Life under Hyperinflation
Nacilbupera was a financial clerk in Argentina during 1989 when that country experienced hyperinflation: it totalled 5000% that year and was devastating. Imagine prices on chalkboards at the grocery store that could change (increase) while you were shopping. Imagine losing in a single day over 60% of your currency's value vs. the world. Imagine 1-day and 1-week Certificates of Deposits (CD's). Imagine unannounced, prolonged bank closures and then when they open having a maximum withdrawal of $100 per account. Imagine having to fly out of the country to obtain currency because there simply isn't enough printed. Imagine no one paying a bill until the hour it was due because were you pay a week before, you would be paying significantly more. Imagine holding a new 10,000 denomination bill in your hand and realizing you really had US$20. In hyperinflation, these are no mirages but rather realities. Hyperinflation has a huge negative impact on productivity and output: it would be similar to having to file your taxes every day.
The bottom line is that with an unmanageable Federal debt and huge spike in the money supply as we monetize our national debt, as a country we are risking future hyperinflation. Surely, the road to hyperinflation is a treasonous one! Although earmarks account for a small portion of the debt, they frequently contain frivolous, if not scandalous wastes of money and point to corruption in the elected officials that proposed them.
Utahns on Earmarks
KNRS radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry really spelled out the problem for us in Utah on his radio show today; so much so that we made the following clip:
Meanwhile, Matt Canham over at the Salt Lake Tribune had an article today on this same subject of earmarks. While all four of Bennett's contenders are anti-earmark, Canham confirmed what Nacilbupera has seen from Cherilyn Eagar's position: not only a die-hard stance against them, but an unabashed critic of those who involuntarily seek treasonous acts by proposing such out-of-control earmark spending.
Eagar is the only Senate candidate who has attacked Bennett directly on the issue, calling him "addicted to earmarks." She has said big spending bills loaded with thousands of pet projects "smacks of cronyism and corruption."
Canham further cited Eagar as saying that earmarks "must show a legitimate federal tie-in"--a position Nacilbupera feels is dead-on correct.
The time has come for us to make a stand. Be like Lonsberry and call out treason when you see it. It doesn't matter if someone is a grandson of a Mormon prophet; evil is evil. The prophets have told us to "get out of debt" and they didn't mean for everyone to get out of debt except for Bailout Bob's pet projects and the rest of the massive Federal socialistic bureaucracy.
2 comments:
Last time I checked, the Constitution grants the power of the purse to Congress and not the President. Ron Paul once even said he thought every penny of the budget should be earmarked because that's the Constitutional responsibility of Congress.
Umm . . . that being the case, I believe those who simply hand over all budget considerations to the President are the traitors here.
A: We have not advocated giving the executive branch ANY authority in legislation which is as you correctly point out Congress' Constitutional authority.
Just because Congress doesn't earmark an item doesn't mean it isn't directed to a specific expenditure (a notable exception would be the 2008 bailout which Bennett voted for which contained non-directed appropriations.) Nearly all spending is directed. We simply disagree with your assertion that Congress has "handed over all budget considerations to the POTUS."
You bypass the main points of our article on the treasonous effects of debt and earmarks. Perhaps we falsely presumed these were more evident:
(1) Deficit spending at current levels is unsustainable and will wreak havoc on our economy. Elimination of virtually all earmarks will help in a small way with reducing our expenditures.
(2) Earmarks are items typically dropped in at the last minute without debate and are usually pork spending in the district or state of the official proposing them. Such invites corruption and abuse as we have seen and as yet to be fully revealed to the citizenry.
(3) The Federal Government has its hands in way too many expenditures and programs that according to our Constitution belong to the states. The Federal Government needs massive reduction in scope and size to come into compliance with the basis of our legal system, our Constitution.
Post a Comment