Bailout, Repudiate, End It

by Tom Valentine

There is talk of one final “bailout” to save our economy.  To hell with it.

My fellow suckers, lets do what is right, for a change. Lets force our representatives to actually represent, and as a nation call for one more $800 billion fiat “bailout” but this time make them (our government of, for and by) disperse the money (all of it) in good checks of $40,000 or so, to each taxpaying person or family, and let the people “spend it into circulation.”

Then watch how fast the “economy” pops back; after this disbursement is finished, repudiate the phony debt and get back to sanity with some strictly enforced anti-usury and fractional banking laws; strict fraud liabilities and swift justice, no more courting around the bush.

Of course it can be done, and a pox on the first idiot that asks: “is it legal?” Nothing has been legal, righteous nor ethical about any of the money happenings in this country for a long time.

Next, we Repudiate the debt. Repudiate, repudiate. repudiate!

Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul’s mentor was more wordy and redundant than good reading allows; So I sucked these ensuing paragraphs out of a mile long article he wrote in 1992:

“Apart from the moral, or sanctity-of-contract argument against repudiation that we have already discussed, the standard economic argument is that such repudiation is disastrous, because who, in his right mind, would lend again to a repudiating government? But the effective counterargument has rarely been considered: why should more private capital be poured down government rat holes? It is precisely the drying up of future public credit that constitutes one of the main arguments for repudiation, for it means beneficially drying up a major channel for the wasteful destruction of the savings of the public. What we want is abundant savings and investment in private enterprises, and a lean, austere, low-budget, minimal government. The people and the economy can only wax fat and prosperous when their government is starved and puny. (emphasis mine)

“The last great wave of state debt repudiation came in the South after the blight of Northern occupation and Reconstruction had been lifted from them. Eight Southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) proceeded, during the late 1870’s and early 1880’s under Democratic regimes, to repudiate the debt foisted upon their taxpayers by the corrupt and wasteful carpetbag radical Republican governments under Reconstruction.

“So what can be done now? The current federal debt is $3.5 trillion. (this was a 1992 article) Approximately $1.4 trillion, or 40 percent, is owned by one or another agency of the federal government. It is ridiculous for a citizen to be taxed by one arm of the federal government (the IRS), to pay interest and principal on debt owned by another agency of the federal government. It would save the taxpayer a great deal of money, and spare savings from further waste, to simply cancel that debt outright. The alleged debt is simply an accounting fiction that provides a mask over reality and furnishes a convenient means for mulcting the taxpayer…

“Canceling federal agency-held bonds, then, reduces the federal debt by 40 percent. I would advocate going on to repudiate the entire debt outright, and let the chips fall where they may. The glorious result would be an immediate drop of $200 billion in federal expenditures, with at least the fighting chance of an equivalent cut in taxes.”

Rothbard drones on about liquidation of assets by bankrupt government, but no need for that—all economists are too wordy.  Let’s keep it simple, and put teeth into good laws.

Tom Valentine

Tom Valentine (born August 20, 1935, same day as Ron Paul) is a businessman, writer, commentator and radio host with an anti-establishment perspective. He worked with Radio Free America from 1988 to 2004. He tends to align with issues from left and right ends of the political spectrum, as well as libertarianism. His main journalistic interests have been unorthodox health care methods and conspiracy theories. He is a believer in many alternatives as cancer cures, and believes that soy products are unhealthy for human consumption. All of his views are at odds with the mainstream medical community.