Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong each killed tens of millions of people, and John Maynard Keynes was a pacifist who never fired a shot in anger. However economically, when the billions come to be totted up, it may well be the case that Keynes was the most destructive of the four. He cannot entirely be blamed for mistakes in monetary policy, which he never understood, and even his “stimulus” ideas owed much to those who came before him – for example Arthur Pigou – and after him – for example Joan Robinson. Yet the other value destroyers had their henchmen too, in Heinrich Himmler, Lavrenti Beria and Jiang Qing. Overall, when henchmen are added in, Keynes runs the other value destroyers close, and may in the future surpass them as his value-destructions continue. Truly, persuasive but misguided economic theories can be much more damaging than they appear.
This is not to claim that big government per se is value-destructive (it is, but that’s a separate issue.) The right size of government is a matter for legitimate debate and successful societies such as Sweden and Singapore can be built with very different sizes of government. Personally I would rather live in Singapore than Sweden, and I would expect Singapore to exhibit markedly faster long-term economic growth than Sweden, but both societies run their finances in a responsible manner and are models of governmental integrity.
Since both Sweden and Singapore currently have modest budget surpluses and have kept control of their currencies and avoided excessive monetary stimulus, they are in the modern debased sense of the term non-Keynesian, even if the managers of Sweden’s economy might well describe themselves as Keynesians for the sake of harmony at international gatherings.
The Keynesian fallacy is in essence one of getting something for nothing. By Keynesian fiscal stimulus, normally involving spending more money though occasionally through tax cuts, providing they avoid the annoyingly savings-prone rich, we are supposed to produce additional economic output whenever there is an “output gap” from full employment, i.e., in all conditions save those of a raging boom, when resources are scarce. Keynes himself recommended such stimulus only at the bottom of deep recessions, and suggested that it should be balanced by running budget surpluses in times of boom. Needless to say his disciples have neglected the disciplines he recommended.
Similarly, the analogous monetary policy (which Keynes personally did not advocate, since he believed that interest rates had no effect on output) pushes down interest rates and indulges in ever more lavish bouts of monetary “stimulus” in the belief that by doing so the economy can be persuaded to expand more rapidly. It’s fair to claim that monetary stimulus does not derive directly from Keynes (though it is not new – it was a policy advocated by Keynesians in the 1960s Johnson administration, for example.) However fiscal stimulus is a direct product of Keynes’ 1936 “General Theory” and both forms of stimulus derive from Keynes’ overall approach of flouting economic orthodoxy and using ingenious paradox to propound unorthodox policies. Keynes was the origin of the “stimulus” approach; its central idea that by manipulating monetary or fiscal policy we can get a bigger government than we pay for is his. It is thus fair to blame the costs of that approach on him.
Those costs are considerable. In the 1930s Herbert Hoover’s reckless expansion of government spending, including loans to cronies through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, caused further slowdown in the economy, which was exacerbated by his dreadful early 1932 increase in the top marginal rate of tax from 25% to 63%. Then, as I discussed a few weeks ago, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal deficit spending, combined with his reckless “set the gold price in my pajamas” monetary policy prolonged the Great Depression far longer than would naturally have occurred, delaying full recovery from 1934-35 to 1939-40.
In the recent unpleasantness, fiscal stimulus worldwide initially appeared merely ineffective. By diverting resources from the productive private sector to unproductive public sector boondoggles it reduced long-term output. In the U.S. case, the Obama stimulus converted a vigorous recovery into an anemic one; only in the third quarter of 2011, after the effects of stimulus had begun to wear off, did output begin to accelerate and unemployment trend down (in this case we should celebrate public sector job losses and declines in public sector output, since they free up resources for healthy private sector growth!).
However with the euro crisis it has become clear that fiscal stimulus, if excessive, has an exponentially adverse effect. By increasing deficits to unsustainable levels, it precipitates bond market fears about the state’s credit risk. Naturally, that strangles credit availability to almost all entities domiciled in the country concerned. Thus while a mild fiscal stimulus in a country that before recession was running a surplus might be mildly beneficial (because the differential between private sector savings rates and the 100% stimulus spending rate outweighed the inefficiency effect of diverting resources to the public sector) a large fiscal stimulus, or one incurred in a country like Greece or the 2009 U.S. that was already dangerously in deficit, will cause economic damage rising to many times the value of the stimulus itself, persisting for years or even decades to come.
Monetary stimulus is similarly damaging. As Walter Bagehot remarked over a century ago, the correct response to financial crisis is to lend on top quality security at very high interest rates. This was notably not done in 2008; instead the injection of liquidity to favored companies was accompanied by pushing interest rates far below inflation. Repeating the monetary stimulus in 2010 and again in 2011, when in the United States at least the financial crisis was over, was inexcusable.
Monetary stimulus causes structural damage to the economy in the following ways:
·Normally, as was the case in 1965-79 it causes accelerating inflation. Since 1995, this has not been the case, because the West has benefited from an enormous deflationary force from the Internet and modern telecommunications, which has enabled massive outsourcing of goods and services to locations with much cheaper wage rates. That effect is now ending, while in some countries, notably Britain, the monetary stimulus has been increased to Weimar Republic-like proportions of 40% of public spending. We can expect the inflationary effect to strike with massively multiplied force compared with the gentle zephyr of 1965-79 when it finally arrives.
·As discussed in this column a few months back, by making capital artificially cheap, monetary stimulus encourages employers to substitute capital for labor to an artificial extent, thus raising the equilibrium level of unemployment. In current circumstances, this substitution takes the form of outsourcing production to emerging markets, thus depressing U.S. and European labor markets further.
·By allowing banks to make artificial profits from “gapping” -- borrowing short-term and investing in fixed rate long term bonds and mortgages -- it suppresses lending to small business, thus further increasing unemployment. It must be noted that the true level of U.S. unemployment is far higher than the officially admitted 8.6%, as many workers have become discouraged and left the workforce.
·Ultra-low interest rates suppress savings (which receive negative real returns on their money), thereby de-capitalizing the economy.
·Finally if, as happened in 2008, monetary stimulus is directed only at favored banks and finance houses, it destroys the integrity of the market. Beneficiary banks have been shown by the recent Fed audit to have benefited to the tune of $13 billion by profits made on emergency Fed loans. Had that money been lent at appropriate penalty rates, this profit would have been captured for taxpayers. It was in essence a gigantic subsidy to Wall Street bonus recipients by the corrupt Federal Reserve. Needless to say, damaging cronyism has thereby been encouraged.
As recent events have overwhelmingly demonstrated, both fiscal and monetary stimulus are highly addictive, since they appear to provide something for nothing and the cost of reversing them appears unpleasant to the Keynesians who control the levers of policy. As to their cost, the current Congressional Budget Office projections suggest that there is currently a 5% output gap below full employment, and that the output gap will disappear only in 2016. The cost of current Keynesian policies over 2009-16 can thus be conservatively estimated at about 15% of GDP, or $2.2 trillion in today’s dollars. To that we can add very roughly 50% of one year’s 1929 GDP, for the output lost through Keynesian policies in 1932-40, or another $500 billion, for a very conservative total of $2.7 trillion all-told in the United States alone.
That may not sound sufficient to counterbalance the tyrants’ depredations, but consider: 1930s Germany, 1940s Russia and 1950s China were all much poorer countries than the modern United States. Very roughly, Germany’s 1936 GDP and the Soviet Union’s 1940 GDP were both about $500 billion modern dollars, while China’s 1955 GDP was about $1,500 billion. Thus Hitler and Stalin could have destroyed their entire output for more than 5 years, and Mao for almost two years, before doing as much economic damage as Maynard Keynes has wreaked in one country.
It’s a rough calculation, but illuminating – and while Hitler, Stalin and Mao are long gone, Keynes’ depredations continue.
Originally appeared in The Bear's Lair.
Martin Hutchinson is the author of "Great Conservatives" (Academica Press, 2005)—details can be found on the Web site –and co-author with Professor Kevin Dowd of “Alchemists of Loss” (Wiley – 2010). Both now available on Amazon.com, “Great Conservatives” only in a Kindle edition, “Alchemists of Loss” in both Kindle and print editions.
The expression of comparing apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be validly compared. One glaring example is the difference in the media trying to compare the actions of the Tea Party Activists and the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) groups.
Some months ago I attended a Tea Party rally in downtown Fort Worth. While there I listened to several speakers talk about our government’s inability to control it’s spending and warned those in attendance that if our government elected reps didn’t stop their bad spending habits or brought under control, we can easily become like Greece, which is now bankrupt due to their government spending more while at the same time taking less in tax revenues due to the lack of jobs. Which is exactly what is occurring in our country as I write this piece. As I observed the Tea Party crowd, I couldn’t help but notice that the group consisted of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Anglos. The Tea Party goers conducted themselves in an orderly manner, rented several portable toilets, and the signs most attendees held were not vulgar, racists, or demeaning to others who didn’t side with their views. Though there were policemen present, none of the Tea Party crowd intimidated them or hurled verbal insults at them. The Tea Party speakers also spoke eloquently in expressing their views without any curse or insulting words utter over their microphones. After the crowd dispersed, I couldn’t help but notice that most of the attendees picked up their own litter and disposed of it in the plentiful trash cans found in and around downtown Fort Worth.
Folks, I’m sure many of you have noticed how the mainstream media has tried to paint the Tea Party protesters as racist, bigots, hell raisers and Lord knows what else. Truth of the matter is, that the media by in large is in lock step with the Democrat Party and their liberal agenda. Thus, they hate anyone or any group that wants to shrink the size of government and their socialist programs.
From what I’ve gathered in observing the Occupy Wall Street crowd is a movement of a supposedly financially disenfranchised people who don’t have a clue of what the heck they are complaining about, or, they are totally misinformed in blaming Wall Street and businesses in general for whatever bad situation they find themselves in. If these OWS protesters are out of work, don’t have money, can’t find a job, etc. they are desperately looking for someone or something to blame for their own self inflicted misery. And as they vent their frustrations they are leaving a negative view of their actions with a majority of Americans. Sure, one has the right to assemble and protest their anger at government, or whatever, but these folks have in many cities overstepped their boundaries. For instance, in Baltimore, at a OWS gathering several rape victims were urged not to report their attackers to the police, but rather to a “security committee” who will investigate the incident and provide counseling to the perpetrator. In a Cleveland OWS gathering, a 19-year-old student was ordered to share a tent with a man who then sexually assaulted her. The assault was not reported to law enforcement until two days later when the girl related the incident to a professor. In a Seattle OWS rally, a participant was arrested for exposing himself to young children at least five times. In one instance, he approached a pair of 13-year-olds playing at a public park and “performed a lewd act.” In many cities where these OWS groups are gathering and protesting some city officials are beginning to retaliate by police force to control their criminal activities and to stop the harassment of everyday workers who happen to walk by their camps. This information I’ve posted of the wrong doings of these OWS buffoons, I obtained from police reports from several different cities where these OWS groups have assembled to protest. Make note that the mainstream media did not post any of these awful criminal behavior committed by these lawless OWS groups. But, had the Tea Party groups conducted themselves in the same disorderly manner the OWS behaved, you can bet that the media would have blasted it nightly in their news reports.
After viewing how the OWS protesters have demonstrated, I for the love of me cannot understand who in their right mind would support their actions. However, President Obama has fully endorsed their actions. He stated, “These protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial systems works.” Folks, here is a President who defended his administration’s approval of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, a now defunct solar company and termed it a “successful” investment. Then you have his close friend, ex-New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine-D who’s company, MF Global, now bankrupt, has hundred of millions of dollars in customer money that has gone missing. And President Obama has the audacity to lambaste Wall Street investors?
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also weigh in the OWS protesters. She stated, “God bless them for their spontaneity. It’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective. The message of the American people is that no longer will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street.”
My friends, these littering, store looters, raping, murdering, defecating, urinating, in the public OWS protesters have in my humble opinion vented their misguided anger towards those Americans who are successful, hardworking, smart investors, and businessmen. They’d make a more valid and more common sense protest if they would round up all of their village idiots and haul them to the White House where our country’s financial and unemployment problems have originated!
There are a lot of people who talk about Jefferson and Jefferson’s philosophy, who don’t have the slightest idea about his vision. His vision of an extended agrarian Republic, comprised mostly of independent yeomen, seems as close and familiar today as the nearest galaxy. Something similar might be said concerning Ronald Reagan, and I suppose it is inevitable that great men and presidents will be misinterpreted or rendered in politically convenient ways. I have personally heard Ronald Reagan on many occasions extol the virtues, as well as the constitutional imperative, of States rights. Yet the most aggressive nationalist and big government advocates now use Ronald Reagan as their patron saint—to endorse big government spending and imperial design! As if the context of Cold War and stagflation and political opposition were identical today. Of course they are not, and it takes some horse sense (in this case, understanding intent and sharing his vision) to enable us to move forward on what Reagan began—or indeed, on what Jefferson accomplished in very different historical context.
Simply stated, Ronald Reagan started to roll back the welfare state and to reassert the sovereignty of States in their proper constitutional orbit. He challenged a century of modern liberalism—from Reconstruction to Progressivism to World Wars, topped off by the New Deal and Great Society. Reagan’s message resonated with the people, because he clearly articulated the vision he—and we—shared with the Founders. His understanding of original intent led him to seek a paring back of the federal government and the restoration of real federalism—the vertical balance of power based on countervailing responsibility in the Constitution, between the States and the Federal Government.
In his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson declared, “Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power.” According to professor of law and history David N. Mayer, Jefferson ’s strong conviction was that the Constitution had “fixed the limits” of political power. In Jefferson ’s view, cumulative accretion of power to the levels wielded by the federal government today was not allowed, at least not without radical amendment of the Constitution. The essence of Jefferson ’s theory can be found in his remark, that “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” In his day, Jefferson depended on the strong reaction of an informed voting public, to roll back excesses in areas of foreign policy and economy that ultra-Federalists had steered through all three branches of government. Today the dirty little secret, known to pollsters and political hacks, is that there’s hardly an informed voting public around that isn’t lethargic. Even if we argue that apathy is less since the economic conditions worsened after 2008, few Americans are knowledgeable about political issues or even about their own government institutions. Skillful politicians and powerful media interests use polls to play upon the public and to lay the groundwork for so-called direct democracy—“mobocracy,” according to Matthew Robinson in his book about media’s political impact.
What’s happening now is the exact opposite of deliberative democracy. The “eternal vigilance” of the people has come up lacking. Laziness perhaps has enabled our process to become corrupted. So much so, that according to Richard Reeb, Jr., a political science and philosophy professor in California, we have essentially bypassed “limited government, separation of powers, federalism, and [the] economic and religious diversity that made popular government possible for the first time in human history.” Jefferson moved power back to the States, and he also successfully acquired land that outran (for a time) the consolidation of power and centralizing tendency in Washington . Reagan strove for something akin to Jefferson, albeit without a Louisiana Purchase . Reagan gave us the opportunity to take back our rightful Constitutional portion of power, by ending the Cold War and by empowering us economically through tax cuts and decreased regulation. Although he changed political assumptions and gave us a fighting chance, we are not winning in the wake of Reagan the way republicans won in the wake of Jefferson . Today there is a black hole in the American political universe, and Washington threatens to crush us. Tyranny, however well intentioned, must end. States must begin to insist upon their Constitutional prerogative, if we should ever hope to restore the Union . We are no less patriotic or American for saying this, no less committed to the people’s freedom and the Founder’s vision, nor “rebels” for saying we shall ‘pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor’ to achieve this end.
Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford . Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he serves asState Director of the Republican Freedom Coalition (RFC). This article is from his newly released book, Horse Sense for the New Millennium available on-line atwww.WesRiddle.net and from fine bookstores everywhere.Email: .
Just in case my previous two columns weren’t enough evidence to demonstrate that yes, pretty much anything can and does happen in the justice system, here’s a fresh set of “exhibits.”
I’ve written before about the critical errors made by would-be bank robbers—stopping for a nearby lunch instead of making their getaway, wearing a painfully obvious and ineffective disguise, and even showing up just after the bank had closed.Apparently, penmanship counts, too, just like teachers used to tell us.Tomas J. Love walked into the WSFS bank in New Castle, Delaware in October 2011 and handed one of the bank tellers a demand note scrawled on a deposit slip.But the teller was unable to decipher Love’s handwriting, and handed the note back to the would-be holdup artist and told him to rewrite it.Humiliated and empty-handed, Love fled the bank on foot only to be apprehended by New Castle police and charged with attempted robbery.You know, he could have avoided this by just watching the same thing happen in the Woody Allen movie “Take the Money and Run.”
According to police in Marion, North Carolina, 35 year-old Amy Leigh Brown really got her wires crossed on October 6, 2011.The woman allegedly texted someone by mistake in an attempt to illegally sell the prescription drug Xanax—that someone being Deputy P.V. Alkire of the McDowell County Sheriff’s Office.Although Alkire didn’t recognize the phone number, he knew a potential drug bust when he saw one, so he responded and set up a meeting to buy from Ms. Brown.She arrived at the appointed spot, but when the police approached, Brown deleted all of her texts and denied texting the deputy.So Alkire called the phone number from which the texts had originated, and Brown’s phone rang.Oops!Brown was taken into custody, and 25 pills were found in her possession.Oddly enough, Brown lives on a street called Scooby Doo Drive; maybe she should just stick to Scooby snacks.
On October 3, 2011, Bridget Boyd filed a civil rights lawsuit against Harris County and Sheriff’s Deputy Mark Goad in federal court in Houston.According to her lawsuit, Boyd was experiencing car trouble during her morning commute and decided to drive on the shoulder of the freeway.Deputy Goad arrived and ticketed her for driving on the shoulder.When Boyd protested the ticket, Goad allegedly arrested her.Boyd claims that she suffered an “increased heart rate,” as well as emotional distress and mental anguish.The cause?Boyd (who is African-American) says she “was placed in the back of the police car and forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh make derogatory racial remarks about black people through Deputy Goad’s radio on her way to jail.”Good luck with that, Bridget—I don’t recall anything in the Constitution about a right to NPR.
The plaintiffs in the Wisconsin class action lawsuit against Taylorville Chiropractic Clinic and its director probably thought they had scored an important legal victory recently when they convinced St. Clair County Circuit Judge Lloyd Cueto to certify the class and notify potential class members of the lawsuit.The Plaintiffs filed in 2009, claiming that the defendants had violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited fax advertisements.But they might have done a double take when they saw the method Judge Cueto specified for sending out notices to other prospective members of the class action suit—fax, of course.
Holly Van Voast, a photographer who disrobes in public to challenge the stigma against nudity, has stripped everywhere from Times Square to Grand Central Terminal.Her Lady Godiva act at Grand Central earned the New Yorker a date in court.When she tried to describe her actions to Judge Rita Mella, Van Voast did what comes naturally: she removed her coat, revealing that she had nothing on above the waist.Judge Mella was not amused, and told the defendant she would be punished for contempt if she didn’t apologize.Although Van Voast apologized for exposing herself, Franklin Schwartz—her 89 year-old court-appointed lawyer—said he’d never seen anything like it in his 62 years of law practice.Be careful, Ms. Van Voast; when they give you a lawyer that old, you don’t want to give the poor guy a heart attack.
Maybe Franklin Schwartz should stick to representing people closer to his age, like Ms. Elsie Pawlow of Edmonton in Alberta, Canada.Ms. Pawlow sued Kraft Canada, the parent company of Cadbury Adams, the makers of Stride chewing gum, for $100,000.According to Pawlow, she deserves the money because the gum (marketed as “ridiculously long-lasting”) stuck to her dentures and she suffered depression for all of 10 minutes.Seriously, grandma?The obvious and predictable happens, and you want $100,000 for it?Try the Canadian lottery instead.
Centuries of tradition in Irish courts are about to come to an end.Judges in the Emerald Isle will no longer wear wigs.Acknowledging the costs of the tradition (the horsehair wigs cost the government $3,000 each), not to mention the discomfort, Ireland’s Superior Courts Rules Committee officially decided to discontinue the practice, which has been in place since the 17th Century.Anybody want to buy a wig?
One of my law professors once told me, “When the law is on your side, pound the law.When the facts are on your side, pound the facts.When neither are on your side, pound the table.”And if there’s no table, insult the other side’s ancestry and accuse them of being inbred.At least that seems to have been the thinking by lawyers at Washington, D.C.’s Crowell & Moring.The law firm, which represents major players in the mining industry like Massey Energy, prepared a memo in response to an academic study that discussed possible links between the controversial process of mountaintop coal mining and birth defects in the Appalachians.The Crowell & Moring memo criticized the study, saying it “failed to account for consanquinity (sic), one of the most prominent sources of birth defects.”
First of all, if you are a bunch of ostensibly high-powered Washington lawyers who want to insult an entire region’s inhabitants by accusing them of inbreeding (a.k.a. consanguinity), you should learn to spell.Second, you should get your facts straight—consanguinity is no more prevalent in Appalachia than it is in other parts of the country, according to experts.
The memo ignited a firestorm of controversy and protests against the law firm, the controversial “client alert” memo was withdrawn, and Crowell & Moring issued a formal apology.But that wasn’t enough for Jason Huber, a law professor from Charlotte, West Virginia who filed an ethics complaint against four Crowell & Moring attorneys with Washington’s Office of Bar Counsel.The complaint accuses the lawyers of running “afoul of their ethical and moral obligations as attorneys in soliciting business from the mining industry” by making “material misrepresentations about the Appalachian people.”
I’m not sure about their ethics, but those lawyers certainly aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Government should limit itself to providing an environment that lets people seek their own happiness on their own terms as long as their activities do not interfere with the rights of others to do the same. That used to be the American consensus even in stressful times.
How is it then that our federal government has over the years continued to expand its powers against the wishes of most of the folks who vote in elections? How do omnibus acts consisting of thousands of pages get passed when issues should be addressed on a more topical basis?
Why do we have a County Emergency Plan in Ellis County and probably many other counties that most of us did not know existed until very recently? A quick thanks to The Ellis County Observer for bringing this situation to light.
The short answer is that such acts are passed not in reaction to reasonable concern but in reaction to fear, mostly unjustified.
The Patriot Acts, which – though Republican-led – had important support in both major political parties, consisted of thousands of pages of new laws that were mostly unread by those who passed the acts. Irresponsible, you bet. But such acts that arguably expanded government power beyond the limits of our foundational documents were passed in response to fear, too much of it.
The more recent Democrat-led attempt to deal with shortcomings in our health care system – an act that former Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said we would have to pass it to see what was in it – is yet another example of 2000-plus-page act passed in the spirit of fear. "Trust me, I’m from the government," the Speaker seemed to say.
Although the 911 attacks certainly deserved a serious response, are we a better society after the knee-jerk (unlawful) suspension of large sections of the 1st and 4th Amendments through a document no one read? No matter what the courts say in the short run, what will history etch on the American Republic’s tombstone a century from now? I hope we recover our senses.
Will we be a better society after we have surrendered health care choices and treatment options to federal bureaucracy? How about the 21 companion tax increases that are in the mega-bill?
Did we go too far in both cases?
Our enemies are certainly not ten feet tall, nor have they proven themselves extremely competent. Even the disastrous attacks of 911 and the Fort Hood massacre appear to be tragedies that could have been avoided if those who are given the responsibly of security in our nation had exercised lawful diligence that was allowed pre-Patriot Act. Do we really need warrantless searches to deal with a dangerous but often incompetent bunch of adversaries? Underwear bombs that don’t blow-up but scorch the perpetrator’s privates and shoe bombers that get taken down by airline passengers are hardly super threats.
Federal legislation is bad enough, but a document has come into my possession that sets policy in our county in regard to disaster preparedness. The document was released to me after I made a public information request. I was charged $49 for the copies – fair enough, as the document was over 490 pages.
Much like in our Congress, I really doubt the members of the commissioners court read every page of the act. Interestingly enough, large sections of it were blacked out. Someone still thought much of it was too secret for public consumption. Yet the plan was passed publicly but quietly by our county commissioners and judge. Where was the press?
My understanding is that our county officials recently refused to release the document until our State Attorney General ordered them to. Is this open government?
Among many things the document deals with is denying citizens the right to transfer gun ownership in an emergency or even loan a firearm. It also gives the city or county the right to set certain prices and wages, commandeer private property and close or even force some businesses to stay open in the event of an emergency that is declared by your city officials or county judge and commissioners. In effect, a business could be ordered to stay open and run at a loss. Why were these provisions not brought to light?
Much of the released material is still blacked out (redacted) in the official copies that were released in response to my public information request. Is this Ellis County, Washington, D.C. or perhaps Lubyanka?
While we can appreciate an attempt to prevent price gouging in an emergency, we already have state law that deals with those issues.
The County Emergency management which was passed down to the county by the federal government as the National Incident Management System plan was signed in 2005 . Chad Adams, Dennis Robinson, Larry Jones, Ron Brown and Heath Sims signed the document.
Robinson, Brown and Sims are still serving on the court. The question is, why weren’t the most controversial parts of this plan brought to the public by those we have elected and given public trust?
Perhaps none of them or other members of the current court have read the 490-odd-page document, which seems to have been passed down to them by a state and or federal agency.
The fact is it could have been amended in part or even declined, otherwise local approval would not have been necessary.
One still has to ask, Why was this "Emergency Plan" never widely circulated? Why wasn’t it widely publicized? Were our judge and commissioners afraid to encourage discussion? Many of us might want to weigh in before our God-given constitutional rights are monkeyed with by those who make up our county court. I suspect these emergency orders have been promoted nationwide. Check with your county’s information contact. Courage, y’all, courage.
This article was originally published in the Waxahachie Daily Light in a slightly different form.