Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (15 page)

The Supreme Court in 1953 set a precedent in the
United States v. Reynolds
case for current presidential abuse of their constitutionally limited powers. This ruling allowed the executive branch to claim “state secret privileges” as a reason for keeping any and all secrets it claimed, even without showing the evidence, would threaten “national security.” President Obama now uses this precedent to hold suspects indefinitely and without charges being made.
¹
The state’s secrecy provision was also used by the Bush administration to massively expand executive powers. The Freedom of Information Act has not limited this court-approved power, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has increased the dangers of runaway executive powers in the post–9/11 era.

Today, the executive branch can ignore a civil trial verdict of innocence if the administration still deems the individual
a threat, and the individual can be thrown in prison indefinitely. Thus, the executive branch has encroached on judicial powers as well.

Any individual, including an American citizen, whom the President considers a threat can actually be targeted for assassination, as we discussed earlier. No charges made, no trial held, no rights guaranteed! This is extremely bad news for the future of the American Republic.

But more often, individuals can be arrested and held indefinitely without charges being made. The right of habeas corpus is no longer guaranteed. The reason given is that national security would be endangered if trials were held. What they don’t want to consider is that this type of “justice” can endanger the liberties and safety of all Americans.

In times of declared wars and on battlefields, military courts can be justified. However, claiming that in times of peace the President can establish secret military tribunals and ignore due process is a dangerous move toward the totalitarian state. Anytime it’s argued that today’s conditions are different and sacrificing liberty for security is necessary, one should always consider exactly how he or she would like to be treated by an overly aggressive federal police officer who falsely identified him or her suspect.

Presidents today have huge control over off-budget spending. Money appropriated for Afghanistan was directed early on by Bush to start the war in Iraq before the proper funds were approved.

Presidents can work hand in glove with the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve can loan and give money to other central banks and other governments without congressional approval
or oversight. Illegal funding of the CIA from private businesses, banks, and illegal drug trade have been documented. Some have called the CIA the President’s secret army. This abuse continues to grow.

The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, with their huge influence and authority over financial markets, can manipulate markets and profit from it—all off budget. The Exchange Stabilization Fund, the CFTC, the SEC, and the Treasury, along with the Federal Reserve, can fund almost anything they desire. It was not difficult to fund the secret wars in Afghanistan and Nicaragua in the 1980s. The ominous power of the executive can easily intimidate a reluctant Congress.

But Congress does nothing to reclaim its authority and the responsibility given it under the Constitution. A large group of conservatives make the earmark controversy the litmus test for conservative credentials and astoundingly demand that Congress deliver to the executive branch the power to earmark all spending. This only enhances presidential power. Voting against an earmark doesn’t save a dime—it only allows the executive branch to decide how the money will be spent, which is a clear responsibility of the Congress under the Constitution. The solution to the budgetary crisis is to simply get enough people in Congress to refuse to fund all unconstitutional spending by following the directions of Article I, Section 8.

The outstanding expert on the issue of executive power is Louis Fisher, who spent thirty years researching the subject for the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service. I’ve heard him lament on quite a few occasions
Congress’s continual, inexplicable surrendering of its prerogatives and delivering them on a platter to the executive branch. The assumption by the authors of the Constitution overestimated the future Congresses’ willingness to keep the power of the presidency in check.

Today’s events are reminiscent of the Old Testament story of how the Israelites demanded a king over God’s objection. They believed that a king would give them peace and security. The results proved otherwise. So too will it be with America: The dictatorial government that is ever approaching will not provide the security the American people are seeking, and the sacrifice of our liberties will have been for naught.

Denson, John. 2001.
Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom
. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.

Fisher, Louis. 2004.
Presidential War Power
. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Morely, Felix. 1981.
Freedom and Federalism
. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Savage, Charlie. 2008.
Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy
. New York: Back Bay Books.

T
here was a time when Republicans opposed all foreign aid. That time has passed, and the only debate now is which countries will receive it and how much. There are very few members in Congress who, on principle, oppose all foreign aid.

Believing foreign aid benefits our national security allows for billions of dollars to be wasted, encouraging a foreign policy that inevitably leads to unintended consequences that come back to haunt us.

Foreign aid support comes for various reasons. We must support our allies and keep them strong. We must, for humanitarian reasons, help impoverished nations. It’s our duty. Others argue we are obligated to financially support those countries that yield to our demand that we maintain military bases in their country. Oftentimes, corporations and universities will lobby hard for foreign aid expenditures with the hope of getting a research contract or selling certain products to the recipient country.

For certain, all foreign aid is a form of credit allocation.
American citizens are taxed to fund these foreign giveaway programs. That means funds are taken out of the hands of private citizens, who are prevented from deciding how the money should be spent. Allowing government or bureaucratic decisions on spending capital is always inferior to private companies and people deciding how the money should be spent.

But most importantly, foreign aid never works to achieve the stated goal of helping the poor of other nations. The decisions as to who will receive the money are political at both ends. Our politicians make decisions on where the money is to go and the politicians in the other countries are in charge of how it will be spent.

In poor countries food aid becomes a tool for maintaining political power. Frequently, those in the greatest need are involved in civil war. The aid literally becomes a weapon for one faction to use against another. This usually delays the needed peace effort, by subsidizing one side over the other.

Many of the large foreign aid grants are driven strictly by special interest politics and a pretense that it serves our national security interests. Since the Camp David Accords under Jimmy Carter, Israel has received more than $100 billion and Egypt has received more than $50 billion. It is nice that they have quit killing each other, but if the peace depends on these funds flowing into these two countries, it’s not a very stable peace. Both countries become more dependent on us and have less incentive to take care of their own needs. Who knows, peace may have come even without our money.

Foreign aid always has some strings attached. Spending on weapons bought in the United States is commonplace, and one of the main reasons conservative Republicans have been
champions of foreign aid. It’s good for our military-industrial complex and it’s justified because the recipients will then be reliable military allies and well armed. Too often, though, countries that we have subsidized and armed become our enemies and the weapons are used against us. There are far too many examples of this.

Not only do countries receive direct unilateral aid from us, hundreds of billions of dollars have been delivered through multilateral organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other Agency for International Development entities. Loans and loan guarantees are frequently used.

The Federal Reserve is allowed to make secret agreements with foreign governments, foreign central banks, and international financial institutions. Since an audit of these agreements has never been allowed, there is no way to know with certainty whether the Fed participates in foreign policy strategy. But in November 2010, the Fed was pressured to cough up information about its practices. Many people were shocked to discover that so much of the newly created money went to the biggest players in the banking industry and to foreign institutions; I was not shocked. I read the revelations as confirmation of what I’ve long suspected.

With its capability of making secret loans to and guarantees with other countries, the Fed may well be much more involved financially than what Congress does under the appropriation process. But just like the Congress demanding “kickbacks” for their taxpayers’ financial gifts, I’m sure the Fed can arrange for favors in return for providing funds in the financial community.

There’s nothing wrong with foreign aid per se, as when rich countries help others in poorer countries who may be suffering from a natural disaster. But it has to be private. The odds then are much better that the funds will be put to more constructive use than they are when it’s a government transfer.

The only long-term benefit that one country can bestow on another suffering deprivation from socialistic government policies is to export ideas of liberty, free markets, sound money, and private property rights. Just as with material assistance, these ideas must be sent in a voluntary fashion, not by government.

Too often our financial aid is given on condition that the recipients spend the money on education. It’s not unusual that this effort turns out to be quite negative. We have made efforts to teach developing nations how to set up an IRS-style income tax system, a central bank, and other social welfare programs. The extreme of this is when the neoconservatives dedicate themselves to “spreading America’s goodness” with bombs and bullets. They claim we have a moral obligation to spread democracy around the world. This is usually only an excuse to make their violent efforts sound more humanitarian.

International foreign aid is supposed to reflect the right of everyone to live with dignity, a worthy goal but unachievable by the authoritarian approach of wealth distribution through taxation. This method provides no worthwhile benefits. This international right to live with dignity is the extension of the Freedom from Want of FDR’s Four Freedoms. The right to life and liberty in no way implies one’s right to someone else’s property domestically or internationally.

As long as the American people accept the notion that their
money, taken through taxation and given away to strangers in foreign lands by our politicians, is somehow beneficial to our national interest, foreign aid will continue. When the people demand that the process stop by being more selective as to whom they choose to represent them, or when we go broke and can’t afford it, this policy will end.

Complacency comes from guilt that government officials instill in the people and that allows the transfer of wealth in this manner. It’s easier to achieve the electorate’s support when a country is reasonably prosperous. Many are convinced by the argument that U.S. foreign aid is a small amount—now $50 billion per year—and the rich will pay.

The truth is that borrowed money and inflating the currency to pay for the deficit that foreign aid contributes to puts the burden on the poor and the middle class. Tragically, the humanitarian arguments are far removed from reality. Foreign aid can best be described as taking money from the poor in a rich country and giving it to the rich and powerful in a poor country. Unchecked, it assures that both the donor and recipient countries become poorer in the end.