If you want to understand one of the major explanations for unemployment in America, you need only look as far as Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, home of the Mercury Marine company, for the answer: labor unions seeking to extort more than the fair market share for their work from their employers.

At the public unveiling last month of Quad Cities First - the chamber-of-commerce-controlled replacement for the Quad City Development Group - I ran into Sean O'Harrow, the executive director of the Figge Art Museum.

His presence was a bit of a surprise, given that arts and culture are too rarely mentioned in the same breath as economic development in the Quad Cities. (They weren't mentioned at the debut of Quad Cities First.)

There's a reason for that: The establishment's conception of "economic development" is usually limited to luring employers to our community to create jobs (or at least move them from somewhere else). And the discussion is typically restricted to issues such as tax climate, transportation infrastructure, direct incentives, and workforce.

Yet, as O'Harrow pointed out, a community's culture is essential to attracting people - be they CEOs, workers, or tourists. And he and I wondered whether cultural marketing had been given any consideration as DavenportOne and the Illinois Quad City Chamber of Commerce took control of external economic-development marketing through Quad Cities First.

The answer, to the surprise of nobody: not really.

That oversight can't be corrected, so let's move into third-rail territory and suggest something truly radical: the long-term goal of a merger of Quad Cities First with the Quad Cities Convention & Visitors Bureau, creating genuinely unified external marketing with a holistic view of the area - not just business opportunities, but life.

About 50 years ago, Senator Everett Dirksen (R-Illinois) uttered this famous quip: "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

Today, we're talking about a trillion here, a trillion there - a thousand-fold increase in the scale of government spending, part of which is attributable to the shrunken purchasing power of the dollar due to inflation, and part to the unrelenting expansion of government.

"Trillion" is an easy word to say. It rolls effortlessly off the tongue. This is unfortunate, because the ease with which we talk about trillions of dollars can keep us from grasping how enormous this sum is. If you had been spending a million dollars a day, 365 days per year, how far back in time would you have to go to have spent your first trillion? Since the founding of our republic in the 1780s? Further. Since Columbus stumbled upon the New World? Further still. Since the birth of Christ? Nope, not yet. More than two millennia of spending a million dollars a day wouldn't even bring you three-quarters of the way to your first trillion.

The Rock Island/Milan School District boardThe Rock Island/Milan School District board obviously needs a simple, easy-to-follow rule for dealing with nepotism.

So here's a handy guide for it and any other public body: If the chief administrator's spouse is recommended for a no-bid contract, the governing board should reject it. Don't ask questions; don't let anybody try to convince you that it's a good idea. Just vote it down.

Over the past few weeks, the media and the school district have gotten tied up in discussions about the Illinois Open Meetings Act, and who made a recommendation, and qualifications, and the distinction between an employee and a contractor, and blah blah blah. All of that misses the core issue.

"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, 1776

If you had a 60-foot telephone pole in front of the house where you were born in 1959, and you paid a visit to that house this year, and the telephone pole was now only 13.49 percent of its original height - 8.1 feet high - would you notice? And, if so, would you wonder what had happened? And if your parents drove a 1959 Cadillac, 18.75 feet long, and you saw that same car in their garage today at only 13.49 percent of its original length - 2.5 feet long - would you notice? And, if so, would you wonder what had happened?

While we're all pretty sure that we would notice such radical alterations in the height of a telephone pole or the length of a car, I wonder if we are as perceptive about such radical alterations in the value of our money. Yet, by the government's own calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl), a dollar bill in 1959 is now worth $7.41 in today's dollars; today's dollar is worth 13.49 percent of what it used to be worth in 1959. Do you notice, or wonder what has happened?

The unemployment rate in the U.S. now stands at 9.5 percent and soon will top 10 percent. And the number of U.S. households on the verge of losing their homes soared by nearly 15 percent in the first half of this year. This has caused some economists to question whether the country is headed toward another economic meltdown - a point of no return. However, watching the news coverage of Barack Obama's adventures while in office, you might be forgiven for thinking there were no problems left to solve in terms of the economy.

"They [the president and National Security Advisor] have the right to send our children, men and women now, in the name of democracy to go kill people and be killed and torture and perhaps be tortured in return, which is always going to be the end result of torture. And so, I think there's nothing wrong with holding these people to the highest possible standards. It doesn't happen enough. But that's what we have to do." - Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist

From its inception, America has stood for the principle that everyone is under the law. There are no kings or power elite that stand outside the law. Yet this has been overlooked in the midst of the escalating debate over the Bush administration's alleged authorization of torture.

Much of the debate thus far has focused on President Obama's decision not to release photos depicting alleged abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by American service personnel. However, this is but a smokescreen issue for the more troubling question: Who should be held responsible for these abuses?

Editor's Note: The Reader is publishing here Part One of G. Edward Griffin's The Future is Calling Essays. The entire set of essays can be downloaded as PDF's at the links below:
Part One: The Chasm
Part Two: Secret Organizations and Hidden Agendas
Part Three: Days of Infamy
Part Four: The War on Terrorism

The Future Is Calling (Part One)

The Chasm

© 2003 - 2009 by G. Edward Griffin
Revised 2009 April 26

"The purpose of this presentation is to prove that, what is unfolding today is, not a war on
terrorism to defend freedom, but a war on freedom that requires the defense of terrorism."

 

John Maynard KeynesThe British economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) turns out to have been something of a prophet. He once wrote that "practical men," as opposed to theoreticians, "are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." Ironically, the defunct economist who is influencing Barack Obama, his advisers, and his supporters in Washington is Keynes himself.

Like a ghostly presence, Keynes' ideas are hovering over us. The very notion of a government "stimulus" for the economy originated in Keynes' 1936 book The General Theory of Employment, Interest, & Money. In it, Keynes spelled out his theory that government could offset the economic ups and downs of the business cycle with "contracyclical" policies -- that is, by running surpluses when economic activity is vibrant and deficits during slowdowns.

Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of "keeping us safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting their strategic interests."

Congressman Ron Paul - 14th District, Texas
Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up check points on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers' attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.

Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn't stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome's did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.

Orginally published March 9, 2009 at Congressman Ron Paul's House website blog entitled Texas Straight Talk.

Pages