah Attorney General and law enforcement are teaming up with Liberty Defense, a 3D image scanning company whose business model is largely predicated on spying on people. A Fox 13 report indicates that police will use Liberty Defense’s HEXWAVE to spy on people at public events such as concerts, malls, and stadiums. NSA surveillance privacy It’s no secret that the U.S. has embraced a much larger surveillance state since 9/11. Not only has the government spearheaded such efforts, but there have been a substantial number of private actors that have joined along to violate civil liberties.   When we think about it, the name of the company in this case, Liberty Defense, is quite ironic. Its motto is, “Protecting Communities and Preserving Peace of Mind.” Nothing promotes peace of mind like having an all-seeing government spy on your private affairs. Sadly, most of the populace has accepted these types of government intrusions. Liberty Defense’s CEO Bill Riker announced that, “HEXWAVE could be deployed at mass gatherings like concerts, malls, stadiums, public transit stops and government buildings.” It’s becoming abundantly clear that the political establishment wants to take the same airport security model provided by the TSA and use it to target suspicious people. The Utah Attorney General’s office rolled out a “Memorandum of Understanding” which explains how HEXWAVE would be used in surveillance plans:
  1. Sporting & Concert Arenas, Stadiums and Olympic Venues;
  2. Primary, Secondary and Higher Education Facilities;
  3. Places of Worship, Facilities and Property Owned by or Affiliated with Faith Entities;
  4. Government Offices, Buildings and Facilities;
  5. Amusement Parks; and
  6. Entertainment Events, Conventions, Shows & Festivals
Police intend to use HEXWAVE to spy on the public during “non-business hours to get system exposure to the full range of potential operating conditions to include environmental, frequency/volume of use or other operating conditions to which HEXWAVE would be subjected.” There have been rumblings that Liberty Defense is a Homeland Security or Department of Defense front group. Speculations and rumors aside, this business is becoming a willing participant in the mass surveillance state. Just like its cousins in the defense industry, Liberty Defense shows that opportunistic private actors will easily sell their soul to the state and work with it to advance anti-liberty schemes. These new forms of surveillance are expensive forms of security theater, and in worst-case scenarios, springboards for massive civil liberties violations. Instead, we should focus more on changing our foreign policy so that it does not generate as much blowback in the form of terror attacks. Additionally, America should scale down its vast military presence and focus more on defense at home. We don’t need an Orwellian bureaucracy to make our communities safe. 

Donald Trump Wants South Korea to Pay Up for Defense Services

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Foreign Policy. 1 Comment on Donald Trump Wants South Korea to Pay Up for Defense Services

Say what you want about President Donald Trump, but he has opened up some interesting discussions on foreign policy. On Wednesday, August 7, President Trump suggested South Korea pay America more for its defense costs. According to a tweet he made, Trump says that he is in talks with South Korean leadership to increase the $990 million that South Korea pays the U.S. for defense. Bombastic demands aside, Trump is correct about this aspect of foreign relations. With hundreds of military bases abroad, the U.S. has become a de facto world policeman and effectively subsidizes other countries’ defense. In essence, America is expected to bail out other countries when hot conflicts emerge. It’s even starker when discussing the case of South Korea — a modernized, first world country. With the resources it has at its disposal, South Korea is more than capable of funding its own military operations and defend itself against potential geopolitical threats like North Korea. Trump correctly noted this in his tweet “South Korea is a very wealthy nation that now feels an obligation to contribute to the military defense provided by the United States of America.” However, many interest groups in Washington D.C. enjoy the current status quo of military overreach. Since World War II, the American government has made sure to park troops all over the globe, which puts the country in an awkward position where it is obligated to respond to any potential military conflicts. The founders were both correct about entangling alliances and military overreach. For those reasons, they advocated non-interventionism and kept standing armies small and limited their functions to actual national defense.  However, America has deviated from that vision of a humble foreign policy during the last century. Instead, it has submitted to the whims of narrow interest groups such as the defense industry and so-called foreign policy “experts” in D.C. who have never seen a foreign excursion that they didn’t like. Although not ideal, having other countries pony up more resources for defending them is a good conversation starter. A truly positive change would involve the U.S. completely withdrawing from countries such as South Korea and Japan. Then, America can exclusively focus on defending its own borders. Nevertheless, the discussion must start somewhere. Hopefully, Trump stands his ground and starts demanding more from other American allies. The U.S. should not be defending other countries for free.

New Poll Shows That a Majority of Women Support Socialist Policies

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economics. 6 Comments on New Poll Shows That a Majority of Women Support Socialist Policies

A new Harris poll documents that 55 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 54 prefer socialist policies. However, men remained steadfast in their opposition to socialism. This poll is among the latest in polls indicating that younger generations are becoming more receptive to a state-controlled economy. Above all, women seem to be a demographic that has seen an uptick in support of leftist ideas. The socialism debate has become one of the larger themes going into the 2020 elections. Just looking at countries within our own hemisphere like Cuba and Venezuela, we see what command and control economies are capable of doing to countries. However, this has not fazed many on the Left on the issue. The aforementioned Harris poll shows that “the public has varying levels of agreement on what exactly constitutes a socialist political system” and there still remains differing views on what socialism exactly means. In reality, what this poll shows is that a growing segment of the population wants a mixed economy with more generous social benefits. Nevertheless, this will require a more activist government in order to be enforced. The poll highlighted what exactly constitutes “socialism” in people’s minds:
  1. Universal healthcare: 76%
  2. Tuition-free education: 72%
  3. Living wage: 68%
  4. State-controlled economy: 66%
  5. State control and regulation of private property: 61%
  6. High taxes for the rich: 60%
  7. State-controlled media and communication: 57%
  8. Strong environmental regulations: 56%
  9. High public spending: 55%
  10. Government “democratizes” private businesses — that is, gives workers control over them — to the greatest extent possible: 52%
  11. System dependent on dictatorship: 49%
  12. Workers own and control their places of employment: 48%
  13. Democratically-elected government: 46%
It is sad to see western countries fall for petty identity politics that is used to mobilize people to promote collectivist causes. Capitalism has made us more humane in certain regards. In one aspect, capitalism helped free women from certain oppressive cultural practices such as domestic abuse and enabled them to make a living outside of the traditional house setting. Thanks to these developments, they now have the choice of being homemakers or pursuing careers as they see fit. This, unfortunately, goes over many statist’s heads as they prefer to turn to the easy out of identity politics. 2016 was a big year for the normalization of socialist ideas in America. Bernie Sander’s campaign put forward the idea of “democratic socialism” on the map. He has continued championing these ideas during his present 2020 campaign and now has a known Venezuela apologist in David Sirota as his speechwriter. Younger generations can also look to one of their own in the freshman Congresswoman Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez. AOC has made a name for herself by denouncing capitalism and pushing for more government control over people’s private economic decisions. Although her statements are wrong-headed, she continues to amass a giant following in social media and is poised to be the future of the Democratic party. Liberty advocates will have to reclaim support from these groups and make the case that systems that respect property rights and voluntary interactions are the best ways to organize society. 
gun

Western Australia Shows That Gun Control Has Its Limits

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights. No Comments on Western Australia Shows That Gun Control Has Its Limits

Gun control advocates frequently laud Australia for its gun control laws and use it as a gun control example for the U.S. to follow. According to a report from Bearing Arms, however, Australia’s gun control laws might not be the cure-all that many are marketing them to be. Western Australia is now experiencing some problems concerning its ability to track certain weapons. State Auditor General Caroline Spencer claims in a new audit analyzing the effectiveness of Western Australia’s gun control policies that the Western Australia Police “has significant weaknesses in its regulatory controls and information systems.” gun The auditor contended that the assessment and decision-making “lack demonstrated rigor and transparency.” Further, the audit also found there is limited monitoring of compliance with license conditions, and when police does inspect, it is not informed by a documented risk assessment. Police is also slow to follow up when licenses have expired or for deceased estate firearms. Even the basic compliance information is hard to obtain according to the executive summary:
Risk-based and timely compliance activities are essential to effective regulation of firearms. Police’s key firearm licensing information system does not effectively support the entity to carry out its licensing and compliance activities. Basic licence and compliance information is unreliable and hard to get.
What we see here is the difficulty of administering even the most draconian of gun laws. Even a country with supposedly “stellar” gun control laws like Australia will have trouble enforcing those laws. No matter where you go, law enforcement resources are tight. Adding more administrative work through gun control legislation will make it harder for law enforcement to pursue real crimes. Despite being marketed as the answer to gun violence, Australia’s gun laws have not been a cure-all for shootings and other forms of violence. In fact, a mass shooting took place on June 4, 2019 in Darwin, Australia where four people were killed by a gunman who used an illegal gun. On top of that, after Australia’s passage of the National Firearms Agreement in 1996, there have been numerous troubling trends regarding other forms of crimes such as rapes and sexual assaults. In 400 Years of Gun Control, Howard Nemerov demonstrated that Australia experienced a 21.4 percent increase in the rate of rapes and sexual assaults during 1995 to 2006. In contrast, America witnessed sexual assaults fall by 16.8 percent. One theory behind why this trend occurred is that increased gun ownership benefits weaker segments of society— elderly people and women — when confronting criminals who generally overpower theme with brute strength. When dealing with the issue of crime, there are numerous factors at play, and they usually don’t involve gun control. One thing to note is that in the West there has seen an over-arching trend of decreasing violence over the last 50 years. In fact, the U.S. has experienced decreasing crime rates while liberalizing various state laws during this period. Nevertheless, policy experts should probably reconsider gun control laws’ impact on crime rates. There are very likely much larger factors such as cultural cohesion and social trust that explain why certain countries have higher crime rates than others. Australia is a peaceful country, but it’s likely not because of its gun laws, which appear to be harder to enforce these days.

Rural Illinois Wants to Break up from Chicago

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights. No Comments on Rural Illinois Wants to Break up from Chicago

It’s common knowledge that the city of Chicago effectively determines all politics in Illinois. In effect, progressive politics is imposed on rural voters whether they like it or not. On the issue of gun control, this is most notable. Chicago has earned notoriety for being a gun control hub and also one of the most violent urban centers in America. Bearing Arms reports that “rural Illinois, however, wants no part of gun control.” There have been recent talks about separating Chicago from the rest of the state. Additionally, they have discussed encouraging more counties to pass gun sanctuary resolutions. Two Republican state representatives, the Effingham County Board Chairman and Vice Chairman, and two gun rights activists addressed residents in Sangamon County about this idea recently. They discussed the attempt to break Chicago away from Illinois and why county boards statewide are passing gun rights sanctuary resolutions. This effort to separate Chicago from the rest of Illinois stems from controversial legislation on subjects such as tax hikes, gun rights, and social policies State Representative Chris Miller said, “this is shrinking all the time, but the last I checked [Illinois] had the 18th largest economy in the world — in the world — and we have done almost everything that we can possibly do to destroy that.” He added, “so just think about what would happen if we, instead of having the highest of everything, if we were the lowest of everything … we would be thriving.” The gun rights sanctuary movement is one of the fastest growing examples of political decentralization taking place in the nation. Oregon got the ball rolling in 2018 when it decided to pass Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances. Soon this movement spread like wildfire across America when other states like California, Colorado, and Rhode Island passed their own gun sanctuary resolutions. Rural dwellers in blue states are starting to realize that conventional legislative means are not the answer to changing public policy. Focusing more on their counties and town halls is where they will have the most impact.

Veteran’s Right to Bear Arms Will Be Denied If He Acquires Medical Marijuana Prescription

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights, Healthcare. 2 Comments on Veteran’s Right to Bear Arms Will Be Denied If He Acquires Medical Marijuana Prescription

America’s servicemen are being denied their right to self-defense simply if they use medical marijuana. The Dallas Morning News recounted the disturbing case of Joshua Raines, a veteran and Purple Heart recipient who has been battling epilepsy and PTSD during the last few years. After serving in the military for five years, Raines started to develop debilitating conditions. In order to treat them, Raines used marijuana. However, he did so illegally. Veterans Technically, under the Compassionate Use Program, Raines would have been eligible for a legal prescription of medical marijuana starting in 2015. That year, Texas lawmakers enacted the program to allow patients with uncontrolled epilepsy to use medical marijuana. Interestingly enough, the veteran has not sought a prescription due to the fact that doing so would have him stripped of his right to bear arms. Raines commented, “Why am I going to give up one of my rights because I found an organic plant that some are uncomfortable with?” “I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to trade my rights like baseball cards.” During the last 15 years, states across the nation have either legalized or decriminalized marijuana. Most have actually legalized medical marijuana in some shape or form despite its classification under federal law as a controlled substance “with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” For the most part, the feds have maintained a hands-off approach to enforcement in light of states defying the law. On the other hand, guns come with stricter regulations. In accordance with federal law, it is illegal for a marijuana user to purchase a firearm. For many gun owners in Texas, acquiring medical marijuana is not an option due to the threat of them losing their gun rights. The Texas director of Gun Owners of America, Rachel Malone commented on this situation. “To tell Texans you can’t purchase a firearm if you have a compassionate use card is unconscionable. We should not force people to choose between gun ownership and taking care of themselves.” Firearms application forms have explicit questions about the use of “marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.” They also highlight how marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The warning section, states the following: “Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” In the Dallas Morning News article, Raines admitted that he would use marijuana, regardless of the legal consequences, because of how effective it has been in treating his seizure bouts. He resoundingly concluded, “I fought for the right to bear arms. It’s literally in our Constitution for me to be able to own a gun. For the state of Texas that is the most pro-gun, I think it’s ridiculous I would have to trade one of my rights.” A state like Texas, which supposedly has some of the best gun laws in the nation, should not be allowing such an injustice to occur. This shows the strong linkage between the issue of gun rights and drug freedom. Liberty is tied to every human activity and should not be treated as mutually exclusive concepts when dealing with activities that some of us don’t partake in. The connection of these two issues also gives a pragmatic case study of the necessity to build coalitions with separate interest groups—gun rights and drug reform. Although Raines’ case is sad, it does present a golden opportunity for liberty activists to position themselves accordingly and build trans partisan coalitions.  

Hong Kong and Singapore Best America in New Competition Rankings

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economic Liberty. No Comments on Hong Kong and Singapore Best America in New Competition Rankings

Hong Kong and Singapore have topped America in the latest World Competitiveness Rankings by the Institute of Management Development. This ranking measures how friendly a nation is to business activity. Economist Dan Mitchell provided a visual illustration of these new rankings. Switzerland found itself right behind the United States. It is one of the few countries in the world that takes political decentralization seriously and has largely weathered the storm of toxic identity politics and never-ending wars. Other countries, like the United Arab Emirates, entered the top 5 for the first time. The UAE has distinguished itself from its Middle Eastern peers through emphasizing markets and focusing less on expansionism, something that Islamic megastates like Iran and Saudi Arabia have engaged in over the last few decades. But Singapore’s rise in these rankings is no coincidence. A simplified tax code and the ease of starting business has catapulted it in these rankings. America’s tax system, however, is in need of an overhaul. To the Trump administration’s credit, it has at least gotten the conversation started with corporate tax reforms. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of work to do. Furthermore, given the excessive centralization of its system, America should consider more decentralization in its affairs. Even more radical versions of decentralization, such as separatism, should be considered. If the United States wants to reclaim its top spot in these rankings, it’s time to stop beating around the bush and actually make an effort to put D.C. on a diet. 

Red Flag Laws are Not a Magical Solution to Gun Violence

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Second Amendment. 2 Comments on Red Flag Laws are Not a Magical Solution to Gun Violence

Last weekend’s spurt of mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas has brought the dreaded gun control debate back into the mix. Combine that with identity politics, and we have all the makings for unproductive discussions on public policy. The media have been quick to blame white supremacy and associate President Donald Trump with this shooting. The shooter’s manifesto is filled with hateful language and anti-immigrant sentiment, which should be condemned. But there’s more to this story than meets the eye. First of all, white Americans are not the only group carrying out gun violence. Journalist Zaid Jilani pointed out that there were two mass shootings in Chicago on the night of August 3, 2019. This was the same day that the El Paso massacre took place. He argues that gun violence in Chicago “has become so normalized it doesn’t even make national news.” Reports from CBS Chicago indicate that three people were killed and 40 were wounded last weekend. Four shootings occurred on August 2, 12 shootings on August 3, and five shootings on August 4. CBS also reported that there were “two mass shootings overnight in Chicago — both in the West Side’s Lawndale neighborhood.” The state of Illinois has stringent gun controls which include red flag gun confiscation laws. Despite having these laws present, shootings take place regularly. Chicago is one of the urban centers that epitomizes the failure of gun control policies. While most mainstream conservatives get this at face value, they still are under the illusion that they can make certain gun control schemes work. GOP politicians like Congressman Dan Crenshaw and Senator Lindsey Graham ignore this at their own constituents’ peril as they champion red flag gun confiscation orders as the “solution” to America’s supposed gun violence “crisis.” In a debate that is filled with so much emotion, researcher John Lott brings cool-headed reasoning. His research has demonstrated that red flag laws are ineffective in hindering crime, let alone stopping mass shootings. After looking at data from 1970 through 2017, Lott determined that “Red Flag laws appear to have had no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault or burglary. There is some evidence that rape rates rise. These laws apparently do not save lives.” A more practical example would be the case in Connecticut. The state passed a red flag law in 1999, making it one of the first states in the country to advance such legislation. Gun control proponents would make us think that is the magical solution to gun violence. Well, it didn’t turn out to be that way. Adam Lanza was still able to carry out his massacre at Sandy Hook in 2012. All in all, there isn’t a legislative quick fix. More than just having every civilian armed, venues should start considering private security options in today’s increasingly polarized political climate. We must come grips with the fact that the government isn’t going to save us. Often times, it hurts us. On the other hand, there are plenty of solutions both in the market and civil society at our disposal to confront these problems. Let’s give those a try.

Federal Employment Is Starting to Increase Again under Trump

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Welfare. No Comments on Federal Employment Is Starting to Increase Again under Trump

CNS News reports that the number of employees under the federal government’s payroll is starting to grow once again under President Donald Trump’s watch. From April to May 2019, the total number of federal employees increased from 2,811,000 to 2,815,000. This increase of 4,000 adds up to the highest number of workers under the federal government’s payroll since President Barack Obama left office. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that in Obama’s last month in office, December 2016, 2,817,000 workers were employed by Uncle Sam. Come January 2017, those numbers plummeted to 2,810,000. Thus far in the Trump presidency, federal employment bottomed out at 2,792,000 in February and March 2018. These figures have now jumped up by 23,000, to 2,815,000. Looking at the bigger picture, these numbers are still far from the figures during George H.W. Bush’s administration — a time when the federal government could count on 3,435,000 people on its payroll. Even though federal employment increased by 4,000 in May, employment at all levels of government fell by 15,000. During the period of April to May 2019, these numbers went down from 22,529,000 to 22,514,000. At the state level, 10,000 workers left the government workforce—dropping from 5,178,000 in April to 5,168,000 in May. Further, local government employment numbers saw a reduction by 9,000 workers—going from 14,540,000 in April to 14,531,000 in May. Employment at all levels of government reached a peak of 22,996,000 in May 2010 based on historical figures from the BLS. Since then, federal employment decreased by 482,000 down to a total of 22,514,000 government workers at the federal, state, and local levels.  Indeed, the American government has morphed into a bureaucratic monstrosity. The Progressive Era, which brought us income taxation and central banking, has fostered non-stop government growth. No matter which party is in power, it appears that government growth is practically automated into the American political system.  American presidents, Trump included, will always have their hands full taming this unruly beast. Draining the Swamp will be no easy task. It may require a complete shift in political culture to get all branches of the U.S. government to actually make a concerted effort to reduce the size of government. That means liberty activists can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines. The time to change political culture is now. 
presidency, trump, government,

Higher Tariffs Could Destroy Gains from Trump’s Tax Cuts

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Trade & Tarrifs. No Comments on Higher Tariffs Could Destroy Gains from Trump’s Tax Cuts

President Donald Trump’s tax cuts have been a positive so far in his presidency. But they could all go to waste based on the president’s recent tariff maneuvers. The New York Times reports that the tariffs Trump is using to punish trading partners like China and Europe would wipe out the gains from his $1.5 trillion tax cuts for lower and middle class earners. Thankfully for taxpayers, Trump and Mexico came to an agreement to at least make an effort to tackle the crisis at the border. Otherwise, Mexico could have faced stiff tariff hikes of 25 percent on its products. CNN What’s often missing in this equation is the fact that tariffs are a tax that is ultimately passed on to consumers through higher priced goods. Tariffs tend be concentrated in their damage, as a percentage of income, at the lowest levels of American income earners. This segment of the American populace spends a larger portion of their salaries on imports than the upper middle class and rich do. Kyle Pomerlau of the Tax Foundation broke down the harsh truth about the Trump tariffs:
“Once you start adding in the tariffs and start talking about what Trump wants to do at the end of the day it gets harder and harder for Trump and Republicans to claim that they are cutting taxes for the middle class.”
Even Trump’s tax cuts, which were a positive first step, ended up being offset by the previous tariff hikes. According to Tax Foundation research, the lowest fifth of tax-paying wage earners in America were hit by a 1.1 percent tax increase. Individuals in the middle fifth saw their taxes increase by 0.3 percent. Further, upper middle class earners witnessed the gains they made from the Trump tax cuts effectively nullified. On the other hand, the top 5 percent of wage earners were still in the positive by experiencing a net tax cut of more than 1 percent on the year. All in all, tariffs are regressive in nature, with the lower classes tending to shoulder the majority of the tax burden. In some regards, tariffs are preferable to the current system of taxation in the United States. They used to be the primary way that the government funded itself. But there’s a caveat—  government spending was much lower, standing at 3 percent of GDP. Furthermore, there was no bureaucratic managerial state nor was there a central banking system causing economic distortions. In short, the government was much smaller when tariff rates were high during the late 19th century. Context is important, and that’s why tariffs are not the silver bullet in dealing with countries like Mexico. There are other measures that can be pursued by the Trump administration to get Mexico’s act together. Overhauling the U.S. immigration system so that it is more merit-based would be a good first step. It should be easier to work in America, rather than making it easier to vote. Emphasizing political activity before work is putting the cart before the horse. Ideally, we would also scale back the welfare state, which is effectively a huge migration magnet that ends up becoming a massive burden for taxpayers. National sovereignty is a key component of maintaining a secure nation. A modest proposal would be to drastically reduce our presence abroad and bring back troops to guard certain vulnerable spots on the southern border. There’s no need to create an intricate bureaucracy. Instead we should use the resources —troops— that our current foreign policy has misallocated. Incentivizing Mexico to help out should also be on the table. Mexico, a country that depends heavily on American trade, has a vested interest in having a secure border so that goods and people can move without trouble. This issue does not need to be an exclusively American affair. The more hands on deck, the better. Ending the Drug War would also help reduce the influence of border cartels and stem the flow of violence across the border. Drug prohibition artificially inflates cartel profit margins and turns the efforts of otherwise ragtag groups of criminals into well-run enterprises. All these policy alternatives should be considered before even entertaining tariffs. We can have a conversation about raising tariffs once the U.S. government is put on a major diet. Until then, other alternatives should take priority. 

Sanctions on Iran Are Not the Answer

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Foreign Policy. No Comments on Sanctions on Iran Are Not the Answer

On Monday, June 24, 2019, President Donald Trump’s administration announced the imposition of additional sanctions on Iran. More recently, the administration has imposed sanctions on Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. These sanctions, which target the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, and several other bigwigs in the Iranian regime, deny the Ayatollah and his cronies access to financial instruments. In June, Trump said, “the Supreme Leader of Iran is one who ultimately is responsible for the hostile conduct of the regime.” He then rationalized the sanctions as a “strong and proportionate response to Iran’s increasingly provocative actions,” citing the downing of an unmanned U.S. surveillance drone near Iranian waters and the attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz as the causes behind his recent action. Apart from targeting Khamenei, the sanctions were applied on military officer Alireza Tangsiri who threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz during these tensions. Iran justified its attack on a U.S. drone for its alleged violation of Iranian airspace. However, American officials argued that the aircraft was in international airspace, declaring that Iran’s action was “unprovoked.” In the wake of this incident, neoconservatives were thirsty for a strong U.S. response. However, Trump trusted his gut and decided to call off a retaliatory strike that would have likely resulted in the deaths of 150 Iranians. “We do not seek conflict with Iran or any other country,” Trump reiterated. He added, “I look forward to discussing whatever I have to discuss with anybody that wants to speak. In the meantime, who knows what’s going to happen. I can only tell you we cannot ever let Iran have a nuclear weapon.” Trump should be commended for his decision to not use force against Iran. However, the sanction approach he is using is misguided at best, especially if it involves broad-based sanctions that could potentially hurt the Iranian people. Ron Paul candidly observed that sanctions “are just another form of war.” Instead of targeting a rogue government’s military forces, sanctions wind up hurting innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the conflict at hand.   This just goes to show how powerful certain defense interests are in D.C. They will do whatever it takes to see their regime change agenda through. Even with a president who has signaled his desire to no longer have the U.S. government policing the world, these entrenched interest groups find ways to influence the current administration’s foreign policy decision-making. We are witnessing the real “deep state” in action as it tries to perpetuate itself in power and make sure that U.S. politics does not deviate from the previous neoconservative political order. Some problems in American politics go beyond who’s at the helm of the presidency.