Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote:
I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
No suprise, the PG picks a Dem. over Jim Barr
In the 20th District Mr. Walko, 55, of Observatory Hill is seeking his eighth term. The district includes the city neighborhoods of Spring Hill, Brighton Heights, Observatory Hill, Troy Hill, Lawrenceville and the Strip District, plus the borough of West View and parts of Ross and Reserve.
The incumbent has worked on bills to reduce blight, support public transit and reform prison sentencing. In the last term he was particularly proud of having pushed for the governor's energy package and having served on the House speaker's reform commission. He believes more reforms should be considered in a well-defined constitutional convention. He was an advocate of a tough statewide smoking ban and was disappointed that the law was not as strong as the initial House proposal; he'd like Allegheny County to get approval to go further in restricting indoor smoking.
His challenger, Constitution Party candidate Jim Barr, 55, should be familiar to fellow residents in West View. He has run unsuccessfully for council every two years since 1993, and he challenged Mr. Walko for the House seat two years ago. Mr. Barr, who works in a group home for mentally retarded adults, said he is running because he believes every candidate should face a challenger. He favors a part-time legislature and prefers reliance on use taxes -- sales, gas and the county's drink tax -- rather than an income tax.
With his activity on multiple fronts, Don Walko is the prudent choice.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08289/919900-35.stm
The incumbent has worked on bills to reduce blight, support public transit and reform prison sentencing. In the last term he was particularly proud of having pushed for the governor's energy package and having served on the House speaker's reform commission. He believes more reforms should be considered in a well-defined constitutional convention. He was an advocate of a tough statewide smoking ban and was disappointed that the law was not as strong as the initial House proposal; he'd like Allegheny County to get approval to go further in restricting indoor smoking.
His challenger, Constitution Party candidate Jim Barr, 55, should be familiar to fellow residents in West View. He has run unsuccessfully for council every two years since 1993, and he challenged Mr. Walko for the House seat two years ago. Mr. Barr, who works in a group home for mentally retarded adults, said he is running because he believes every candidate should face a challenger. He favors a part-time legislature and prefers reliance on use taxes -- sales, gas and the county's drink tax -- rather than an income tax.
With his activity on multiple fronts, Don Walko is the prudent choice.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08289/919900-35.stm
House rivals for 33rd seat differ on reducing size of Legislature, tout fostering jobs
By Karen Zapf
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Democratic state Rep. Frank Dermody says his experience and record makes him the best choice to continue in the General Assembly representing the 33rd Legislative District.
His Republican challenger, Jason Davidek, said he would bring a fresh perspective that is needed in Harrisburg.
The district in northeast Allegheny County includes all or part of East Deer, Fawn, Frazer, Harmar, Harrison, Indiana, Springdale and West Deer townships and the boroughs of Brackenridge, Cheswick, Oakmont, Plum, Springdale and Tarentum.
Dermody said he is seeking a 10th two-year term because "there's much more to be done."
The lawmaker points to accomplishments in areas such as energy, education and health care. In particular, Dermody said he has proposed legislation that would provide health care coverage to 200,000 additional Pennsylvanians, but the Senate has not voted on it.
Dermody also said he has worked to keep jobs in the Alle-Kiski Valley and create new ones.
Dermody touts the decision by Allegheny Technologies Inc. to build a $1 billion hot strip mill at Allegheny Ludlum's Brackenridge Works. Dermody said he worked on legislation that made the area attractive for the company to build a plant in the Alle-Kiski Valley.
The lawmaker wrote legislation that allows companies to negotiate electric power contracts that save on operating costs. Dermody also worked on legislation that extended the Keystone Opportunity Zones, which provide major tax incentives for developers.
Dermody also is pushing for the Allegheny Valley commuter rail project. The proposed rail line would go from New Kensington to Pittsburgh.
Davidek wants to be part of a reform movement in Harrisburg to "end corruption."
Davidek points to the failed 2005 legislative pay raise and the current scandal in Harrisburg over allegations that bonuses were given to legislative staffers for campaign work. Dermody is not named in the bonus scandal.
"To me, public service is not padding your pocketbook," Davidek said.
Davidek said that as a Fawn supervisor, he has provided "transparency in government" and worked to help his community recover from flooding by getting $200,000 for a road reconstruction project.
He wants to bring jobs back to the Allegheny Valley by helping businesses grow.
Davidek supports reducing the size of the Legislature and a 20 percent cost cut in both chambers.
Under a bill proposed by Rep. T. Mark Mustio, R-Moon, the House would be reduced from 201 to 161 members and the Senate from 50 to 40. The bill mandates a 20 percent cut in the $300 million-plus budget of the Legislature, the largest full-time legislature in the nation.
"It's time to put an end to wasteful spending and taxpayer-funded corruption," Davidek said.
Dermody supports the 20 percent cost cut. But he wants to be cautious when looking at cutting the Legislature and recommends a constitutional convention to study the issue.
Davidek has placed on himself a term limit of eight years, or four terms.
"I'm not in this to be a career politician," Davidek said.
Karen Zapf can be reached at kzapf@tribweb.com or 412-380-8522.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_593413.html
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Democratic state Rep. Frank Dermody says his experience and record makes him the best choice to continue in the General Assembly representing the 33rd Legislative District.
His Republican challenger, Jason Davidek, said he would bring a fresh perspective that is needed in Harrisburg.
The district in northeast Allegheny County includes all or part of East Deer, Fawn, Frazer, Harmar, Harrison, Indiana, Springdale and West Deer townships and the boroughs of Brackenridge, Cheswick, Oakmont, Plum, Springdale and Tarentum.
Dermody said he is seeking a 10th two-year term because "there's much more to be done."
The lawmaker points to accomplishments in areas such as energy, education and health care. In particular, Dermody said he has proposed legislation that would provide health care coverage to 200,000 additional Pennsylvanians, but the Senate has not voted on it.
Dermody also said he has worked to keep jobs in the Alle-Kiski Valley and create new ones.
Dermody touts the decision by Allegheny Technologies Inc. to build a $1 billion hot strip mill at Allegheny Ludlum's Brackenridge Works. Dermody said he worked on legislation that made the area attractive for the company to build a plant in the Alle-Kiski Valley.
The lawmaker wrote legislation that allows companies to negotiate electric power contracts that save on operating costs. Dermody also worked on legislation that extended the Keystone Opportunity Zones, which provide major tax incentives for developers.
Dermody also is pushing for the Allegheny Valley commuter rail project. The proposed rail line would go from New Kensington to Pittsburgh.
Davidek wants to be part of a reform movement in Harrisburg to "end corruption."
Davidek points to the failed 2005 legislative pay raise and the current scandal in Harrisburg over allegations that bonuses were given to legislative staffers for campaign work. Dermody is not named in the bonus scandal.
"To me, public service is not padding your pocketbook," Davidek said.
Davidek said that as a Fawn supervisor, he has provided "transparency in government" and worked to help his community recover from flooding by getting $200,000 for a road reconstruction project.
He wants to bring jobs back to the Allegheny Valley by helping businesses grow.
Davidek supports reducing the size of the Legislature and a 20 percent cost cut in both chambers.
Under a bill proposed by Rep. T. Mark Mustio, R-Moon, the House would be reduced from 201 to 161 members and the Senate from 50 to 40. The bill mandates a 20 percent cut in the $300 million-plus budget of the Legislature, the largest full-time legislature in the nation.
"It's time to put an end to wasteful spending and taxpayer-funded corruption," Davidek said.
Dermody supports the 20 percent cost cut. But he wants to be cautious when looking at cutting the Legislature and recommends a constitutional convention to study the issue.
Davidek has placed on himself a term limit of eight years, or four terms.
"I'm not in this to be a career politician," Davidek said.
Karen Zapf can be reached at kzapf@tribweb.com or 412-380-8522.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_593413.html
Monday, October 20, 2008
Political Monopoly Power
Thursday, October 16, 2008
By Walter E. Williams
The Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, is the document most frequently referred to when trying to get a feel for the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. One such intention is found in Federalist 56 where Madison says, “...it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants will render the (House of Representatives) both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it.”
Excellent research, found at thirty-thousand.org, shows that in 1804 each representative represented about 40,000 people. Today, each representative represents close to 700,000. If we lived up to the vision of our founders, given today’s population, we would have about 7,500 congressmen in the House of Representatives. It turns out that in 1929 Congress passed a bill fixing the number of representatives at 435. Prior to that, the number of congressional districts was increased every 10 years, from 1790 to 1910, except one, after a population census was taken.
We might ask what’s so sacrosanct about 435 representatives? Why not 600, or 1,000, or 7,500? Here’s part of the answer and, by the way, I never cease to be amazed by the insight and wisdom of our founders: James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, argued that the smaller the House of Representatives relative to the nation’s population, the greater is the risk of unethical collusion. He said, “Numerous bodies ... are less subject to venality and corruption. “ In a word, he saw competition in the political arena as the best means for protecting our liberties. If Madison were around today to see today’s venal and corrupt Congress, he’d probably say, “See, I told you so!”
In addition to venality and corruption, restricting the number of representatives confers significant monopoly power that goes a long way toward explaining the stranglehold the two parties have and the high incumbent success rates. It might also explain the power of vested interest groups to influence congressional decisions. They only have to bribe, cajole or threaten a relatively small number of representatives. Imagine the challenge to a lobbyist, if there were 7,500 representatives, trying to get a majority of 3,813 to vote for this or that special privilege versus having to get only a 218 majority in today’s Congress.
Another problem of a small number of congressmen, with large districts, has to do with representing their constituents. How in the world is one congressman to represent the diverse interests and values of 700,000 people? The practical answer is they don’t and attempt to be all things to all people. Thus, a congressman who takes a principled stand against the federal government exceeding its constitutional authority—whether it be government involvement in education, business welfare and bailouts and $2 trillion dollars worth of other handouts—is not likely to win office.
Appealing for the votes in a district of 700,000 is a more difficult challenge than appealing for the votes in a district of 40,000 or 60,000 people. Larger sums must be raised requiring a congressman to be wealthy or raise money from vested interest groups. Who is going to give a congressman money and not expect something special in return?
One should not be optimistic about increasing the size of Congress to make it more representative of the American people. There are powerful forces that benefit from the status quo. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists get Congress to look the other way. Hundreds of other lobbyists get Congress to rig the market, or confer special privileges, to benefit one class of Americans at the expense of another class. I guarantee you that the vested interest groups, who now have a strong grip on Washington, at the detriment of the nation’s well-being, wouldn’t as easily get their way if they had to scrounge for 3,813 votes as opposed to 218.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=37632
By Walter E. Williams
The Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, is the document most frequently referred to when trying to get a feel for the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. One such intention is found in Federalist 56 where Madison says, “...it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants will render the (House of Representatives) both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it.”
Excellent research, found at thirty-thousand.org, shows that in 1804 each representative represented about 40,000 people. Today, each representative represents close to 700,000. If we lived up to the vision of our founders, given today’s population, we would have about 7,500 congressmen in the House of Representatives. It turns out that in 1929 Congress passed a bill fixing the number of representatives at 435. Prior to that, the number of congressional districts was increased every 10 years, from 1790 to 1910, except one, after a population census was taken.
We might ask what’s so sacrosanct about 435 representatives? Why not 600, or 1,000, or 7,500? Here’s part of the answer and, by the way, I never cease to be amazed by the insight and wisdom of our founders: James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, argued that the smaller the House of Representatives relative to the nation’s population, the greater is the risk of unethical collusion. He said, “Numerous bodies ... are less subject to venality and corruption. “ In a word, he saw competition in the political arena as the best means for protecting our liberties. If Madison were around today to see today’s venal and corrupt Congress, he’d probably say, “See, I told you so!”
In addition to venality and corruption, restricting the number of representatives confers significant monopoly power that goes a long way toward explaining the stranglehold the two parties have and the high incumbent success rates. It might also explain the power of vested interest groups to influence congressional decisions. They only have to bribe, cajole or threaten a relatively small number of representatives. Imagine the challenge to a lobbyist, if there were 7,500 representatives, trying to get a majority of 3,813 to vote for this or that special privilege versus having to get only a 218 majority in today’s Congress.
Another problem of a small number of congressmen, with large districts, has to do with representing their constituents. How in the world is one congressman to represent the diverse interests and values of 700,000 people? The practical answer is they don’t and attempt to be all things to all people. Thus, a congressman who takes a principled stand against the federal government exceeding its constitutional authority—whether it be government involvement in education, business welfare and bailouts and $2 trillion dollars worth of other handouts—is not likely to win office.
Appealing for the votes in a district of 700,000 is a more difficult challenge than appealing for the votes in a district of 40,000 or 60,000 people. Larger sums must be raised requiring a congressman to be wealthy or raise money from vested interest groups. Who is going to give a congressman money and not expect something special in return?
One should not be optimistic about increasing the size of Congress to make it more representative of the American people. There are powerful forces that benefit from the status quo. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists get Congress to look the other way. Hundreds of other lobbyists get Congress to rig the market, or confer special privileges, to benefit one class of Americans at the expense of another class. I guarantee you that the vested interest groups, who now have a strong grip on Washington, at the detriment of the nation’s well-being, wouldn’t as easily get their way if they had to scrounge for 3,813 votes as opposed to 218.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=37632
Friday, October 10, 2008
Central Banks Suffer from Two Temptations
"The record shows that when the managers of a central bank in any particular country are looking around for ways and means to accumulate more wealth, they are often tempted by two things which are inherently evil and totally destructive to the foundation of civilized countries. One is to encourage an involvement in war so the nation will be forced to borrow heavily. Bonds (which are really government IOUs paying substantial interest to the lenders) are considered to be a most valuable form of collateral assets in a central bank.
"The other temptation is to promote a cycle of 'boom and bust' economics. This simply consists of starting a boom with generous loans at low interest and easy credit and after a few years suddenly raising the interest rates, calling in loans, and bankrupting homeowners, industries, farmers, and millions of people who had trusted the bank to continue its policies.
"Some economists, including Karl Marx, have tried to maintain that these boom-and-bust cycles are an inescapable characteristic of a free-market economy. The truth of the matter is that these so-called boom-and-bust cycles are primarily a phenomenon of manipulated economics, engineered by men who find themselves in an extremely powerful position to control money and credit but seem to lack the moral integrity to resist the opportunity of fleecing the common people who have genuinely trusted them."
www.nccs.net
"The other temptation is to promote a cycle of 'boom and bust' economics. This simply consists of starting a boom with generous loans at low interest and easy credit and after a few years suddenly raising the interest rates, calling in loans, and bankrupting homeowners, industries, farmers, and millions of people who had trusted the bank to continue its policies.
"Some economists, including Karl Marx, have tried to maintain that these boom-and-bust cycles are an inescapable characteristic of a free-market economy. The truth of the matter is that these so-called boom-and-bust cycles are primarily a phenomenon of manipulated economics, engineered by men who find themselves in an extremely powerful position to control money and credit but seem to lack the moral integrity to resist the opportunity of fleecing the common people who have genuinely trusted them."
www.nccs.net
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Polls gives Altmire 12-point lead
By The Tribune-Review
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, has a 12-point lead over former Rep. Melissa Hart, the Republican seeking to win back the 4th Congressional District post she lost to Altmire in 2006, according to an independent poll released today.
Altmire leads Hart of Bradford Woods by 54 percent to 42 percent, according to the Survey USA poll conducted for Roll Call, a newspaper that covers Capitol Hill. The automated poll of about 600 voters has an error factor of roughly plus or minus 4 percentage points, Roll Call said.
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain leads Democrat Sen. Barack Obama in the district by 8 percentage points, 51 percent to 43 percent, according to the poll. President Bush won the district by 9 points in 2004, though his job approval rating there now is just 30 percent, Roll Call noted. Only 11 percent of respondents approved of the job that Congress is doing.
The 4th District includes most of Beaver and Lawrence counties, and parts of Butler, Allegheny, Westmoreland and Mercer counties.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_592091.html
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, has a 12-point lead over former Rep. Melissa Hart, the Republican seeking to win back the 4th Congressional District post she lost to Altmire in 2006, according to an independent poll released today.
Altmire leads Hart of Bradford Woods by 54 percent to 42 percent, according to the Survey USA poll conducted for Roll Call, a newspaper that covers Capitol Hill. The automated poll of about 600 voters has an error factor of roughly plus or minus 4 percentage points, Roll Call said.
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain leads Democrat Sen. Barack Obama in the district by 8 percentage points, 51 percent to 43 percent, according to the poll. President Bush won the district by 9 points in 2004, though his job approval rating there now is just 30 percent, Roll Call noted. Only 11 percent of respondents approved of the job that Congress is doing.
The 4th District includes most of Beaver and Lawrence counties, and parts of Butler, Allegheny, Westmoreland and Mercer counties.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_592091.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)