Stimulation

Over the past few months it seems that everyone is talking about the economy and asking the question, "What can be done?" During these months, the government has taken responsibility for the problem and passed a bill that will use almost a trillion dollars of tax-payer money in an attempt to stimulate the economy. Given my firm belief in the free-market, I am doubtful that this form of stimulation will have any effect on our everyday lives except for putting us one step closer on our way to a socialistic society. Popular press has joined in the misinformation by publishing articles that praise the temporary effects of government intervention. This sort of ink will no doubt lead to more people having an unfounded faith in bigger government.
What does the free-market say to do to save our economy? I found this article published on CNN as a commentary by Mitt Romney. I believe that had he run on these principles he would have made more headway with conservative voters and those that believe in the government our founders set up. His main point is that using the government and tax money to stimulate the economy will do nothing but stimulate the government which is already bloated. The number one thing that Romney advocates is cutting taxes to stimulate. These won't be your normal tax cuts, but the drastic ones that most government officials cringe at the mention of. What could be better for the economy than for Americans to suddenly have 25% more income? That's more money for consumers to use on things they need and want. This could mean the abolition of the income tax. I'll allow a second for the collective gasp at what I just said.
Some will inevitably say, "What will the government use to function if they don't have the income tax?" Truth be told, the income tax does little by way of making our government run. That also happens to be number two on Romney's list: belt-tightening in Washington. Who would actually say they think the government should spend more money? No one. Government should be held accountable for the money they use and need to cut back a little. Were they to do that, they would have absolutely no need for the income tax anyway, not to mention the money they would save from not paying the IRS and handling tax refunds.
I realize that this debate could go on forever...and will. Please comment if you have something to say. I am continuously learning about economics and am always on the lookout for more knowledge on the subject. I completely agree with Romney that if we are to stimulate the economy it must be done outside of government control or it will do nothing but make government larger which will only prolong our pain.

I can't help myself...

This next week during my spring break, my family and I are traveling to a place I've longed to go for some time now. We will be visiting Washington DC. I am extremely excited because we will get to see all the sights, monuments, museums, etc. Walking in places where excellent men and women trying their best to establish and serve a country meant for freedom and awesome things. N0 matter my thoughts or rants about current political practices, next week I will almost certainly be in a never ending state of euphoria, punctuated by the fact that I get to share it with my family. No doubt, my little daughter will know that we are in an important place.
There is one thing that sets this trip above almost anything else that we could be otherwise doing...the National Archives. We will be able to see the original Constitution of the United States of America. As I sit here writing this I find myself fighting back tears as I find myself every time I hear the document well referenced in the past year or so. Trying to prepare myself for that moment is proving difficult as I am not sure how I will react. I'm not sure that sobbing quietly in the National Archives is allowed. I guess we will find out.
The more that I have been thinking about the Constitution and what it means to me and my life I've been pondering what it means to live as one devoted to the Constitution. I know that most members of the government take oaths to defend the Constitution but I feel that most don't have any clue what that means. I recently came across an article by Chuck Baldwin, the 2008 Constitutionalist party candidate for President. He, in Jeff Foxworthy-like style, shares his thoughts on the matter as You Might Be a Constitutionalist If...
Here is some of what he says.

1. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that elected leaders should really obey the U.S. Constitution.

2. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before the United States invades and occupies another country, Congress must first declare war.

3. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government should live within its means, like everyone else is forced to do.

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people's liberties in the name of security is neither patriotic nor does it make the country more secure.

5. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see politicians be forced to abide by the same laws they make everyone else submit to.

6. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that we have three coequal branches of government that are supposed to hold each other in check and balance.

The rest of the article can be found here and I believe he does an excellent job of examining the Constitution and enumerating its precepts. I hope you will all take the time to read the article and the Constitution for that matter, if for no other reason than it is of importance to me.