Bernanke Re-confirmation Met with Opposition

If you haven't already heard, FED Chairman Ben Bernanke was re-confirmed by a vote of 70-30 yesterday afternoon. In this two clear signals were sent: 1. Failure will continue to be rewarded in DC. 2. Some are ready to stand up to the FED chairman.

The vote did not go along party lines with the failed chairman of the currency debasing giant finding support on both sides of the aisle. Sadly, both of my Republican senators (Alexander and Corker) gave their support, but that was to be expected. Each are statist in make-up, moderates at best, and completely ignorant in the field of fiscal policy. Major supporter of the FED Sen. Bob Corker even went as far as to say:

“We need to mature a little bit. ... If we continue constant witch hunts, which is what happens here on a daily basis, no one in leadership is ever going to make a bold decision. You’re going to reduce people to just not taking leadership.”

This is a severely misguided statement. First, it assumes that Bernanke has made bold decisions. Keeping interest rates extremely artificially low and injecting volumes of paper money into a hungry system is not bold. Rather, it is politically expedient. Second, Corker assumes that bold equals correct. And even if Bernanke was being bold-he wasn't-he sure wasn't acting rightly. Moreover, Mr. Corker this is not a matter of immaturity by the FED chairman's opponents. In fact, immaturity has shown forth quiet brightly in statements you have made over the last year involving the FED, fiscal policy, and basic economic theory. Perhaps the finger needs to be pointed back at you.

There is an upside to the recent re-confirmation process, however. Some are upset with the FED, its chair, and our current fiscal policy. The speeches made on the senate floor and the 70-30 margin are proof of this.

The senate usually skates through these confirmations. Not this time. A record 30 senators voted against him, which is a very good sign. I can't help but see this as a major victory for Texas Congressman Ron Paul. He has single handedly brought the FED issue to national prominence and led his colleges on a crusade for FED transparency.

May this opposition continue to grow and lead to good things down the road. If you haven't already checked out the effort to audit the FED through legislation going through the House and Senate, please do.

Unconstitutionality Trumps Grandma

Today I read a Tennessean article describing the efforts of Lamar Alexander (R-TN) as he works with party leadership to combat Obamacare. This article was sent to me by the Tennessee Republican Party lauding one of their party members. I do not share in this praise. Of course, I want the current Senate “healthcare reform” bill to fail, but I can offer no praise to the words or deeds of Sen. Alexander and those like him.

The Article Begins:

To understand Sen. Lamar Alexander's role in the ongoing debate in the Senate on health-care reform legislation, you have to go back to a floor speech Alexander made in July.

"We are talking about Medicare cuts and spending grandma's Medicare money on somebody else," Alexander said back then. His comments received no press coverage.

During the next six months, Alexander repeated some version of that phrase 13 more times during floor speeches.

By last week, he had refined the message: "If we are going to take money from grandma's Medicare, let's spend it on grandma."

The article then quotes Senator Bob Corker (R-TN):

"Our focus is to stay on the core message," Corker said. That message is that the health-care bill includes Medicare cuts, higher taxes and unfunded Medicaid mandates on the states.

My concern with the health care bill isn't that there is going to be a gobbling up of "grandma's Medicare." In fact, the Medicare program is repugnant to the Constitution and should be ended.

My concern is simple: the federal government lacks the authority to provide health insurance.

Do I believe that the proposed Obamacare plan will lead to higher costs, higher taxes, unfunded mandates, rationing, and countless other mistakes? Absolutely! But if none of these concerns were on the table, I would still oppose the plan because it is unconstitutional. (See my previous post.)

We need reform, but we don't need what is being proposed. Moreover, we need to make sure that if we oppose government run healthcare and health insurance, we need to really oppose government healthcare and insurance (i.e Medicare.)

As for me, I will not use fear tactics (though they be grounded in truth) as my rallying cry. Rather, I will stand upon the Constitution, I will stand upon morality, and I will stand against anything to the contrary.