When you read articles that discuss government, taxation and the economy, it is important to take note of the tone of those articles. For instance, read a New York Times article called Weighing a McCain Economist by someone I don’t know named David Leonhardt.

Last week, Senator McCain laid out his economic vision in a speech in Pittsburgh. He talked about wasteful spending, but the newest, most detailed part of the speech dealt with a package of tax cuts that would cost about $300 billion a year. They would come on top of $350 billion a year in Bush tax cuts that Mr. McCain wants to make permanent. To put these numbers in perspective, the Iraq war has been costing roughly $200 billion a year.

When Leonhardt says “package of tax cuts that would cost about $300 billion a year” he is really saying that all that money belongs not to the individuals it will be taken from in the form of taxes but rather to the collective of bureaucrats and agents will will redistribute it according to their own particular agendas. Government does not bear the cost of policy changes. The taxpayer does. This fact is purposefully ignored.

What the budget office found, as study after study has shown, was that any new revenue that tax cuts brought in paled in comparison with their cost. This is why the deficit jumped under the last two tax-cutting presidents (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) and fell under the last two tax-raising presidents (George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton).

In the above sentences Leonhardt makes a contentious assertion without providing a single shred of evidence. He expects his readers to simply assume that what he states is fact - everyone should inherently understand that new revenues brought by tax cuts pale in comparison with the cost of those tax cuts! Silly peasants.

At least on one point, the concluding sentence, Leonhardt and I tenatively agree:

Instead, when you add up the numbers that have been released so far, you’re left wondering if he (McCain) is the least fiscally conservative candidate still in the race.

While I wonder who the least fiscally conservative candidate might be, I know for certain that not one of the three is a true fiscal conservative. All of them want too much of my money. All of them want to take economic blood from my veins and use it for the promotion of policies with which I strongly disagree. The growth of the federal government must stop if the United States is to remain a healthy nation.

John McCain can’t or won’t reduce the size of the federal government no matter how much lip service he gives the idea of doing so - he’ll be similar to George W. when it comes to spending reductions - there won’t be any. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a communist and will remain one as long as she has the hope of being the head communist and setting standards for all of us that she isn’t subject too. Barack Obama is a socialist full of grand visions that, under analysis, are nothing more than empty promises and pipe dreams.

In the end all three of these individuals firmly believe that it is just fine to take my money and to use it however they see fit. That is a basic issue for every net producer in this nation, and should be a call to political action. Write in a candidate! I know I plan on doing so.

It is heartening to know I’m not alone in worrying about the impending disaster we face because the value of our money is MADE UP by bureaucrats. Sri Lankans are listening to Ron Paul.

“Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general,” Ron Paul wrote in his column this week.

“But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued.

“The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration.

“The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation.”

Ron Paul is one of the few politicians of the world who understands the intricacies of fiat money. He is on the House Committee on Financial Services.

Why this stuff is appearing in a Sri Lankan business rag and not here eludes me.

“So while Fed policies encourage younger people to over borrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement.

“The financial press sometimes criticizes Federal Reserve policy, but the validity of the fiat system itself is never challenged.”

It isn’t rocket science - you can only make up so much value before even the dumbest of the dumb realize the entire system is just a pipe dream. And then the currency gets switched to something like bullets. If I have time in this life, I’m going to pursue an economics degree so I can hope to explain these basics more eloquently.

Our current money system is only as effective as the amount of faith the people who use the money have in it. When the faith tides ebb, the society leans towards collapse. That’s not to say our national financial house is going to collapse, but it certainly could. A house built on faith alone is not a house I would live in.

Someone explain to me how I’m wrong. Make sure you’re an economist and are ready to send me a copy of your advanced degree and the titles of some of your books. I want to believe we’re not headed for disaster.

I am not sure I understand basic thinking in regards to modern economics. How is giving me an $800 one time tax credit (loaning me some of my own money) going to fix a debt/spending driven economy?

President Bush publicly confirmed for the first time that he would propose a package of emergency measures, outlining its basic principles on Friday, in an effort to restore the eroding confidence of investors and consumers. The package is expected to include more than $100 billion in one-time tax rebates for individuals and an opportunity for businesses to rapidly write off their capital investments.

As far as I am concerned everything the feds talk about is semantics unless it involves budget cuts or real reductions in federal spending. I don’t know anything about Ben Bernanke. Why should I listen to what he has to say? Someone convince me we aren’t headed for a crisis.