[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 9 (Thursday, February 7, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H221-H225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STIMULATING THE ECONOMY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, dealing with the slumping economy will prove
every bit as challenging to the Congress as fighting terrorism. No one
challenges the need to protect American citizens from further terrorist
attacks, but there is much debate throughout the country as to how it
should be done and whether personal liberty here at home must be
sacrificed.
Many are convinced that our efforts overseas might escalate the
crisis and actually precipitate more violence. A growing number of
Americans are becoming concerned that our efforts to preserve security
will result in the unnecessary sacrifice of that which we have pledged
to protect, our constitutionally protected liberty.
A similar conflict also exists once government attempts to legislate
an end to a recession. In the 1970s, wage and price controls were used
to suppress price inflation and to help the economy without realizing
the futility of such a policy. Not only did it not work, the economy
was greatly harmed. Legislation per se is not necessarily harmful; but
if it reflects bad policy, it is.
The policy of wage and price controls makes things worse and
represents a serious violation of people's rights. Today, we hear from
strong advocates of higher taxation, increased spending, higher budget
deficits, tougher regulations, bailouts and all kinds of subsidies and
support programs as tools to restore economic growth. The Federal
Reserve recognized early on the severity of the problems, and over the
past year lowered short-term interest rates in an unprecedented 11
times, dropping the Fed funds rate from 6\1/2\ percent to 1\3/4\.
This has not helped, and none of these other suggestions can solve
the economic problems we face either. Some may temporarily help a part
of the economy, but the solution to restoring growth lies not in more
government but less. It is precisely too much government and especially
manipulation of credit by the Federal Reserve that precipitated the
economic downturn in the first place.
Increasing that which caused the recession cannot possibly at the
same time be the solution. The magnitude of the distortions of the
1990s brought on by artificially low interest rates orchestrated by the
Fed on top of 30 years of operating with a fiat currency worldwide
suggests that this slow down will not abort quickly. The Japanese
economy has been in a slump for over 10 years and shows no signs of
recovery.
The world economies are more integrated than ever before. When they
are growing, it is a benefit to all; but in a contraction, globalism
based on fiat money and an international government assures that most
economies will be dragged down together. Evidence is abundant that most
countries of the world are feeling the pressure of a weakening economy.
Many of our political and economic leaders have been preaching that
more consumer spending can revitalize the economy. This admonition, of
course, fails to address the reality of a record high $7.5 trillion,
and rising, consumer debt. ``Today a party, tomorrow an economic
hangover'' has essentially been our philosophy for decades; but there
is always a limit to deficit spending, whether it is private or
governmental, and the short-term benefits must always be paid for in
one form or another later on.
Those who felt and acted wealthy in holding the dot-com and Enron
stocks were brought back to Earth with a shattering correction. There
is a lot more of this type of correction yet to come in the financial
sector. In recessions, to remain solvent consumers ought to tighten the
belts, pay off debt and save. In a free market, this would lower
interest rates to once again make investments attractive.
The confusing aspect of today's economy is that consumers and even
businesses continue profligate borrowing in spite of the problems on
the horizon. Interest rates, instead of rising, are pushed dramatically
downward by the Federal Reserve creating massive amounts of new credit.
This new credit, according to economic law, must in time push the value
of the dollar down and general prices up. When this happens and the
dollar is threatened on exchange markets, the cost of living is pushed
sharply upward. The Central Bank is then forced then to raise interest
rates, as they did in 1979, when the rates hit 21 percent.
Even before any need to tighten, interest rates may rise or not fall
as expected. This has just happened in the year 2001. Even with Fed
fund rates at 40-year lows, the 10- and 30-year rates have not fallen
accordingly. Many corporate bond rates have stayed high, and credit
card rates have stayed in double digits. This happens because the
market discounts for debt quality and future depreciation of the
dollar.
The Fed cannot control these rates, and they cannot control where the
new
[[Page H222]]
credit they create goes. This means that resorting to or trusting in
the Fed to bail out the economy and accommodate a congressional
spending is foolhardy and dangerous. This policy has led to a record
default for U.S. corporate bonds, and worldwide $110 billion of bonds
were defaulted on last year.
Monetary inflation is the chief cause of recessions. Therefore, we
must never expect that this same policy will reverse the economic
dislocations it has caused. For over a year the Fed has been massively
inflating the money supply, and there is no evidence that it has done
much good. This continuous influx of new credit, instead, delays the
correction that must inevitably come, the liquidation of bad debt and
the reduction of overcapacity.
This is something Japan has not accomplished in 12 years of interest
rates of around 1 percent. The market must be left to eliminate the
misdirected investments and allow the sound investments to survive.
{time} 1300
There are other policies that will assist in a recovery that the
Congress could implement: all taxes ought to be lowered, government
spending should be reduced, controls of labor costs should be removed,
and onerous regulations should be reduced or eliminated. We should not
expect any of this to happen unless the people and the Congress decide
that free market capitalism and sound money are preferable to a welfare
state and fiat money.
Whether this downturn is the one that will force that major decision
upon us is not known, but eventually we will have to make it.
Welfareism and our expanding growing foreign commitments, financed
seductively through credit creation by the Fed, are not viable options.
Transferring wealth to achieve a modicum of economic equality and
assuring the role and assuming the role of world policemen, while
ignoring economic laws regarding money and credit, must lead to
economic distortions and a lower standard of living for most citizens.
In the process, dependency on the government develops and Congress
attempts to solve all the problems with a much more visible hand than
Adam Smith recommended.
The police efforts overseas and the effort to solve the social and
economic problems here at home cannot be carried out without
undermining the freedoms that we all profess to care about. Sadly
lacking in the Congress is a conviction that free markets, that is,
truly free markets, and sound money can provide the highest standard of
living for the greatest number of people. Instead, we operate with a
system that compromises free markets and causes economic injury to a
growing number of people while rewarding special interests and steadily
undermining the principles of liberty.
Unfortunately, the policy of monetary inflation is most harmful to
the poor and the middle class, especially in the early stages. Since
rejecting the current system and endorsing economic freedom diminishes
the power and influence of politicians, it is difficult to get
political support for such a program. The necessary changes will only
come when the American people wake up to the reality and insist that
the Congress pursue only those goals permitted under the Constitution.
Instead of moving in the direction of freer markets, the more
problems the Western countries face, the more government programs are
demanded. If one looks at Europe, the United States, or even Japan, as
their economies weaken, government involvement in the economy
increases. But in China and Russia, where the horrible conditions that
communism caused, ironically made those two countries move toward freer
markets when they encountered serious problems. Even the central banks
of these two countries today are accumulating gold, while Western
central banks are selling.
The reason for this is that the conventional wisdom of the West's
political and economic leaders is that there is a third way that is
best, or an alternative to the extremes of too much freedom, laissez-
faire capitalism, and too little freedom, authoritarianism socialism,
and communism. But this is a myth. One can only justify intervention in
the market on principle or against it.
There is always the hope that government will be prudent and limit
its intrusion in the economy with low taxes, minimal regulations, a
little inflation, and only a few special interest favors. Yet the
record is clear. Any sign of distress prompts government action for any
and every conceivable problem. Since each action by the government not
only fails in its attempt to solve the problem it addresses, it creates
several new problems in addition while prompting even more government
intervention.
Here in the United States, we have seen the process at work for
several decades with steady growth in the size and scope of the Federal
bureaucracy and the corresponding reduction of our personal liberties.
This principle also applies to overseas intervention. One episode of
meddling in the affairs of other nations leads to several new problems,
requiring even more of our attention and funding. This system leads to
a huge bureaucratic government manipulated by politicians and generates
an army of special interests that flood the system with money and
demands. To achieve and maintain political power in Washington, these
powerful special interests must be satisfied.
This is a well-known problem and prompts some serious-minded and
well-intentioned Members to want to legislate campaign finance reforms.
But the reforms proposed would actually make the whole mess worse. They
would regulate access to the Members of Congress and dictate how
private money is spent in campaigns. This merely curtails liberty while
ignoring the real problem: a government that ignores the Constitution
naturally passes out largess.
Even under today's conditions, where money talks in Washington, if
enough Members would just refuse either to accept or be influenced by
the special interests, government favors would no longer be up for
sale. Since politicians are far from perfect, the solution is having a
government of limited size acting strictly within the framework of the
Constitution. No matter how strictly campaign finance laws are written,
they will do only harm if the rule of law is not restored and if
Congress refuses to stop being manipulated by the special interests.
Most people recognize the horrible mess that Washington is and how
campaign money and lobbyists influence the system. But the reforms
proposed only deal with the symptoms and not the cause. There is a
sharp disagreement in what to do about it, but no one denies the
existence of the problem. It is just hard for most to acknowledge that
the welfare state is out of control and should not be in existence
anyway. Therefore, they misdirect our attention toward campaign finance
reform, rather than deal with the real problem.
Very few in Washington, however, recognize the dire consequences to
economic prosperity that welfareism, warfarism, and inflationism cause.
Most believe that the occasional recession can be easily handled by
government programs and a Federal Reserve policy designed to stimulate
growth. It has happened many times already and almost everyone believes
that in a few months our economy and stock market will be roaring once
again.
This is where I disagree. Every recession in the last 30 years, since
the dollar became a purely fiat currency, has ended after a significant
correction and resumption of all the bad policies that caused the
recession in the first place. Each rebound required more spending, more
debt, and easy credit than the previous recovery did. And with each
cycle the government got bigger and more intrusive.
Bigger government with more monetary debasement and deficit spending
means a steady erosion of the free market and personal freedoms. This
is not tolerated because the people enjoy or even endorse higher taxes,
more regulations and fewer freedoms. It is tolerated because most
people believe that their financial and economic security is the
responsibility of the government. They believe they are better off with
government assistance in facilitating the free market, having been
taught for decades that it is necessary for government to put a human
face on capitalism.
Extreme capitalism, that is, freedom, we have been told, is just as
dangerous as extreme socialism. As long as this belief prevails, our
system will continue in its inexorable march towards
[[Page H223]]
fascist-type socialism. However, support for today's policies is built
on the fallacy that material wealth and general prosperity are best
achieved with this third way: interventionism, while avoiding the
dangers of communism and socialism. This is coupled with the firm
conviction that the sacrifice of freedom will be minimal and limited
and that the very rich can be adequately taxed and regulated to help
the poor.
This is a fallacy because more freedom will be lost than is expected
and the productivity of the market will suffer more than anticipated.
Once this realization occurs, it will suddenly be discovered that the
apparent wealth of the Nation is a lot less than calculated. An economy
that depends on ever-increasing rates of monetary inflation will appear
much healthier and the people much richer than is the actual case.
Owners of the dot-com companies or the Enron stocks know what it is
like to feel rich one day and very poor the next.
This is not a unique experience, but one that should be expected and
is predictable. Countries that inflate their currencies must adjust
their values periodically with sudden devaluations which destroy the
pseudowealth of the middle class and the poor. The wealthy, more often
than not, can protect themselves from the sudden shocks to the monetary
system. However, they cannot protect from the insidious loss of liberty
that accompanies these adjustments, and eventually everyone suffers.
Our dollar system is quite similar to the Argentine and Mexico peso
systems that periodically make sudden and painful adjustments. But ours
is different in one respect because the dollar is accepted as the
reserve currency of the world, the paper gold of the world financial
system. This gives us license to inflate, that is, steal, for longer
periods of time. And we can avoid sudden and sharp devaluations since
the world's currencies are defined by our dollar.
But this does not permit the ultimate devaluation that will bring a
significant increase in the cost of living to all Americans but hurt
the poor and the middle class the most. This special status of the
dollar only makes the problem of the illusion of wealth much worse.
Since our bubble can last a lot longer due to our perceived military
and economic strength, it appears that our wealth is much greater than
it actually is. Because of our unique position as the economic
powerhouse of the world, we are able to borrow more than anyone else.
Foreigners loan us exorbitant sums as our current account deficits soar
out of sight.
The U.S. now has a foreign debt of over $2 trillion. Perceptions and
illusions and easy credit allow our consumers to spend even in
recessions, by rolling up even more debt in a time when market forces
are saying that borrowing should decrease and the debt burden lessen.
Our corporations follow the same pattern, keeping afloat with more
borrowing.
Ideas regarding the national debt have been transformed. Presidents
Jefferson and Jackson despised government debt and warned against it.
Likewise, both detested central banking, which they knew inevitably
would be used to liquidate the real debt through the mischievous
process of monetary debasement.
Today, few decry the debt, except for the purpose of political
demagoguery when convenient. The concern about deficits expressed by
liberal big spenders does not merit credibility. But even conservative
spenders now are less likely to decry deficits, and some actually
praise them. Just recently, the Conservative Institute for Policy
Innovation announced in a national press release, ``National debt can
lead to a growing economy and it produces steady long-term growth,
greater security and a higher standard of living.''
This would not be so bad if it came from a typical Keynesian think
tank; but this is the growing conventional wisdom of many conservatives
whose goal it is to generate government revenues, painlessly, of
course, not to drastically shrink the size of government and restore
personal liberty. What they fail to recognize, once they lose interest
in shrinking the size of government, is that government borrowing
always takes money from productive enterprises while placing these
funds in the hands of politicians whose prime job is to serve special
interests.
Deficits are a political expedience that also forces the Federal
Reserve to inflate the currency while reducing in real terms the debt
owed by the government by depreciating the value of the currency. Those
who would belittle the critics of the deficit and national debt are
merely supporting a system of big government, whether it is welfare or
warfare or both.
Debt per se is not the only issue. It is also because the debt always
encourages the growth in the size of government, allowing it to be
seductively financed through inflation or borrowing, is what makes it
so bad. Just because it is less painful at first and payment is
delayed, we should not be tempted to endorse this process. If liberty
is our goal and minimal government a benefit to a sound economy, we
must always reject debt and deficits as a legitimate tool for improving
the economy and the welfare of the greatest number of people. The
principle of authoritarian government is endorsement whenever deficits
are legitimatized. All those who love liberty must reject the notion
that deficits and debt perform a useful function.
It is possible this recession may end in a few months, as the
optimists predict. But if it does, other problems are only delayed. The
fundamental correction will still be necessary to preserve the
productivity of a market economy. If we do not change our ways, the
financial bubble will just go back to inflating again. The big
correction, like that which Argentina is now experiencing, with rapid
disappearance of paper wealth, will eventually hit our economy. The
longer the delay, the bigger will be the bust and greater the threat to
our freedoms and institutions.
Since we are moving toward the big correction, we are going to see a
lot more wealth removed from our balance sheets and our retirement
accounts. The rampant price inflation that results will erode the
purchasing power of all fixed-income retirement funds, like Social
Security, and mean a lower standard of living for most people. The
routine government response of increasing benefits for living expenses
and medical care will never keep up with the needs or the demands.
Eventually, we will have to give up and a new economic system will have
to be devised, as occurred in the Soviet system after 1989.
Wealth, the product of labor, investment, and savings, can never be
substituted by government spending or by a central bank that creates
new money out of thin air. Governments can only give things they first
take from someone else. Printing money only diminishes the value of
each monetary unit. Neither can create wealth. Both can destroy it.
The dilemma is that early on, and sometimes for many years, as we
have experienced, transferring wealth and printing money seems to help
more than it hurts. That is because the wealth is not real and the
trust funds, like Social Security, hold no actual wealth. A pension
fund with dot-coms and Enron stock hold no wealth either.
Unfortunately, the stocks and bonds remaining are worth a lot less than
most people realize.
{time} 1315
The Social Security System depends on the value of the dollar and on
future taxation. The Fed can create unlimited amounts of money that
Congress needs, and Congress can raise taxes as it wants, but this
policy guarantees that the dollar cannot maintain its purchasing power,
and that there will not be enough young people to tax in the future.
Increasing benefits under these circumstances can only be done at the
expense of the dollar. Catching up with the current system of money and
transfer payments is equivalent to a person on a treadmill who expects
to get to the next town. It does not work.
The economic loss is bad enough, but whether it is fighting the war
on terrorism, acting as the world's policeman or solving the problems
of vanishing wealth, the real insult will come from the freedoms we
lose. These freedoms, vital to production and wealth formation, are
necessary and represent what the American dream is all about. They are
what made us the richest Nation in all of history, but this we will
lose if Congress is not careful with what it does in the coming months.
[[Page H224]]
Mr. Speaker, if nothing else, the knowledge that we are now
vulnerable from outside attacks is shared by all Americans. The danger
is clear and present, and everybody wants something done about it.
There is, however, no unanimity as to the cause of the attacks, who is
responsible, and what has to be done. The President has been given
congressional authority to use force against ``those responsible for
the recent attacks launched against the United States.''
A large majority of Americans are quite satisfied that his efforts
have been carried out with due diligence, but a growing number of
Americans are becoming aware that antiterrorist efforts both at home
and abroad will have unintended consequences that few anticipated, and
that in time will not be beneficial to U.S. security and will undermine
our liberties here at home. Let me name a few potential dangers we
face.
Number one, there is a danger that the definition of terrorism will
become so vague and broad that almost any act internationally or
domestically will qualify. If our response in Afghanistan becomes the
standard for all countries in their retaliation, negotiated settlements
of conflicts will become a thing of the past; acts of terror occurring
on a regular basis around the world, whether involving Northern Ireland
and Britain, India and Pakistan, the Palestinians and Israel, Turkey
and Greece, or many other places. Traditionally, the United States has
always urged restraint and negotiations. This approach may end if our
response in Afghanistan sets the standard.
Number 2. Another danger is that the administration may take it upon
itself to broadly and incorrectly interpret H.J. Res. 64, the
resolution granting authority to the President to use force to
retaliate against only those responsible for the recent attacks
launched against the United States. Congress did not authorize force
against all terrorist attacks throughout the world if the individuals
involved were not directly involved in the September 11 attacks. It
would be incorrect and dangerous to use this authority to suppress
uprising throughout the world. This authority cannot be used to
initiate an all-out attack on Iraq or any other nation we might find
displeasing, but that did not participate in the September 11 attacks.
Number 3. An imprecise definition of who is or who is not a terrorist
may be used to justify massively expanding our military might around
the world. For every accused terrorist, there will be a declared
freedom fighter. To always know the difference is more than one can
expect. Our record in the past 50 years for choosing the right side in
many conflicts is poor, to say the least. Many times there is no right
side from the viewpoint of American security, and our unnecessary
entanglements have turned out to be the greatest threat to our
security.
Number 4. There is a risk that our massive deployment of troops in
many countries of the world may contribute to a greater conflict. We
are today in the middle of a dangerous situation between Pakistan and
India over Kashmir, both of whom possess nuclear weapons, and both of
whom we generally finance. Exposing ourselves to such risk, while
spending endless sums supporting both sides, makes no sense.
Number 5. Our pervasive military presence may well encourage
alliances that would have been unheard of a few years ago. Now that we
have committed ourselves internationally to destroying Afghanistan and
rebuilding it, with a promise that we will be there for a long time,
might encourage closer military alliances between Russia and China, and
even others like Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia,
countries all nervous about our military permanency in this region.
Control of Caspian Sea oil is not a forgotten item for these countries,
and it will not be gracefully conceded to United States oil interests.
If these alliances develop, even U.S. control of the Persian Gulf oil
could be challenged as well.
Number 6. Limits exist on how extensive our foreign commitments
should be. It is difficult to be everyplace at one time, especially if
hostilities break out in more than one place. For instance, if we were
to commit our troops to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and Iran were
to decide to help Iraq at the same time the North Koreans were to
decide to make a move, our capacity to wage war in both places would be
limited. Already we are short of bombs from the current Afghanistan
war. We had to quit flying sorties over our own cities due to costs,
while depending on NATO planes to provide AWACS cover of U.S.
territory. In addition, our financial resources are not unlimited, and
any significant change in the value of the dollar as well as our
rapidly growing deficits could play a significant role in our ability
to pay our bills.
Number 7. In the area of personal liberty, we face some real dangers.
Throughout our history, starting with the Civil War, our liberties have
been curtailed, and the Constitution has been flaunted. Although our
government continued to grow with each crisis, many of the liberties
curtailed during wartime were restored. War was precise and declared,
and when the war was over, there was a desire to return to normalcy.
With the current war on terrorism, there is no end in sight, and
there is no precise enemy. We have been forewarned that this fight will
go on for a long time. This means that a return to normalcy after the
sacrifices that we are making with our freedoms is not likely. The
implementation of a national ID card, national surveillance, easy-to-
get search warrants and loss of financial and medical privacy will be
permanent. If this trend continues, the Constitution will become a much
weaker document.
Number 8. A danger exists that the United States is becoming a police
state. Just a few decades ago, this would have become unimaginable. As
originally designed, in the American Republic, police powers were to be
the prerogative of the States, and the military was not to be involved.
Unfortunately today most Americans welcome the use of military troops
to police our public places, especially the airports. Each before
September 11, more than 80,000 armed Federal bureaucrats patrolled the
countryside checking for violations of Federal laws and regulations.
That number since September 11 has increased by nearly 50 percent, and
it will not shrink. Military takeover of homeland security looks
certain. Can freedom and prosperity survive if the police state
continues to expand? I doubt it. It never has before in all of history,
and this is a threat that Congress should not ignore.
Number 9. There is a danger that personal privacy will be a thing of
the past. Even before September 11, there were attacks on the privacy
of all Americans for good reasons, or so it was argued. The attacks
included plans for national ID cards, a national medical data bank, and
know-your-customer-type banking regulations. The need for enforcement
powers for the DEA and IRS routinely prompted laws that violated the
fourth amendment. The current crisis has emboldened those who already
were anxious to impose restrictions on the American people. With drug
and tax laws, and now with antiterrorist legislation sailing through
Congress, true privacy enjoyed by a free people is fast becoming
something that we will only read about in our textbooks. Reversing this
trend will not be easy.
Number 10. Flying commercial airlines will continue to be a hassle
and dangerous. Even travel by other means will require close scrutiny
by all levels of government in the name of providing security.
Unfortunately, the restrictions and rules on travel on all American
citizens will do little, if anything, to prevent another terrorist
attack.
Number 11. The economic ramifications of our war on terrorism are
difficult to ascertain, but could be quite significant. Although the
recession was obviously not caused by the attacks, the additional money
spent and the effect of all regulations cannot help the recovery. When
one adds up the domestic costs, the military costs and the costs of our
new regulations, we can be certain that deficits are going to grow
significantly, and the Federal Reserve will be required to further
pursue a dangerous monetary policy of inflation. This policy will
result in higher rather than lower interest rates, a weak dollar, and
certainly rising prices. The danger of our economy spinning out of
control should not be lightly dismissed.
Number 12. In this crisis, as in all crises, the special interests
are motivated
[[Page H225]]
to increase their demands. It is a convenient excuse to push for the
benefits they were already looking for. Domestically this includes
everyone from the airlines to the unions, insurance companies, travel
agents, State and local governments, and anyone who can justify a
related need. It is difficult for the military-industrial complex to
hide their glee with their new contracts for weapons and related
technology. Instead of the events precipitating a patriotic fervor for
liberty, we see enthusiasm for big government, more spending, more
dependency, greater deficits, and military confrontations that are
unrelated to the problems of terrorism. We are supposed to be fighting
terrorism to protect our freedoms, but if we are not careful, we will
lose our freedoms and precipitate more terrorist attacks.
Lastly, not much empathy is being expressed for members of the
Taliban that we now hold as prisoners. The antipathy is easily
understood. It is not just as a Nation we should set a good example
under the rules of the Geneva Convention, but if we treat the Taliban
prisoners inhumanely, there is the danger it will be surely used as an
excuse to treat American prisoners in the same manner in the future.
This certainly is true when we use torture to extract information,
which is now being advised. Not only does that reflect on our own
society as a free Nation, but torture notoriously rarely generates
reliable information. This danger should not be ignored. Besides, we
have nothing to gain by mistreating prisoners who have no knowledge of
the September 11 attacks. The idea that those captured are terrorists
responsible for the September 11 attacks begs an obvious question.
Mr. Speaker, many realists who see the world as it really is and who
recognize the dilemma we face in the United States to preserve our
freedoms in this time of crisis are despondent and pessimistic,
believing little can be done to reverse the tide against freedom.
Others who share the same concern are confident that efforts to
preserve the true spirit of the Constitution can be successful. Maybe
next month or next year or at some later date, I am convinced in time
the love of liberty can be rejuvenated. Once it is recognized that
government has no guarantee of future successes, promoting dependency
and security can quickly lose its allure.
{time} 1330
The Roman poet, Horace, 2,000 years ago spoke of adversity:
``Adversity has the effect of eliciting talents which in times of
prosperity would have lain dormant.'' Since I believe we will be a lot
less prosperous in the not-too-distant future, we will have plenty of
opportunity to elicit the talents of many Americans.
Leonard Read, one of the greatest champions of liberty in the 20th
century, advised optimism:
``In every society there are persons who have the intelligence to
figure out the requirements of liberty and the character to walk in its
ways. This is a scattered fellowship of individuals--mostly unknown to
you and me--bound together by a love of ideas and a hunger to know the
plain truth of things.''
Mr. Read was convinced that this remnant would rise to the occasion
and do the necessary things to restore virtue and excellence to a
people who had lost their way. Liberty would prevail.
Let us be convinced that there is not enough hate or anger to silence
the cries for liberty or to extinguish the flame of truth and justice.
We must have faith that those who now are apathetic, anxious for
security at all costs, forgetful of the true spirit of American
liberty, and neglectful of the Constitution, will rise to the task and
respond accordingly.
____________________