1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/9485/no-depression-for-the-state/

No Depression for the State

February 22, 2009 by

From Forbes:

In private-sector America your job, assuming you still have one, hangs on the fate of the economy. If your employer ever offered a pension for life, like young officer Goss is receiving, odds are it has stopped doing so, or soon will. Those retirement accounts you scrimped and saved to assemble? Unless they are invested in Treasurys, they aren’t doing too well. In private-sector America the math leads to the grim prospect of working longer and living poorer.

In public-sector America things just get better and better. The common presumption is that public servants forgo high wages in exchange for safe jobs and benefits. The reality is they get all three. State and local government workers get paid an average of $25.30 an hour, which is 33% higher than the private sector’s $19, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Throw in pensions and other benefits and the gap widens to 42%.

For New York City’s 281,000 employees, average compensation has risen 63% since 2000 to $107,000 a year. New Jersey teaching veterans receive $80,000 to $100,000 for ten months’ work. In California prison guards can sock away $300,000 a year with overtime pay.

Four in five public-sector workers have lifetime pensions, versus only one in five in the private sector. The difference shifts huge risks from government to private-sector workers.

NYC socked away $20,000 per employee last year for pension benefits. Since 2000 its pension funding bill has risen ninefold, from $615 million to $5.6 billion in 2008. That’s more than the city spends on transport, health care, parks, libraries, museums and City University of New York combined, says the Citizens Budget Commission.

These benefits are so sacrosanct, and such a source of union power, that labor bosses have turned them into the third rail for NYC politicians–touching them is suicide. That goes for the benefits not only of existing workers but of future ones as well.


Todd February 22, 2009 at 1:09 pm

This situation seems clearly unsustainable. How does it compare with the government employment compensation and benefits of European states? How long before genuine reform become unavoidable?

ehmoran February 22, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Prior to 1990′s, the U.S. Government offered retirement of 80% of your high three pay.

After the 1990′s, the Gov’t began offering TSP (401k type retirement) only.

You think they knew something?

Gerald Greene February 22, 2009 at 1:39 pm

These are simply amazing statistics. I knew that in America fascism has been on the march for quite a long time. Now I see how the movement gains such strength. Those enjoying the benefits of public sector employment may be unknowing supporters but I expect that the “public servants” will defend their interests to the end.

In that regard the end may be near. As Todd says such an imbalance between public and private sector employees must be clearly unsustainable.

Can you imagine the rage and disorder that will be unleashed should the government be drastically restructured or fail and public sector employees lose their benefits? Iceland may be small potatoes compared to the US but it was over borrowing, over leveraging, and over spending that brought the Iceland government down. In the end the difference may only be in the magnitude of scale.

ehmoran February 22, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Gerald Greene,

Pretty unbelievable, isn’t IT….

Capitalist February 22, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Come on, this quote just can’t be true:

“For New York City’s 281,000 employees, average compensation has risen 63% since 2000 to $107,000 a year. New Jersey teaching veterans receive $80,000 to $100,000 for ten months’ work. In California prison guards can sock away $300,000 a year with overtime pay.”

Ridiculous numbers! They must be vastly exaggerated. I can’t believe it. In Europe no public school teacher gets $100,000 p.a. The highest paid teacher in Europe hardly gets even half of that. And prison guards hardly get more, even with overtime. I live in a caountry, Sweden, where the average yearly salary for all full time empoyees is just under $40,000. And that is taxed with minimum 30%.

Obamas “rescue trillion” will very soon be absorbed if those Forbes numbers represent true salaries.

ehmoran February 22, 2009 at 2:31 pm


Yep, the numbers likely are somewhat wrong. However, the fact is that many have recommended and still recommend: “get a Government job.”

In other words, Government jobs are the most secure. This is true, you’d just about have to kill your boss to get fired from a Government job, but, then again, the Government would send you to Anger Management Class, so you could keep your job. I could tell you many, many stories relating to this FACT!!!!

Well, the U.S. Government is adding jobs while private sector is and will lose many, many jobs. And the Government gets paid through the private sector. This is “unsustainable”.

Additionally, Obama says he will reduce the Deficit to $533 billion by the end of his first term. What rabbit will he pull from the hat to accomplish that FEAT???


Joe February 22, 2009 at 2:51 pm

From what I understand, just about every state in the union is running large budget deficits that continue to increase by the day. Many states now are laying off huge numbers of state employees, asking others to take forced furloughs and have implemented temporary hiring freezes to compensate. This trend hasn’t just stopped there either. Cities and counties are also affected and are doing the same thing to handle their increasing budget deficits.

The only exception to this is the Federal Government which, through the Central Bank can create their own money out of thin air and run huge deficits. The Federal Government is actually expanding and creating more jobs with each new spending package the Government puts out. That is where the real problem is to be found. We are not seeing Government expansions at the state, city or county levels. We are seeing a slow, deliberate increase of the Federal Government and to me that is scariest thing of all. It reminds me of Communism where every industry was state owned. We seem to be slowly moving in that direction.

Capitalist February 22, 2009 at 2:59 pm

I just googled that Swedish ministers (that is ministers of the government like “minister of finance”, “foreign minister” et cetera) a couple of years ago had the average yearly salary of $130,000 (plus pensions et cetera) when using todays exchange rate to convert currencies.

Maybe our prime minister should consider advancing his career to prison guarding?

Scarecrow For President February 22, 2009 at 3:13 pm

It’s ridiculous. Combine this knowledge with a posting on lewrockwell yesterday:

“As the nation’s most populous metro area feels Wall Street’s pain, the fourth-largest — Washington — is barely sensing the recession. In fact, Moody’s Economy.com estimates that metro Washington’s economy will actually grow 2.5% from mid-2008 through mid-2010. New York’s economy is expected to shrink 4.2%.”

How long are those of us who work for a living going to put up with this?

Civil Servant February 22, 2009 at 5:39 pm

Excuse me, but I have spent my whole career of 38 years working in the public sector at low wages for most of that time and trying to help the disadvantaged in our society with the understanding that, when I retire, the sacrifice that I made in low income for public service would be compensated by a secure pension. Those individuals who engaged in maximizing income with attendant risk in the private sector need to acknowledge their gamble was not prudent. I should not be paying the price for their choice.

C. Evans February 22, 2009 at 6:17 pm

Civil Servant,
The reason you could have a secure position in the State is precisely due to “[t]hose individuals who engaged in maximizing income with attendant risk in the private sector…” Had they not gambled at all, you would not have had your government job. Thus, you would have had to survive in the market place. The State has no wealth of its own; it must take from those who produce.

The income of these individuals was given to you as income and your pension will also come from these same individuals. It is these risk-taking individuals who are paying the price for your choice.

ehmoran February 22, 2009 at 6:25 pm

Civil Servant,

Granted, but I can promise you that NOW there are very, very few PUBLIC SERVANTS who actually care about public service! And I have discovered that many Gov’t positions now have become personal play grounds at the expense of the Private Sector employee with no return on capital.

There are SO many Gov’t abuses that if a citizen did the same they’d be thrown in Prison for EVER. For instance, a high Gov’t official buys furniture for his home on a Gov’t credit card. After several within the agency hear about it, the Gov’t relocates and promotes him. Guess what, he wasn’t required to reimburse for the charges. And then you have abuse and missallocation of Gov’t funding. So, What’s up with that?

Not to point figures, and I’m sure you’re a good person, but how many illegal or immoral actions have you seen that should be reported to the public?

According to the U.S. Constitution, the Gov’t's purpose is to protect and defend U.S. citizens and soil, that’s IT. Not to long ago, that purpose changed. Now all our Gov’t seems to do is provide a very expensive and very false sense of security for anything they’re involved in.

Additionally, why is it that when Gov’t officials announce that their actions are meant to help Americans prosper that Americans pay the extraordinary price. When an official tells you their decision is for public good, you can bet citizens pay through the nose. And officials will get raises.

Our Gov’t through elected officials has so lost it way and the only way they can save it is through Socialism. But that eventually will be the downfall of Civilization as we have become to know it.

Also, there seems to be three business models in the U.S and they each have their own rules: Private, Not-For-Profit, and Local, State, and Federal Government. And Private Business has to follow the real and toughest rules.

But I’m sure that many like myself will be quieted for saying such things with passage of the Gov’t sponsored “Fairness Doctrine”. But that’s for the public GOOD…

Matt C. February 22, 2009 at 6:32 pm

Tell me about it. I live in New York State which has the highest unionization rate in the country. The public sector unions are really killing us. Pretty soon the only people that will be left here will be government employees. It will be pretty hard to keep a bunch of people working here at McDonalds to support the tax base for government employees much longer.

ehmoran February 22, 2009 at 6:32 pm

C. Evans,

Very, very well SAID….

Marc Sheffner February 22, 2009 at 6:58 pm

So, the message is: “private is risky, government is secure. Everybody should work for the government.” Neat. They don’t have to force people at gunpoint (yet): just appeal to their anxiety, and their weakened sense of freedom (no-one still living has experienced freedom without a state, without government-run education, etc). The present crisis (or series of crises) may or not have been engineered, but it certainly is working as a shakedown to push ever more people into government “service”. Here in Japan, the plum jobs are civil service ones (and have been for at least 30 years).

ehmoran February 22, 2009 at 7:07 pm

Marc Sheffner,

Our Constitution is hanging by a THREAD!

Also, Gov’t work is SAFE, all the key points to Maslow’s Hierarchy. And we wonder why many citizens feel its US (imagine that, U.S.) against the Gov’t Officials, and its getting worse.

Except, of course, the Special Interests Groups, which only include about 5% of the people, they’re for the current Gov’t officials. Good thing for majority rule!

Civil Servant February 23, 2009 at 7:41 am

C. Evans,
In our political system, the State is supposed to represent the people and hold accountable any excesses in the balance of power between the public and private sectors. Unfortunately, with the advent of comprehensive deregulation and extensive, well-funded lobbying activities by corporate entities, the private sector has been able to indulge in wretched excess for personal profit and thereby undermine our economy. Serving the public in government is neither glamorous nor well paid especially when it is sabotaged and deprecated by those who believe in so called “free markets”. These “free markets” are not free and they exist because the government has been subverted by the corporate sector to rig the market in their favor. Greed should not be a virtue in our society nor should wealth be the standard by which we judge a person’s contribution to society. Our State is our wealth because it is us, we the people, and we must restore it to its proper stature and balance.

ehmoran February 23, 2009 at 9:15 am

Civil Servant,

Democrats politic mostly on their “protection for the people” platform. Why then are they responsible for most of the destructive deregulation? And most Gov’t employees are Liberals; believing in bigger Gov’t.

Here’s just some examples of destructive Liberal deregulation:

Reportedly, this same credit derivative issues caused the Panic of 1907: a near collapse of the U.S. Financial Sector.

Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 prohibited banks from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

The Monetary Control Act of 1980 deregulated Banks and, among others, allowed Banks to vary customer interest rates.

The Shad-Johnson Agreement, formalized by legislation in 1982, gave the CFTC regulatory jurisdiction over futures trading while the SEC was given regulatory authority over options trading.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act was enacted in 1999 and repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Credit Default Swaps were invented in 1997 and became exempt from regulation with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which was also responsible for the Enron loophole. The Act was rushed through Congress the last day before the Christmas holiday and there were neither hearings nor opportunities for recorded committee votes. President Clinton signed the bill into Public Law on December 21, 2000.


The the so-called “Free Market” has never been free owing to Gov’t intervention since its conception.

The U.S. has never experienced a true Free Market society. In the late 1790′s, Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, established, issued, and sold Government Treasuries to private investors/citizens to pay for the national debt. This action shows Government competition with and influence in Free Market ideals. Some state that this degree of intervention by Hamilton in this “so-called” Free Market resulted in the Panic of 1796-97, a near collapse of the U.S. financial sector. (Sound familiar?). During the early 1900′s, the U.S. went down the road to Socialism (as many of us today recognize) and Government intervention in the Market has gained momentum since. Therefore, Government intervention in the Free Market establishes provides profit fixing by special interests often at the expense of degrading society and enhancing inequality.


Lobbying purely is the fault of Gov’t officials fostering and accepting political support from Private individuals. So, Officials are using Private Enterprise for their own ends. And this type of hypocrisy restricts honest individuals from entering the Political System.

“If loyal ministers, though guiltless, still face peril and death, then good officials will go into hiding; and if evil ministers, though without merit, enjoy safety and profit, then corrupt officials will come to the fore. This is the beginning of downfall” (Han Fei Tzu).

RickC February 23, 2009 at 10:33 am


Civil Servant is suffering from the delusion that the state is supposed to represent the people. There is just way too much research pointing out the fallacy of this position. That information is easily available here and many other places.

I’m fascinated by people who argue that deregulation caused the problem, then argue that corporations have subverted the government to their own ends. What is the mechanism the corporations and lobbyist use to subvert the state? Regulations. Regs. are the easiest way to destroy the competition and enrich yourself while appearing to be working for the “greater good”.

The most recent evidence of this reality is the aborted appointment of that bastion of integrity, Tom Daschle. After taking millions from the medical industry, drug companies and other interested parties, Mr. Daschle stood ready to be the dictator of healthcare in the U.S. Don’t believe it? Read his book. Obama and gang are still following his recommendations, including getting new healthcare provisions passed by hiding them in the “stimulus” bill, so the debate could be muted. Whose interests do you, Civil Servant, think Daschle actually represented.

The sad reality is that regulatory budgets and staffs saw massive growth under that evil free market conservative, George W. Bush. While a good bit of the spending went to that joke Homeland Security, every regulatory body enjoyed double digit growth. The link below is to a Mercatus working paper on this subject. Just cut and paste it to your browser.


ehmoran February 23, 2009 at 10:39 am


And the list keeps going……

By the way, I once was a so-called Public Servant.

Where do think my previous statements came from? EXPERIENCE and OBSERVATION…….

C. Evans February 23, 2009 at 10:56 am

Civil Servant,
States do not exist to represent the people. States exists to divide people into two classes: an exploited class and an exploiting class. You are an member of the exploiting class. You are not subject to the demands of the market and you are paid out of taxes. The fact that you are not making that much money simply means you lack the connections to receive first cut.
Second, no State can survive without the production of private individuals. No State can come into existence unless there already exists property, law, and production. This is because the State does not produce anything on its own. It can only take from one group of people to give to others. The free market does not owe its existence the State; the State exists only because there is a free market for it to tax. Regulations do not create markets; States intervene in markets after they exist, not to protect consumers, but to extract rents from producers and to cartelize certain industries. One should not be surprised to find out that many of the federal governments regulatory agencies work closely with certain businesses. These business help draft regulations which help them at the expense of of competitors and consumers.

The free market is the only institution which can redirect greed to benefit society as a whole. In order to receive more money in a free market, one must please his fellow man. The State, on the other hand, does not have to please anyone; it receives its income through taxation. Thus, there is no real restraint on the greed of individuals. In our country, greedy individuals can pay politicians for tax breaks or help draft regulation which will benefit them at the expense of others, or in the case of these bailouts, simply ask the State to hand over the money.

Now, if you are an individual who is open to learning the truth about how States work and how free markets work, you are at the right website. I would recommend reading Murray Rothbard’s essay “An Anatomy of the State” as an introduction to the State, which you can find on this website.

On the other hand, if you find the idea of individual liberty inherently unappealing and believe that the State must control voluntary exchange by free individuals, then you are an innate socialist/statist. If this is true, there is nothing I can say that will convince you that liberty is the greatest good we can acheive in this world. Thus, the discussion between you and me will end. I no longer waste my time trying to free those who do not want to be free.

ehmoran February 23, 2009 at 11:06 am

Civil Servant,

The first question is: are you Local, State, or Federal?

If you’re Federal then you’d better read the Constitution often, since you took an oath to defend it.

AND, read the Federalists Papers to get a very indepth knowledge of the purpose of the U.S. Government; since Supreme Justices use these Papers to Interpret the Constitution.

Very simple questions: Why does the Constitution include the 1st and 2nd Amendment?

AND why did our founding fathers not want a Bill of Rights?

RickC February 23, 2009 at 11:53 am

Hey ehmoran,

I think a reading of the Federalist Papers must be supplemented by the writings of the anti-Federalists. It was the anti-Federalists (Jeffersonians) who led the charge for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. My own favorite theorist was John Taylor of Carolina.

Hamilton was a nationalist/merchantilist and advocated almost all the evils we’re living with today, a central bank being one of the more egregious of his ideas.

ehmoran February 23, 2009 at 11:57 am


You’re RIGHT…

I was being light and hoping one would lead to the other, you know, building curiosity.

Civil Servant February 23, 2009 at 12:01 pm

To all who responded to my contribution:

When I first encountered your blog I observed that, like many others, it is an echo chamber for a certain point of view. I’m glad to be able to inject a little contrary discourse that will enable us all, through constructive exchange, to revaluate our positions.

Having said that, let me take issue with some of the points that have been raised. Apparently we all agree that government is not functioning very well at this time. Indeed the consensus of those who replied so far is that government cannot function effectively at all.

Let me beg to differ.

As you former philosophy majors know, the dialectic of thesis and antithesis produces synthesis. I would argue that in our political and economic system, the way that this is achieved is through “balance of powers”. Indeed our Constitution appears to be designed to support and encourage this so that no one branch of government nor any outside interest group can monopolize the reins of power.

This should also be true in public discourse which needs to be balanced in its propagation so that people can make informed choices. Unfortunately, what has occurred in regard to terms such as “liberal”, “government”, “taxes”, etc. is that these term have been distorted and propagandized in a negative way without balance whereas terms like “free market”, have been glorified beyond merit.

Indeed the truth is elusive assuming there is absolute truth. But that brings us into religion and we have our hands full with politics at the moment.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that those who advocate for a “pure” free market argue that there should be no regulation. It will automatically do what is best for the greatest good. Any regulation would disturb that process and create discrimination. Are you with me so far?

I would argue that there never was and never could be a “pure” free market so the argument that we would have a utopia if there was one is entirely moot.

My “opinion” (as opposed to absolute truth) is that any market exists under the auspices of some type of regulation and indeed regulation is necessary in order for it to function at all. Otherwise there would be blood in the streets and a Darwinian social/economic order or as they use to call it in the old days – feudalism.

Another “opinion” that I have is that government is necessary to civilization. It is not just there to raise armies and build roads.

As every good capitalist knows, wealth = power and access and influence. Some inherit wealth and some create it. Those who do not have wealth are at the mercy of those who do.
In a civilized society, the only entity that can protect and advocate for the unwealthy is a well balanced government such as in the model we employ in our country.

Unless, of course, the wealthy find a means to subvert and co-opt such as what has occurred over the past 30 years but particularly the last 8.

The key to understanding how this was done is to look at campaign financing and the unsupportable amount of money it takes to run for public office. It can only be done if you are wealthy or are willing to do the bidding of the wealthy who in a free market will act in their own interest (self aggrandizing) and not in the public interest (the greater good)

Thus the corruption of government by the wealthy who don’t believe in it and anyway it just proves their thesis that it doesn’t work.

ehmoran February 23, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Civil Servant,

Very good points. But lets be honest by first using a real, traceable name when discussing issues. That’s the first step to instill an honest conversation with respect and authority.

Secondly, Bigger Gov’t means more power to Special Interests.

Third, and I repeat, there has NEVER been a “Free Market” without Government Intervention in the history of the WORLD. So, we have no reference point to debate the efficiency and operation of a true Free Market.

“In a purely Free Market, well-educated, rational society, competition and purchase of products that result in higher, individually-determined happiness selects which products remain and which products get eliminated; and prices follow. Free Market societies established from well-educated, self-sufficient individuals choose for society which products are safe, which corporations provide products supporting their individual desires, etc. The success of pure capitalistic, Free Market businesses, therefore, is based on pure cooperation “between” people (the key word here is “between””) and increasing cooperation indicates an increased trust, thus signaling an increase in social morality. If Free Market individuals trust the companies they do business with, then they are willing to pay a higher price for that product regardless of a mathematically determined supply/demand curve”.

C. Evans February 23, 2009 at 1:16 pm

“When I first encountered your blog I observed that, like many others, it is an echo chamber for a certain point of view. I’m glad to be able to inject a little contrary discourse that will enable us all, through constructive exchange, to revaluate our positions.”
This is a community of free market advocates and libertarians. Our view points are rarely examined in the mainstream media and frankly without the internet, I don’t know if I would have found such like-minded inviduals. Those who subscribe to your views are legion. The mainstream media is essentially an echo chamber for the pro-state point of view. Hence, it should be no surprise that your opinions are being refuted.

“Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that those who advocate for a “pure” free market argue that there should be no regulation. It will automatically do what is best for the greatest good. Any regulation would disturb that process and create discrimination. Are you with me so far?”

We do not argue that markets do not need regulation. We argue that markets are self-regulating. In any market, the people will want to have assurances that the products they buy are safe. This will lead to a market of agencies which will regulate businesses. Since these agencies also receive their income through voluntary exchange, they have an incentive to make sure that their rules do not hamstring firms and allow them to produce, and to make sure that any firm who violates such rules will be dealt with immediately because the regulatory firm’s reputation is also at stake.
Contrast this to the incentives of federal regulation. What incentives do federal regulators have to protect the citizens? None. Federal regulatory agencies receive their money through taxation. Thus, they cannot lose money if a firm they are regulating harms consmuers. Take the Bernie Madoff case. Private investors alerted the SEC 10 years prior that something was wrong, but the SEC did nothing. A private regulator agency would have immediately notified the public because the reputation of said agency would also be at stake.
But the situtation is even worse. Since federal regulators do not receive money through the free market, there is only one way for them to increase their revenue: taxation. But the people may resist an increase in taxes. Thus, the only way the people will not resist is if they believe such an increase is necessary to protect them. This means that the federal regulators have an incentive to allow some firms to harm individuals and then say, “We need more money and power to regulate these firms.” Take the Madoff situation again. While people have blamed the SEC for failing to stop Madoff, the solution has been to give this incompetent agency even more money and power to “regulate” the financial markets.

“Another ‘opinion’ that I have is that government is necessary to civilization. It is not just there to raise armies and build roads.” This statement needs clarification. What do you mean by government? Do you mean a territorial monopolist of law and order and ultimate decision making with the power to tax? If this is what you mean, then my answer is “No, government is not necessary to civilization?” If you mean that certain services such as law and order and protection are necessary, the I would say, “Yes, but those services do not need to be provided by a monopolist.”

The State cannot function at all because it cannot enforce the rules it claims to do so. The State says, “I will protect your life, liberty, and property from aggression.” However, the State receives its income through taxation. If you do not want to pay taxes, the State will then take your life, liberty, and property. The State does not allow you to choose other means of protection; it arrogates to itself this job and threatens violence against competing agencies. The State says, “I will prohibit slavery.” However, if the State institutes a draft, it compels people to fight and die against their will, just as a slave master forces man to work against his will. The State says, “I will prosecute counterfeiting.” However, the State engages in massive counterfeiting which it calls “open market operations.” The State says, “I will prosecute murder.” However, the State engages in murder on a colossal scale which it calls war.

“In a civilized society, the only entity that can protect and advocate for the unwealthy is a well balanced government such as in the model we employ in our country.” There is no balance in our government. The federal government has grown into a leviathan at our expense. This was predicted by the Anti-Federalists who actually read the Constitution and discover that there were no limits on the power of the federal government. You can read this essay which argues why the Constitution is useless. Moreover, your statment does not demonstrate why the government is the only entity that can protect and advocate for the unwealthy. You simply assert it. Such blind faith in the State is the socialist/statist nature I referred to earlier.

The Mises community has no problem defending its beliefs of freedom, the free market, and the inherent corruption of the State. If people such as yourself wish to stir up the pot every now and then, so be it. However, you could assist yourself by studying the articles and books on this website. The points of view here are unabashedly radical and philosophical, and you could add to the discussion more if you read Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy the God That Failed, for instance, or Crisis and Leviathan by Robert Higgs, or anything by Ludwig von Mises. At least this way you will know precisely what you don’t like.

ehmoran February 23, 2009 at 1:46 pm

More Gov’t Intervention in the “so-called” U.S. Free Market…

The Gov’t now is in talks to further bail out AIG.

Now, the Gov’t requires, by law, all Auto owners to have Auto insurance, apparently because of irresponsibility. THEN, all Auto policies include charges for NON-INSURED MOTORISTS.

Now, Is that not a scam and a prime example of Gov’t sponsored Special Interests and protection for the American Public. Only the responsible pay in this so Called Capitalist Society.

What do you think will happen with HEALTH INSURANCE. “If you think health insurance is expensive now, wait till its FREE.” and regulated, restricted, and rationed.

Also, I heard that Washington will not reverse the 2nd Amendment. However, Washington will require GUN OWNERS to carry a $1,000,000 Liability Coverage to own a gun. More Gov’t intervention???

This means that only the Criminals, Police, and Military, will be able to FULLY protect themselves.

Imagine that: and CRIMINALS aren’t even suppose to have guns. What’s up with that? Again, turn all honest, responsible, patriotic citizens into criminals or show their undersides.

And the “Fairness Doctrine”?????

Civil Servant February 23, 2009 at 2:14 pm

ehmoran & C. evans,

Thank you for your informative replies. I consider myself fairly well versed on the positions that you advocate but I am always open to new ideas and will peruse the articles & website.

Here are a couple of recommendations for you:

A review in NYRB of Jeff Madrick’s book, “The Case for Big Government”,

and The latest video of Bill Moyers Journal where he interviews Robert Kaiser re: his book “So Much Damn Money”.

Also check out the second interview with Parker Palmer a very erudite and compassionate individual.

All the best to you…

ehmoran February 23, 2009 at 2:25 pm

Civil Servant,

Again, “So Much Damn Money”. This is exactly what we are TALKING ABOUT. And again:

Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

GOVERNMENTS CONTROL THE FLOW OF ALL MONEY in every county: that’s what a CENTRAL BANK does. Central Banks, therefore, Governments establish and are MONOPOLIES!!!!

Not Private and/or Free Market Ideals, never have!!!!!!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: