Are Municipal Bondholders Consulting Robert Vesco in the Netherworld?

Lila Rajiva deconstructs Ellen Brown's piece at the Huffington Post which exposes vast amounts of money squirreled  away by State and Municipal governments as "rainy day" or emergency funds. The same governments that have to cut non-essential services (read - services that actually provide value to citizens but are high profile enough to show that the government is serious about cuts but without actually inconveniencing any public employees, at least any highly-paid ones). The same governments that are borrowing billions at X% while keeping the slush funds in essentially checking accounts earning .01X%. My county, Fairfax, VA, has had a strong stench of corruption for years as one of the richest, if not the richest in the country, yet has to borrow and roll over  a mountain of debt continuously while voters approve every bond issue put before them. None of this has ever made sense to me

Another big piece of the puzzle falls into place. Thanks to Lila for reading, so we don’t have to, the otherwise horrible HP for any crumbs of actual useful information that might flow from that sewer of PC babble.

I’ve been (halfassedly) researching State banks since I first heard about the Bank of ND and wondering why such banks might not be a weapon against the FED and why there doesn’t seem to be any discussion in Austrian fora. I’ve concluded that there must be some theoretical meta-objection along the lines that a State bank would still be a state bank, i.e. 50 mini-Feds, or that there would be too much opportunity for populist shenanigans. The possibility, as Occam’s razor would suggest, that the monster banks would smother any such discussion in order to extend the lucrative status-quo is strongly implied.

Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall had introduced legislation that quickly went nowhere, to establish a Virginia state bank, and when I requested more information from his staff, not only received no answer, but was evidently dropped from his spam list as I went from 3-5 emails per week to none. I can only assume that he was well instructed to drop this line of reasoning and return to moaning about abortion and gun-control.

When it comes to the examination of state and local financing schemes there is a great bi-partisan well of don’t-go-there. I guess taxpayer ignorance really is bliss, but the bliss is that of the bond holders. Full disclosure: I’m long on torches and pitchforks.

Gusher!

Humans are Earth Cancer. No question. Nothing really scares me except radiation poisoning, and I got immune to that hiding under my desk in like the fourth grade and they could still pray in public schools then (c. 1960) which would have worked just as well. The only thing that will save the environment is a really big war or  slight mutation in the HiV virus recombined with the cold virus so it gets spread by coughing. Or they activate skynet...To err is human, to really fuck up requires an engineering degree.

(Don't) Go Tell the Trojans

There seems to be a lot of skepticism concerning Rand Paul's Primary win in Kentucky and a lack of enthusiasm for his campaign based on a perceived lack of libertarian purity. It's true that he doesn't stress the more unpopular and controversial issues that might (would) make him unelectable in a majority stupid state (all of them). That's because he wants, and we need him, to win. Ron Paul is a brave, smart and principled man who is able to win and hold an elected office without lying or evading critical issues; a rarity if not sui generis. I give great credit to his constituents who may be uniquely principled for Americans if not Texans, but the few Kentuckians I know are some otherwise independent and intelligent (tax avoiders, pot smoking immigration/welfare haters), but Bush-/War- supporting, Obama and furriner-hating yahoos of the first water. Ron Paul, principled, consistent and up-front would get nowhere with these folks. If Rand wants to visit these folks, he's going to get metaphorical and real mud on his boots.


I compare his (Rand's) strategy to getting on a jury where the voir-dire process is specifically designed to eliminate any potential juror with any intelligence, expertise, interest or knowledge of the case. Generally, the only real requirements for a U.S. Senator are great personal wealth and/or a superhuman ability to lie out of both sides of the mouth. The Senate is a snakepit of corruption and the only possible way to gain entry is to provide at least the appearance of corruptibility. That said, the gate-keepers would be well advised to allow him into the Senate and bottle him up for six years rather than risk creating an attractive AND intelligent (sorry, Sarah) candidate for TP leadership, especially if there is any of the usual Republican slimyness in helping to defeat him in the general election. I am related to a pretty big Country Club Republican, thoroughly liberal and statist who has admitted they would rather destroy the Party rather than admit Ron to the inner circle after they went to all the trouble to purge the Birchers. I love Ron Paul, but both Parties hate and fear an uncorruptible man. We can't destroy Troy (no pun intended) if we can't get them to accept the horse.