Bringing LIBERTY to
Capitol Hill -- 2008
Saturday Morning, October 13, 2007, 10:30am
A Discussion of The President's Saturday Morning
to listen to a replay of the October 13, 2007 Ozarks Virtual
Notes and Summary of the Broadcast -- Global Trade and
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This is an historic time for our
Nation's economy. Last week, we learned that September was America's
49th consecutive month of job creation -- the longest uninterrupted
period of job growth on record. And on Thursday, we learned that the
American economy set a new record for exports in a single month.
Millions of American jobs depend on exports. More exports support better
and higher-paying jobs -- and to keep our economy expanding, we need to
keep expanding trade.
This week, I traveled to Miami to discuss the importance of trade and
to call on Congress to pass new free trade agreements.
How the President Differs from the American vision of
"Liberty Under God":
- The Bush-Clinton regime believes in managed trade, not free trade.
- The Bush-Clinton regime believes in entangling political alliances
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to
foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have
with them as little political connection as possible."
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796) [Washington’s
I deem [one of] the essential principles of our
government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its
administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
nations, entangling alliances with none.
— Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801)
- Free trade means the eliminated of government-created obstacles to
trade, not more government power.
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This is an historic
time for our Nation's economy. Last week, we learned that
September was America's 49th consecutive month of job creation --
the longest uninterrupted period of job growth on record. And on
Thursday, we learned that the American economy set a new record
for exports in a single month. Millions of American jobs depend on
exports. More exports support better and higher-paying jobs -- and
to keep our economy expanding, we need to keep expanding trade.
The President says the economy is good. A business
can be "productive" and "sales" can be up, but
it can be bankrupt, because its costs exceed its income, or
because it defers costs into the future with no possibility to
repay. "Our" economy (government statistics) might be
good-looking, but may harbor extravagant debt and mismanagement.
of the Public Debt : The National Debt To the Penny
This figure is inches away from Nine Trillion
This figure, if announced by a corporation on the New York Stock
Exchange, would result in jail terms for its accountants, because
this figure does not include trillions of dollars the government
owes Social Security recipients, Medicare recipients, and many
others. A newly
published paper by a researcher for the Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Louis warns that a ballooning budget deficit and
pension-welfare timebomb has created a $65.9
trillion fiscal gap that will force
the United States into bankruptcy.
These deficits are funded by government-caused
inflation, manipulation of the currency and credit system. This
policy is unconstitutional.
the Fed - Rep. Ron Paul
This week, I traveled to Miami to discuss the
importance of trade and to call on Congress to pass new free trade
agreements. In January of 2001, America had trade agreements in
force with three countries. Now we have agreements in force with
14 countries, including seven in Latin America. And Congress now
has an opportunity to increase America's access to markets in our
hemisphere by passing three more free trade agreements in Latin
America with Peru, Colombia, and Panama.
What's wrong with these trade agreements? They
abolish the Constitution and government of the United States of
America. Learn more here: http://STOPtheSPP.us
These three agreements will expand America's
access to 75 million customers. These 75 million customers are the
equivalent of the populations of California, Colorado, Ohio,
Michigan, Tennessee, and Massachusetts combined.
To the extent that these trade agreements actually
provide consumers with freedom, they are good. So far, all trade
agreements have given us managed trade -- regulated
trade -- not free trade.
Why Free Trade -- genuinely free trade -- is good:
See the important essay
by George Reisman.
|The first of the new
Latin American trade agreements that my Administration negotiated
is with Peru. This agreement would level the playing field for
American businesses and workers and farmers. While almost all
Peruvian exports to the United States now enter duty-free, most
American exports to Peru face significant tariffs. The free trade
agreement would immediately eliminate most of Peru's industrial
tariffs, as well as many of its barriers to U.S. agriculture
exports, and make American products more affordable and more
competitive in that country.
seeks NAFTA expansion to Peru - Pursuing FTAA one nation at a
|The second of the new
Latin American trade agreements that my Administration negotiated
is with Colombia. Colombia is now our fifth largest trading
partner in Latin America and the largest market for U.S.
agricultural exports in South America. The free trade agreement
with Colombia would immediately eliminate tariffs on more than 80
percent of American industrial and consumer exports. It would
provide significant new duty-free access for American crops. And
for the first time in history, U.S. companies would be able to
compete on a level playing field.
|The third of the new
Latin American trade agreements that my Administration negotiated
is with Panama. This agreement will immediately eliminate tariffs
on 88 percent of our industrial and consumer goods exports to
Panama. It will increase access for American farmers and ranchers.
And it will open opportunities for American businesses to
participate in the multi-billion dollar project to expand the
|As we work to pass
these trade agreements with nations in Latin America, we'll also
work to pass a landmark free trade agreement with an ally in the
Far East -- South Korea. This agreement would open up one of the
world's most powerful economies to more American goods and
services exports. This agreement is projected to add more than $10
billion to America's economy. And like our agreements in Latin
America, this agreement would strengthen our relationship with a
democratic partner in a critical part of the world.
|I know many Americans
feel uneasy about new competition and worry that trade will cost
jobs. So the Federal government is providing substantial funding
for trade adjustment assistance that helps Americans make the
transition from one job to the next. We are working to improve
Federal job-training programs. And we are providing strong support
for America's community colleges, where people of any age can go
to learn new skills for a better, high-paying career.
||Free trade -- genuinely free
trade -- increases our standard of living in the long-run.
The Constitution gives no authority whatsoever for Federal
programs to help manufacturers and vendors of vinyl LP-records
shift to CD's, or to help any displaced workers become
competitive. These programs are unconstitutional. They are also
inefficient. Sending money to Washington D.C. to help someone in
your neighborhood is the worst decision you can make.
|Expanding trade will
help our economy grow. By passing these trade agreements, we will
also serve America's security and moral interests. We will
strengthen our ties with our friends. We will help counter the
false populism promoted by hostile nations. And we will help young
democracies show their people that freedom, openness, and the rule
of law are the surest path to a better life. So I call on Congress
to act quickly and get these agreements to my desk.
|Thank you for
Misunderstandings of Globalism
for Growth Symposium on Free Trade
- Trade Policy Analysis
no. 35: Thriving in a Global Economy: The Truth about U.S.
Manufacturing and Trade | Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies
by Daniel Ikenson
- Here are some of his observations:
- “the rising level of U.S. imports and exports has been
associated with positive developments in key manufacturing
- “As manufactured imports declined in 2001 and 2002,
manufacturing output, exports, and revenues declined as
well. When imports began to pick up again as the
manufacturing recession was ending, all of those real
variables tracked upwards, adding more data points to the
line that confirms a strong positive correlation”;
- “As manufacturing imports have achieved new heights,
manufacturing output, revenues, exports, and profits have
all set records, too.”
- “The premise that U.S. manufacturing is under duress
from imports is not supported by the data”;
- "profit growth (operating performance) is a function
of revenue growth (expanding exports) and cost reduction
(increasing imports of production inputs)."
- Allowing low-cost imports can reduce U.S. manufacturing costs
the economy is weak, Americans buy fewer imports, decreasing the
"trade deficit." When the economy is strong, Americans
buy more imports, increasing the "trade deficit." So
why should we want a decreasing "trade deficit?"
Fox Admits Plan for New North American Currency
- "Trade Agreements" are too often a means to abolish
Constitutional government in the U.S. and replace it with
unconstitutional government by foreign governments.
Clinton's Trade Adjustment - washingtonpost.com
- PRESIDENT Bill Clinton had to fight many powerful lobbying
groups to win approval of the North American Free Trade
Agreement in 1993. None was more imposing than that most
Democratic of constituencies, organized labor. Mr. Clinton stood
up to the unions: He publicly condemned the AFL-CIO for its
"roughshod, muscle-bound tactics" against undecided
Democratic members of Congress. In the end, he was rewarded for
his persistence. Not only did NAFTA pass, but Mr. Clinton won
reelection in 1996 -- with the unions' support. Fourteen years
was approved, the case for free trade remains the same. Though
it imposes costly dislocations on workers in less-competitive
industries, it benefits the country as a whole by increasing
efficiency. Over time, the result is more jobs and lower prices.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) seems to have forgotten
her husband's winning formula. Campaigning for president, she
has been busily repudiating his legacy on free trade, voting
against the Dominican
Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement in the Senate
and backing away from NAFTA.
Spruiell on Trade on National Review Online
- Free trade has not led to greater unemployment; it has merely
shifted jobs to industries in which America has a comparative
advantage. Meanwhile, the idea American manufacturing is in
decline is nothing more than an anti-trade myth, a bedtime story
protectionist lawmakers tell their rattled constituents. (Today
the globalization bogeyman came for manufacturing, but tomorrow,
you could be next!) As Cato’s Ikenson explained
on National Review Online Tuesday, “[U.S.]
Manufacturing is thriving by historic standards.” The jobs
lost in that sector stem from productivity increases, not
The Democrat Party Radio Address:
- Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont, delivers this
week's Democratic Radio Address.
Once again, the subject is SCHIPS.
Libertarian Response to Democrats:
here to go to a replay of the September
22, 2007 Ozarks Virtual Town Hall
here to go to a replay of the October
6, 2007 Ozarks Virtual Town Hall
- See the
September 22, 2007 Ozarks Virtual Town Hall.
- "Private lobbying groups" often lobby Congress for
government takeover of their industries - if it brings them profits
- Bush wants to expand the SCHIP program, not cut it.
He just doesn't want to expand it as much as the Democrats do.
There's no evidence that this child would have been denied coverage
under the White House expansion.
- Expanding this government program is wrong. It is sinful and
immoral to take money from Jones under threats of violence
to give to "the poor children."
- It is unconstitutional for the federal government to to this, even
if it were moral.
- Capitalism, not socialism, will ensure the greatest amount of the
highest quality health care to every child in this country. The
medical care available to this child would not have been available
to him if he lived in the Soviet Union a few decades ago.
- Democrats and Republicans are quibbling over ten or fifteen
billion tax dollars. True leadership would inspire and orchestrate voluntary
giving from those who can afford to do so.
Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience - Acton
- “If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the
current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private
Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education
to all the poor of the
earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left
over for evangelism around the world.”
Late Questions from Listeners
Unfortunately, a question arrived from a listener after the
conclusion of last week's Town Hall:
|I thought the Preamble for the Constitution said
the purpose of that document was "to provide for the common
weal. . ." How can that be done without education? Without
public safety? Without regulation of industries that would
otherwise rob the public and spoil the environment?
The preamble states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
Probably our listener was referring to the highlighted phrase.
What are "the blessings of liberty?" How are they
"secured" by the government? The blessings
include automobiles, computers, antibiotics, and thousands of groceries
at the local market. How are these blessings "secured" by the
government? By nationalizing the automobile industry, as in the Soviet
Union? No, simply by protecting the nation from foreign invasion and
eliminating trade barriers between the several States. What about
punishing fraud and crime? Though considered to be a function of
government, it was not considered to be a function of the federal
government. Punishing crime remained with the states and local
The question posed during the Constitutional Convention and during
the ratification process was "What form of government best secures
the Blessings of Liberty and promotes the general Welfare?" The
answer given was not "a huge centralized federal
government with unlimited powers," but rather a limited federal
government that has only a few powers enumerated in the
constitution, with the rest of government remaining with the states. The
Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights summarizes the philosophy of the
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
45, Madison described the relationship between the federal
government and the states in these famous words:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal
government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in
the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former
will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace,
negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of
taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to
the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the
ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and
properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and
prosperity of the State. [emphasis added]
And nobody believed that the state governments had the authority to
nationalize production of computers, automobiles, and groceries.
Government on all levels was tightly limited, and liberty extended to
The People and their businesses.
This is the theory of constitutionally-enumerated
powers. Only powers enumerated in the Constitution are possessed by
the federal government.
But doesn't the "promote the general welfare" clause
indicate that the federal government has vast, sweeping powers to
whatever is necessary to "promote the general welfare?"
testimony before Congress, CATO Institute scholar Jerry Taylor
explained how the architects of the Constitution understood the
"general Welfare" phrase:
|In Federalist No. 41, Madison summarizes the
relationship of the general preface language including the
"welfare" language, to the subsequent more detailed
enumeration of specific powers, as follows.
"Some who have denied the necessity of the power of
taxation [to the Federal government] have grounded a very
fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language on
which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed that the
power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and
excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States"
amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power
which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense
or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the
distress under which these writers labor for objections,
than their stooping to such a misconstruction."
Thus, Madison, who like Story after him sought to defend
federal power, treats with derision the claim of opponents of
federal powers the claim that the "welfare clause" is
a general grant of power. Madison continues Federalist No 41 in
this language of angry paradox:
"For what purpose could the enumeration of
particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were
meant to be included in the preceding general power?
Nothing is more natural or more common than first to use a
general phrase, and then to explain and qualify by an
enumeration of the particulars. But the idea of an
enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify
the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to
confound and mislead, is an absurdity ... what would have
been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to
these general expressions and disregarding the
specifications which limit their import, they had exercised
an unlimited power of providing for the general welfare?"
More information on the "general Welfare" clause can be
found on our Constitution page, and this
Our listener mentions three functions which are necessary to secure
"the Blessings of Liberty":
The first question to be asked is, must education etc. be provided by
the government, or can it be provided by the Free
Market: voluntary associations, businesses, and "We the
People" networking together to assure that children are educated.
In other words, which political theory is true: capitalism or socialism?
If socialism is true, we might still ask, should state and local
governments decide how children will be educated, or should that be
done by the federal government? In other words if only government
can provide these elements of an orderly and prosperous society, which
level of government?
The Constitutional answer precludes the federal government from
involving itself in these areas. It would not have been ratified by
states jealous to protect their own powers, or The People jealous to
protect their liberties, if it gave to the federal government such
for a replay of this edition of the Ozarks Virtual